You know, I could probably get pissed about it if I wasn't so totally unsurpised. Election year and all.

Originally posted by Colonel

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," links Mr. Bush and prominent Saudis — including the family of Osama bin Laden — and criticizes Mr. Bush's actions before and after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks....

Also -- On a more (Moore...more..ha ha!) friendly side note, you should read up on the book:
"House of Bush, House of Saud." It analyses and discusses the relationships - politically, economically, and socially - of the Bush and Saudi Royal families.
I suggest you check it out, it's really informative and not too biased, either.

Originally posted by Seekerof
I'm sure after I stop laughing over this and you posting it like it is worth a grain of merit, I will feel some sort of remorse for Micheal Moore's 1st Amendment rights being trampled......

seekerof

No, you won't because you really don't care about First Amendment Rights if they attack your man. Don't even lie. They can spill any bull# nonsesne about Kerry's war medals that he EARNED in WAR but, speak one ill word about Bush and his lies and his his effed up connections that could have contributed to 9-11 and all hell breaks loose.

Mauskov: What's the difference between Moore and this book your referring to? Just the author but they both say the same thing.

On the contrary, I think this is a great example of freedom of speech - freedom not to speak, as it were. A private company certainly has the right to choose what it wants to publish.

However, if there were evidence of the government barring this from being distributed, there would be cause for concern. The whole "tax break" part worries me, but seeing as how the source for that is Moore's agent, I would think twice before believing it.

Originally posted by PurdueNuc
On the contrary, I think this is a great example of freedom of speech - freedom not to speak, as it were. A private company certainly has the right to choose what it wants to publish.

Precisely.
It is no more totalitarian to be forced to carry a film than to make the decision not to.

Originally posted by PurdueNuc
On the contrary, I think this is a great example of freedom of speech - freedom not to speak, as it were. A private company certainly has the right to choose what it wants to publish.

However, if there were evidence of the government barring this from being distributed, there would be cause for concern. The whole "tax break" part worries me, but seeing as how the source for that is Moore's agent, I would think twice before believing it.

This is just the type of twisted Orwellian mentality that this country has come to. "Freedom not to speak" is a concept where the government forces you to say something that you don't believe. Here, speech is been chilled b/c of what the government might do to a company financially.

You see the Nazi mindset here?

This is not a first admendment issue, it's an economic one, which makes it even more sickening. According to the NY Times article, Disney was worried that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives in Florida, where Jeb is governor. Even if you loathe what Moore says, you should be willing to die for his right to say it.

Originally posted by curme
This is not a first admendment issue, it's an economic one, which makes it even more sickening. According to the NY Times article, Disney was worried that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives in Florida, where Jeb is governor. Even if you loathe what Moore says, you should be willing to die for his right to say it.

This is a complete First Amendment issue because the company fears government retaliation (endangering of tax breaks) if this film is distributed. THIS CHILLS SPEECH!

You're calling my logic twisted? I'm sure the execs at Disney have many reasons for not wanting to carry Moore's film. If the "tax break" reason is actually true (doubtful), maybe that was just their way of telling Moore "Take a hike, you ranting ..." Welcome to the world of political correctness.

Don't you think that it is possible that this is Disney's way of getting a shot in AT Bush? They put this forth and everyone goes, "those Republican bastards."

Originally posted by Colonel
This is just the type of twisted Orwellian mentality that this country has come to. "Freedom not to speak" is a concept where the government forces you to say something that you don't believe. Here, speech is been chilled b/c of what the government might do to a company financially.
You see the Nazi mindset here?

There is a difference between allowing something and accepting something. If another studio wants to carry the film, all the power to them. Disney does not have to accept Moore's p-o-v: How is the forceful acception of something (in your skewed perspective, "freedom of speech") any different than this Nazism you keep ranting about?

What Disney does as a company is upto Disney: They don't have to carry something if they don't want to. Surely you don't think that people don't have the right to be discerning? Is it not my right to accept or not accept what I choose? It's not an issue of Free Speech, Moore wasn't 'offed' by the government. It's an issue of free enterprise.

Originally posted by mauskov

What Disney does as a company is upto Disney: They don't have to carry something if they don't want to. Surely you don't think that people don't have the right to be discerning? Is it not my right to accept or not accept what I choose? It's not an issue of Free Speech, Moore wasn't 'offed' by the government. It's an issue of free enterprise.

Disney's bottom line is to make money (which Disney needs) as with any company. Moore makes money based upon his books and previous movies. But, now they are ditching his film...and for what...because they fear government backlash in Florida in the form of certain tax disadvantages. This is wrong.

If Disney said, hey we don't dig Moore. Then, that's their right. But they said, it doesn't matter what we believe, it's going to hurt our pocketbook, so we aren't going to support it. That is repugnent. If you are so afraid to say or do what you believe because of what other will say, well, you're definately not a member of ATS, but you're also sad and spineless.

Originally posted by Colonel
Disney's bottom line is to make money (which Disney needs) as with any company. Moore makes money based upon his books and previous movies. But, now they are ditching his film...and for what...because they fear government backlash in Florida in the form of certain tax disadvantages. This is wrong.

How is this wrong?
Because your bumper sticker morals dictate that everything should be rightous and free? Disney is a business, and that's exactly the point: It is at their behest for politicall reasons, perhaps, for economic reasons, also perhaps, to not distribute this film.

Let MGM or Columbia snap it up.

Who carried "Bowling for Columbine"? Offhand, I don't know. I doubt it was Disney.
Plus, perhaps Disney doesn't want to carry a highly politicised movie; another point to bring up.

colonel, you do make a good point, whether or not it applies in this case. There has been evidence in the past of the gov't using tax breaks and federal funding to force others to do as they want. The best example I can think of is how the gov't threatened to hold back highway funding from states until they dropped their legal BAC to 0.08. Until "we the people" stop letting the federal gov't hold us hostage this way, this country is not the "united states" - it is "the state of America".

That said, let me reiterate that there were surely other factors affecting this decision. You give me some evidence that the gov't would impose penalties on Disney for distributing Moore's movie, and that this was the primary motivator for this decision, then I'll listen.

You give me some evidence that the gov't would impose penalties on Disney for distributing Moore's movie, and that this was the primary motivator for this decision, then I'll listen.

Disney has a theme park and many other huge enterprises in Florida, where his brother, Jeb Bush, is governor. Where is the other theme park, oh yeah, California.