[IP] more on silencing points of view
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:39:18 -0700
From: David Mercer <radix42@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [IP] silencing points of view
X-Sender: radix42@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Dave,
The mini-series in question contained what were admitted by the director
and writer to be fabrications, the worst of which IMHO were the one's that
made Reagan out to be a homophobe and anti-gay, which he most certainly
was not. His extensive exposure to the gay community in Hollywood is what
caused him to put a damper on the worst elements of the right wing, in his
campaigns and while he was in office. Paraphrasing a quote of his when
anti-gay ads were being contemplated by a conservative group, he put the
kibosh on them, saying that 'those people aren't like that, I've been in
Hollywood too long to buy that crap. don't run that garbage and shut up
about the issue'. So in my view, he was being a very responsible political
leader in reigning in the extreme views of his base that he knew to be BS.
Both the left and the right have their wackos, at least he tried keep things
sane and honest.
I'm afraid I must disagree with the statement that "The conservatives have
the power to yank a mini-series off one of the three major networks."
Once the distortions above came to light from the script (what one might call
"bad speech"), Reagan supporters countered with more speech, saying "we'll
boycott anyone who advertises on that thing". CBS then made a purely financial
decision, and moved it to Showtime, where the lower exposure would lessen
any backlash.
All speech has consequences, and does not occur in a vacuum. Those who cry
"censorship!!" anytime someone speaks in opposition to their speech, or
acts negatively to their speech, merely want to evade responsibility for
their actions, and strike me as of the "free speech for me and those who
agree, but not for me" camp. Would they deny the right of those who are
opposed to such vile distortions talking about it, or telling others, or
denying them their right to buy or watch what they choose? That's what is
implied by the cries of "censorship! discourse is stifled" that your
correspondent makes. I think that all of this IS discourse, no? :-)
That's not censorship, that's free speech working. Censorship would have
been The Shrub signing an illegal executive order yanking it off the air.
I suggest that it's about time for the hard left to learn the difference.
Sincerely,
David Mercer
Tucson, AZ
At 12:12 AM 11/5/2003, you wrote:
Delivered-To: dfarber+@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:59:37 -0500
From: L Jean Camp <jean_camp@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Liberals have the power to ignore the actions of left-leaning students in
the academy (including refusing to rip apart a student because of bad
judgement, or asking for some manners).
The conservatives have the power to yank a mini-series off one of the
three major networks.
Which is powerful the threat to discourse?
Which threat will receive more coverage in the American media? Or Dave's
list ;->
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1077925,00.html
---------------------
The American TV network CBS admitted yesterday it had abandoned plans to
broadcast a major two-part film about the life of Ronald Reagan.
The move follows protests from conservatives who claimed that the
mini-series was biased and dwelled on the former president's gaffes.
The network has recently tackled biographical films about Jesus and
Hitler, but neither proved as controversial as America's 40th president
and his legacy.
Mr Reagan is suffering from Alzheimer's disease but his former supporters
mounted a campaign on his behalf on radio talk shows and internet sites to
stop the film, The Reagans, being shown, denouncing it as an unflattering
portrayal by the liberal media establishment in Hollywood.
CBS executives initially vowed to stand by the film on the grounds of
freedom of artistic expression, but the network yesterday issued a
statement saying it had dropped The Reagans, which had been due to air on
November 16 and 18.
Some film-makers have warned that the success of the campaign against the
Reagan movie represented censorship and a new political correctness,
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as radix42@xxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/