An Inconvenient Freedom of Speech
ABC's upcoming mini-series, "The Path to 9/11" which is scheduled to air the nights of September 10th and 11th, has shown that Democrats of all levels, from bloggers, to the national Democratic Party, to the former President of the United States, are all quite comfortable with muzzling freedom of speech when it suits their purposes.
The mini-series is a dramatized account based on "a variety of sources, including the 9/11 commission report, other published materials and personal interviews," according to ABC spokesman Jonathan Hogan. Parts of The Path to 9/11 are speculative, and ABC freely admits that the film is a dramatization of known events, a very common approach to films ranging from Schindler's List to Bonnie and Clyde. Despite this common cinematic treatment, Democrats at all levels are actively campaigning to have ABC's mini-series altered or pulled from the air, using tactics ranging from accusations that the film is inaccurate, to threats of retribution against ABC and others involved with the project. It is transparent Stalinism, an attempt to muzzle the freedom of speech of those who do not march lock-step with their ideals, radiating from the top down. Former President Bill Clinton is demanding that the ABC drama be pulled from the air unless the script is revised to meet with his approval. The Democratic Party's National Director, Tom MacMahon, released a scathing attack on the film to Democratic supporters, encouraging them to bully ABC into taking the drama off the air, and was caught openly threatening to pull ABC's broadcast license if the network did not acquiesce to his demands. This is an open attempt to blackmail a broadcaster by the officers of the Democratic Party. Sitting Democratic members of Congress are also calling for the film to be censored. Democrats are unabashedly seeking to given themselves the power of Orwell's Ministry of Truth written about in 1984, and are actively stating their intention punish ABC for thoughtcrimes by threatening the networks broadcast license. Their behavior is shameful. No self-respecting American should concede a political party the ability to limit our Freedom of Speech. Hillary Clinton once stated, "we have a right to debate and disgree," but it is painfully apparent that Democrats feel that right applies to them, and only to what they would allow you to see. In 2001, Cyrus Nowrasteh, the same writer who created "The Path to 9/11," released a film called "The Day Reagan Was Shot." It too, was a fictionalized account. It, too, portrayed many politicians inside the White House in an unflattering light during a moment of crisis for the nation. Politicians portrayed in that film also criticized Nowrasteh's work and accuracy, but they made no attempt to censor the film and keep it from being aired, as Congressional Democrats and the former President have done with "The Path to 9/11." They made no attempt to blackmail the film's distributor to keep it from coming to air, as the Democratic Party's National Director has done. Republicans attacked the 2001 film for it's inaccuracies, but never attempted to run roughshod over our rights to see a controversial film and form our own opinions in the aftermath. Democrats from the top down have no such problem with attempting to control what you see, and are proving themselves quite willing to brush aside an inconvenient Freedom of Speech. Update: Captain Ed notes via email that he recalls the response to this and the other Reagan film as being quite contentious, and Joe Gandelman does a good job showing that many conservatives did in fact throw quite a few rocks at these films from the dubious safety of their own glass houses. To make my own position clear, I'm against any politically-driven censorship of films, and find such attempts to be vile. If you have any faith in the American public at all, you have to let these films, and future ones like them, stand or fall on their own merits, not those imposed by politicians. Update: The head of the CIA Counterterrorist Center's Osama bin Laden unit confirms that the Clinton Administration killed the attack plan protrayed in the film, and further contends that the Clinton Administration actually missed 8-10 chances to take out bin Laden.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:29 AM
Comments
1
I'm sure you wrote a very similar post when CBS planned to broadcast a miniseries about Reagan that portrayed him as somewhat more human than the Christ the Republicans make him out to be for doing nothing to stop the AIDS epidemic.
BTW, lies are not freedom of speech. They are slander.
BTW, lies are not freedom of speech. They are slander.
Posted by: angry young man at September 07, 2006 11:31 AM (vC1jc)
2
I'm sure you wrote a very similar post when CBS planned to broadcast a miniseries about Reagan that portrayed him as somewhat more human than the Christ the Republicans make him out to be for doing nothing to stop the AIDS epidemic.
Quite wrong again Angry, but then, you've made that a calling card of sorts for yourself. And the Band Played On was one film that dealt with Reagan and the AIDS epidemic (then called GRIDS) in an unsympathetic light, and I though it was both a sad and brilliant film treatment.
BTW, lies are not freedom of speech. They are slander.
You need to go take a media law course, or at least look up legal definitions of slander. This is a fictonalized account of world events, clearly noted, like many films before it.
You seem to side with those that would like to see the film banned unless it conforms to the broadcast standards of the Clinton Adminstration, instead of letting the American people decide for themselves how much worth this film should have.
Is that accurate?
I'm sure you wrote a very similar post when CBS planned to broadcast a miniseries about Reagan that portrayed him as somewhat more human than the Christ the Republicans make him out to be for doing nothing to stop the AIDS epidemic.
Quite wrong again Angry, but then, you've made that a calling card of sorts for yourself. And the Band Played On was one film that dealt with Reagan and the AIDS epidemic (then called GRIDS) in an unsympathetic light, and I though it was both a sad and brilliant film treatment.
BTW, lies are not freedom of speech. They are slander.
You need to go take a media law course, or at least look up legal definitions of slander. This is a fictonalized account of world events, clearly noted, like many films before it.
You seem to side with those that would like to see the film banned unless it conforms to the broadcast standards of the Clinton Adminstration, instead of letting the American people decide for themselves how much worth this film should have.
Is that accurate?
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 07, 2006 11:42 AM (g5Nba)
3
So it's o.k. to lie about and fictionalize matters of National Security, but when people in the Administration are lieing about the laws they are breaking here and now, it's for the greater good? To have a righty admonish anyone about free speech--after the last 6 years--is laughable.
Posted by: Fred at September 07, 2006 11:57 AM (dbo1X)
4
Hey, daddy William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and mommy Hillary Rodham-Clinton, just let us watch the program un-censored! We can handle it! We did for eight years!
Posted by: Tom TB at September 07, 2006 12:12 PM (vFS/o)
5
actually abc has been saying that the mockudrama is based on the 9/11 commission report, and only under intense pressure have some independent stations indicated that they will run disclaimers.
i don't want to see it banned. that's a rightwing attitude. i want it to be correct. but as they say, reality has a leftwing bias.
i don't want to see it banned. that's a rightwing attitude. i want it to be correct. but as they say, reality has a leftwing bias.
Posted by: angry young man at September 07, 2006 12:13 PM (vC1jc)
6
I see the TROLLS are out in force. Hey what about Fahrenheit 9/11? That was a load B.S. made up lies and mis-quotes from military folks and left wing conspiracy theorist. How many times were we attacked under the Clinton Administration and I mean all the attacks against the U.S.? How many under G.W.? Not against our troops in combat but, embassies, U.S. infrastructure. 9/11 one time. So if you really think about it maybe this mini series is not too far off the mark and makes you wonder why the libs are pissing and moaning. Why do think the Pot Bellied dog eater has NUKES Madaline Albright and the cry baby appeasment crowd. Instead of Clinton worrying about his next sexual encounter he should have been kicking some terrorist ass. Instead of Kissing it.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at September 07, 2006 12:19 PM (Mv/2X)
7
Faranheight 911???
Posted by: Retired Navy at September 07, 2006 12:20 PM (elhVA)
8
Wow, I need to proof-read even my one-word remarks.
Posted by: Retired Navy at September 07, 2006 12:22 PM (lNB+R)
9
I've got to call my broker, by kleenex! No one has bigger crocodile tears than the right.
Posted by: Fred at September 07, 2006 12:39 PM (dbo1X)
10
Fred may have a point, every time I think of how screwed up the left has become, I get choked up.
Posted by: Retired Navy at September 07, 2006 12:58 PM (elhVA)
11
I agree with CY, our "leaders" should stick to bad-mouthing muppets (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/276677.stm).
Posted by: matt a at September 07, 2006 01:01 PM (GvAmg)
12
it's one thing for michael moore to make a documentary that you don't have to pay to see if you don't want to.
it's another thing to use the public airwaves to show a deliberately misleading and factually incorrect program about the most pivotal event our the new century right before an election. that abc is now showing it without sponsors--who would presumably feel a backlash from consumers--only underscores disney's abuse of the public airwaves.
it's another thing to use the public airwaves to show a deliberately misleading and factually incorrect program about the most pivotal event our the new century right before an election. that abc is now showing it without sponsors--who would presumably feel a backlash from consumers--only underscores disney's abuse of the public airwaves.
Posted by: angry young man at September 07, 2006 01:18 PM (vC1jc)
13
Oh, and to your other point: And the Band Played On was an HBO film. As with Far 9/11, if you didn't want to watch it, you didn't have to pay to see it.
The Reagan movie was to be broadcast by CBS, and the right went batshit insane over the portrayal of Reagan, not because it wasn't factual, but because it WAS.
The Reagan movie was to be broadcast by CBS, and the right went batshit insane over the portrayal of Reagan, not because it wasn't factual, but because it WAS.
Posted by: angry young man at September 07, 2006 01:23 PM (vC1jc)
14
Angry, you have not a leg to stand on as usual. If you don't want to watch it turn it off. Thats your right. If this gives you an uneasy feeling too bad. Every day I see the left bashing BUSH and his admin at every turn and WE ARE AT WAR!!!! You don't get it. What people like you and your beloved DIHMICRAPS do everyday is more harm than a TV show can ever do. I served my country, people like you disgust me. Clinton and his administration were appeasers. What did it get us but attacked. He had his shot to fix the problem and he was more worried about a B.J. and a blue dress. If you think this show is wrong thats your opinion. You and I have not seen it yet so, what are you worried about. Tarnish an admin that was riddled with scandal. I couldn't give a damn about Madeline Ahlbright's or Sany Bergers so called stellar careers. We were bombed in NY, Khobar Toweres, USS COLE, and Two U.S.embassies in Africa. Not to mention Mogadishu. Yeh they have alot to answer for and maybe this will open some eyes.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at September 07, 2006 02:29 PM (lNB+R)
15
So it's o.k. to lie about and fictionalize matters of National Security
Every movie about America's was has used artistic licence. Why should this one be held to higher standards than hundreds of others?
I sense the cold wind of censorship here.
Every movie about America's was has used artistic licence. Why should this one be held to higher standards than hundreds of others?
I sense the cold wind of censorship here.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 07, 2006 02:36 PM (WxRQS)
16
faithful
then why not tell the story of what actually happened factually? why lie? that's my question. if the truth is so condemning, why deliberately make stuff up? that's not artistic license. that's propaganda.
and given your "just turn it off" attitude, how would you feel about sex acts on tv? they can just be turned off. graphic violence on tv? they can just be turned off?
then why not tell the story of what actually happened factually? why lie? that's my question. if the truth is so condemning, why deliberately make stuff up? that's not artistic license. that's propaganda.
and given your "just turn it off" attitude, how would you feel about sex acts on tv? they can just be turned off. graphic violence on tv? they can just be turned off?
Posted by: angry young man at September 07, 2006 02:50 PM (vC1jc)
17
Patriot - I believe it was Kenneth Starr that was obsessed about a BJ and a blue dress. Everyone knows that the Clinton impeachment had nothing to do with Clinton but rather positioning the Republican party for the 2000 election. Imagine GWB's chances if Clinton hadn't been impeached? The only thing good that came from the past 6 years is that it finally showed the American people the ineffectiveness of a 1 party govt. Al-queda and their allies have attacked more targets post 9/11 than before. GWB doesn't want Osama dead otherwise who would he be able to quote from?
Posted by: matt a at September 07, 2006 03:03 PM (GvAmg)
18
matt, while i agree with your argument, orrin hatch stated the reason for the clinton impeachment more directly. he said it was payback for nixon.
Posted by: angry young man at September 07, 2006 03:28 PM (vC1jc)
19
Isn't it odd how thin skinned the left is, they can't tolerate one little film. Wonder why that is. Do they think just because Sandy Berger put the evidence in his pants, they can hide it forever?
I wonder what these same leftists thought of the Micheal Moore film, the one that won the documentary category, the one that was nothing but lies, end to end and was called truth?
The problem for lefties is they are having a hard time separating the idiots and comedians from the truth. It was funny watching the righties go off the bridge with Clinton, but at least the elected right didn't go with them. Here we have the elected left believing any comedian who has a catchy line, regardless whether it's true or not.
How can we fool them today is back in fashion, it's the only plan the left has ever had. Now that their talking parrot, the old media, has died, they have no plan at all.
Plame-out, who is going to be the first to take Broder up and apologize for the years of lies?
I wonder what these same leftists thought of the Micheal Moore film, the one that won the documentary category, the one that was nothing but lies, end to end and was called truth?
The problem for lefties is they are having a hard time separating the idiots and comedians from the truth. It was funny watching the righties go off the bridge with Clinton, but at least the elected right didn't go with them. Here we have the elected left believing any comedian who has a catchy line, regardless whether it's true or not.
How can we fool them today is back in fashion, it's the only plan the left has ever had. Now that their talking parrot, the old media, has died, they have no plan at all.
Plame-out, who is going to be the first to take Broder up and apologize for the years of lies?
Posted by: bill at September 07, 2006 03:57 PM (7evkT)
20
I fail to see how anyone who has yet to see the program can credibly assess the (unseen) content as "lies". That's a very strong statement that is without firsthand knowledge/experience to back up the accusation. Seems like the hornet's nest is stirring because the wind blew.
Posted by: Old Soldier at September 07, 2006 05:28 PM (owAN1)
21
Democrats prevaled (somewhat). ABC has toned down, but not eliminated the scene where Sandy Berger prevents the CIA operatives from launching an attack on the Bin Ladin dompund.
The Democrats should change the name to Prgressive Party.
The Democrats should change the name to Prgressive Party.
Posted by: garrettc at September 07, 2006 05:37 PM (zBUou)
22
I saw no threat to pull ABC's license. You should it either point it out or stop hyperventilating.
Posted by: jpe at September 07, 2006 07:41 PM (0dgvM)
23
jpe, you should catch up with your fellow travelers on this one, or better yet, simply quit playing dumb. It doesn't suit you.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at September 07, 2006 08:21 PM (BTdrY)
24
Matt, Starr was trying to get to the bottom of the leader of the most powerful country getting hummers under his desk, by an Intern. Clinton lied to the Grand Jury, that is why he was impeached.
If a high ranking military official did that with a new recruit, they would be forced to render their resignation and could even be brought up on charges.
What he did was not just wrong but brought discredit to our country. If you can't see that I'm sorry.
If a high ranking military official did that with a new recruit, they would be forced to render their resignation and could even be brought up on charges.
What he did was not just wrong but brought discredit to our country. If you can't see that I'm sorry.
Posted by: Retired Navy at September 08, 2006 05:30 AM (JSetw)
25
Retired Navy, Clinton apologists view the incident as "just sex" and conveniently disregard the office of the man engaging in "just sex". It doesn't matter that the man was married or that he happened to be the President of the United States - it was "just sex". It doesn't matter that a licensed jurist lied to a grand jury - it was "just sex". Those same apologists hold the lowliest private on the battlefield to a higher moral and ethical standard than they did the CINC called Clinton.
It's okay for an avowed liberal to produce a film of twisted facts and events and call it a "documentary" (Fahrenheit 911), but let someone else attempt to dramatize recent events that are unpalatable to the "just sex" crowd and censorship is demanded not just by the apologists, but by their pets in the Senate as well. It appears they are taking the "Stolen Honor" path for this situation. I'm really surprised John Kerry is not ass deep in this censorship enforcement action.
It's okay for an avowed liberal to produce a film of twisted facts and events and call it a "documentary" (Fahrenheit 911), but let someone else attempt to dramatize recent events that are unpalatable to the "just sex" crowd and censorship is demanded not just by the apologists, but by their pets in the Senate as well. It appears they are taking the "Stolen Honor" path for this situation. I'm really surprised John Kerry is not ass deep in this censorship enforcement action.
Posted by: Old Soldier at September 08, 2006 06:22 AM (X2tAw)
26
Nice try on the SPIN angry, were not talking about something that is inappropriate for an underaged viewer. Why didn't Michael Moron tell the truth. The truth is that the Clinton administration had FOUR chances according to the 9/11 report to capture or kill OBL. Thats fact! This TV drama only depicts one. I think they should show all four times. The left wants to rail about how " GW took his eyes off afghanistan to go into Iraq." dropped the ball. When in fact Dick Morris a former clinton aid. Stated that Clinton had several opportunities to get him, and DID NOTHING. So if ABC caves on their stance that will show you that the left will stop at nothing to protect Clinton legacy. Clinton was a self serving *A$$hole. Anybody that would hold up air traffic at one of the busiest airports in the world (LAX) to get a freaking haircut that shows you his attitude about others. I have aquestion why isn't Berger in jail over stealing those documents from the archive? He was caught what happened over that?
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at September 08, 2006 06:29 AM (JYeBJ)
27
Navy - Actually, Starr's charge was to investigate white water and he took testimony from Clinton in that investigation. In order to try and prove Clinton "lied" from his testimony on that, rather than find facts that proved his testimony was wrong, Starr got approval to look into other cases to see if Clinton "lied" in those testimonies. Thus Paula Jones civil suit was investigated. Basically, he was given free license to keep digging until he found something, anything to hang on Clinton.
OS - I make no defense for Clinton's actions. They are deplorable. However, I'm not married to the man, lying to a jury in a civil case is a crime but it isn't a high crime or treason and he's not the first president to carry on affair in the WH (Jefferson, JFK, GHB, etc) so all the "Oh the immorality of it all" hand wringing is a bit over the top. Frankly, while we should expect better from our politicians it shouldn't come as a surprise when politicians have affairs (ask Gingrich how he met his 3rd wife). Dole and Gingrich knew they had no chance of removing Clinton from office. This was politics. Republicans set the precedent of using impeachment as a political tool. Its why they are scared of elections 2006. They fear payback. I seriously doubt it will happen even if Democrats control Congress as the American people aren't ready for another circus and we are in the middle of managing 2 wars.
OS - I make no defense for Clinton's actions. They are deplorable. However, I'm not married to the man, lying to a jury in a civil case is a crime but it isn't a high crime or treason and he's not the first president to carry on affair in the WH (Jefferson, JFK, GHB, etc) so all the "Oh the immorality of it all" hand wringing is a bit over the top. Frankly, while we should expect better from our politicians it shouldn't come as a surprise when politicians have affairs (ask Gingrich how he met his 3rd wife). Dole and Gingrich knew they had no chance of removing Clinton from office. This was politics. Republicans set the precedent of using impeachment as a political tool. Its why they are scared of elections 2006. They fear payback. I seriously doubt it will happen even if Democrats control Congress as the American people aren't ready for another circus and we are in the middle of managing 2 wars.
Posted by: matt a at September 08, 2006 09:03 AM (GvAmg)
28
Americablog just misinterpreted the letter. That happens, y'know.
Posted by: jpe at September 08, 2006 10:46 AM (5ceWd)
29
Hey jpe.... Bullshit!!!!! Did you misinterpret that?
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at September 08, 2006 11:30 AM (y67bA)
30
Talk about hand wringing, Matt a, did you reread your comment before you hit "Post"?
Posted by: Old Soldier at September 08, 2006 12:00 PM (X2tAw)
31
As a conservative I STRONLY urge ABC to correct the falsehoods and misrepresentations in the upcoming “Path to 9/11” before it is shown. And I am not the only conservative say this.
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.
James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.
Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.
John Podhoretz, conservative columnist and Fox News contributor says: The portrait of Albright is an unacceptable revision of recent history and an unfair mark on a public servant who, no matter her shortcomings, doesn’t deserve to be remembered by millions of Americans as the inadvertent (and truculent) savior of Osama bin Laden. Samuel Berger, Clinton’s national security adviser, also seems to have just cause for complaint.
James Taranto, OpinionJournal.com editor says: The Clintonites may have a point here. A few years ago, when the shoe was on the other foot, we were happy to see CBS scotch "The Reagans."
Dean Barnett, conservative commentator posting on Hugh Hewitt’s blog says: One can (if one so chooses) give the filmmakers artistic license to [fabricate a scene]. But if that is what they have done, conservative analysts who back this movie as a historical document will mortgage their credibility doing so.
Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday anchor says: When you put somebody on the screen and say that’s Madeleine Albright and she said this in a specific conversation and she never did say it, I think it’s slanderous, I think it’s defamatory and I think that ABC and Disney should be held to account.
Captain’s Quarters blog says:If the Democrats do not like what ABC wants to broadcast, they have every right to protest it — and in this case, they had a point.
Bill Bennett, conservative author, radio host, and TV commentator says: Look, "The Path to 9/11" is strewn with a lot of problems and I think there were problems in the Clinton administration. But that’s no reason to falsify the record, falsify conversations by either the president or his leading people and you know it just shouldn’t happen.
Posted by: clearwaterconservative at September 09, 2006 12:15 PM (92quE)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0165 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0108 seconds, 39 records returned.
Page size 28 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.