I am happy to see this:
According to John Alvarez of Patriotic Americans Boycotting Anti-American Hollywood (PABAAH), who just e-mailed me, Disney has come to its senses regarding the Michael Moore project just recently dropped by Mel Gibson’s Icon Productions (see story). Alvarez said he had just spoke with Disney CEO Michael Eisner’s secretary, who was very familiar with the Moore controversy and she told him that Mr. Eisner has decided that while they and Miramax WERE considering a movie project, they have decided that it is NOT something they would want to be associated with.
Unfortunately, I am sure this means we will have to listen to the usual suspects whining about censorship inAshcroft’s America.
BF Durbin
Just like capitalism only applies to small businsesspersons (What’s good for GM (bailout) is good for America), the word “censorship” only applies to ideas we like. If we don’t like an idea it is perfidious, unprincipled, disloyal, traitorous, anti-American, unpatriotic and displays evidence of a fifth column that ought to be proscribed for the good of the nation.
Troll King
It is a kind of censorship to prevent anyone from doing anything they like just because they lack the funds, or more specifically, the will to earn the funds.
Those who are willing to work hard to get ahead are just going to have to carry the rest of us on their backs on their journey; if they don’t like it, they can chill out and let someone else do the heavy lifting. And part of what they have to pay for is movies that mock their lifestyle. It’s only fair, after all.
John Cole
Michael Moore has enough money to finance his own documentaries. This is not censorship in the least.
cameron
I wouldn’t call this censorship. These are just 2 movie companies out of how many? Now, if he were to go to all of them, or even just a majority of them and they all deny him, I still wouldn’t call it censorship, I would say it would fall closer to blacklisted.
But you are right, he probably does have enough cash to produce his own film and I suspect that’s is what he will do if necessary. Although I would not be suprised, if it comes down to it, he gets some funding from some fledgling companies looking for the publicity that would come with it. You know, the any pub is good pub.
Anyway, he’ll get it made. He will drum up support because of this.
st
Considering the number of errors and outright deceptions that have been pointed out in his last film, by those on both the right and the left, I think it is perfectly reasonable to back away from a Moore project.
Moore is the left’s Rush Limbaugh – I think he’s funny, I enjoy hearing him mercilessly bash the things I oppose, and I appreciate his fearlessness, but I wouldn’t trust him to make the left’s case in a serious forum any farther than I can throw him (which ain’t far).
So, no, not censorship. Unless Miramax has somehow become an organ of the government.
David Perron
But…but…it’s suppression of dissent! I made a multimillion dollar movie in praise of the government just last year, and Hollywood paid for the whole thing! Surely dissent deserves at least as much privelege.
Oh. Damn. Off my meds, again.
Dean
Uhm, stupid question time.
The rule against censorship, wasn’t that, like, supposed to be about government preventing people from saying things? I coulda sworn that the Constitution says that it’s the government that is prevented from passing laws that keep people from speaking.
The other, er, funny thing is that apparently, spending of money IS free speech when it’s denied to the likes of Michael Moore (your denying him your money is denying him free speech), but it is NOT a matter of speech on, say, campaign finance (my giving money to him is NOT a matter of free speech)?
What was that about ideas we like?
David Perron
I almost forgot:
TrollKing, if you’re the same guy who posts over at Misha’s, you are the king.
JKC
Dean-
Uh, no one posting here has said that Michael Moore is being censored. If you want to debate campaign finance reform, that’s fine, but please don’t argue a comparison that isn’t being made. It only makes you look silly.
JKC
Mr Perron-
Same goes for you. Geez… sometimes you guys can’t even win gracefully… : )
Dean
JKC:
From the very first comment on this thread (by BF Durbin):
Just like capitalism only applies to small businsesspersons (What’s good for GM (bailout) is good for America), the word “censorship” only applies to ideas we like. If we don’t like an idea it is perfidious, unprincipled, disloyal, traitorous, anti-American, unpatriotic and displays evidence of a fifth column that ought to be proscribed for the good of the nation.
My comment, in fact, was specifically aimed at Durbin’s reference to what constituted “censorship”, which, is probably what John Cole was referring in his comment (#3).
JKC
Upfront disclaimer, Dean- I don’t think Moore’s being censored. As for “…the word “censorship” only applies to ideas we like. If we don’t like an idea it is perfidious, unprincipled, disloyal, traitorous, anti-American, unpatriotic and displays evidence of a fifth column that ought to be proscribed for the good of the nation.” applies to elements of both the left and right equally, which I suspect was Durbin’s point. It’s my point, anyway.
Aakash
Today’s edition of LewRockwell.com includes a link to an interesting letter on war by the famous writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. It is from August 21, 1997:
March of the Hypocrites
I haven’t looked throught it yet, but it must be good.
My past blog entries have a great deal of war-related articles, news items, and links from the Right. (Scroll down the index page to the entries in early March, February, January, and earlier.)
Aakash
Oops, I see that there are no embedded hyperlinks in comments. Sorry for posting off the topic; I should have posted this comment elsewhere.
Anyway, here are the links that I tried to include in that above comment:
The letter on war by the famous writer Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, from August 21, 1997:
March of the Hypocrites
http://www.suc.org/news/world_articles/times082197