Reply With Quote
Just so I've got this straight...
A group in this country has made a movie.
The government is not letting them air it.
This is very good news.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1
Judges: Anti-Clinton Film Is Advertising
Jan 10 12:26 PM US/Eastern
By MATT APUZZO
Associated Press Writer 40 Comments
WASHINGTON (AP) - The early reviews are in, and three federal judges appeared in agreement Wednesday that a movie lambasting Hillary Clinton seemed an awful lot like a 90-minute campaign advertisement.
Citizens United, a conservative advocacy group, is challenging the nation's campaign finance laws, which require disclaimers on political advertisements and restrict when they can be broadcast. The group argues "Hillary: The Movie" and related television advertisements are not political advertising even though the New York senator is in the presidential race.
Attorney James Bopp argued that they should be considered "issue- oriented" speech because viewers aren't urged to vote for or against the Democrat.
"What's the issue?" asked Judge A. Raymond Randolph, a federal appeals judge sitting on a mixed panel to review the case.
"That Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist," Bopp replied. "That is an issue."
"Which has nothing to do with her campaign?" U.S District Judge Royce C. Lamberth interjected.
"Not specifically, no," Bopp replied.
"Once you say, 'Hillary Clinton is a European Socialist,' aren't you saying vote against her?"
Bopp disagreed because the movie did not use the word "vote."
"Oh, that's ridic...," Lamberth said, trailing off and ending the line of questioning.
Under campaign finance laws, Citizens United would be required to disclose its funding for the ads. It would also have to disclose donors and pay the costs of airing it on cable television from a political fund.
The movie is scheduled for two screenings in theaters, once each in California and Washington. It is also being sold on DVD. Neither of those methods are regulated under campaign laws. The advertisements, however, are scheduled to run during the peak presidential primary season and would be regulated.
Bopp, who successfully led a challenge to one aspect of the campaign finance system last year, compared the film to television news programs "Frontline," "Nova," and "60 Minutes." That prompted Lamberth to laugh out loud from the bench.
"You can't compare this to '60 Minutes,'" the judge said. "Did you read this transcript?"
The movie features commentary from conservative pundits, some of whom specifically say Clinton is not fit to be the nation's commander in chief.
One ad begins with a narrator saying, "First, a kind word about Hillary Clinton." Conservative commentator Ann Coulter says, "Looks good in a pant suit," to which the narrator adds, "Now, a movie about everything else."
Bopp received the greatest skepticism from Randolph and Lamberth, the panel's two conservative judges. U.S. District Judge Richard W. Roberts, a nominee of president Clinton, was more focused on the legal test Bopp was asking the judges to conduct.
James Bopp = yonivore?
Just so I've got this straight...
A group in this country has made a movie.
The government is not letting them air it.
This is very good news.
Yet is it 'advertising' when a media outlet gives one candidate a spotlight or gushing coverage?
What about anything that comes from the camera of Michael Moore?
What about an editorial page endorsement? Yes, I know, freedom of the press. But when that press is controlled by firms which lobby those same politicians one has to ask themselves just what and whose rights are being protected?
So Fahrenheit 9/11 was a "do entary" but this is "advertising".
Good god.
So the issue is that Clinton is a European Socialist, but they didn't say whether or not they think you should vote for her...
Even though they obviously slimed her buy using conservative talkers, that sounds about as fair as anything Michael Moore does.
I say unless they want to re-cut it and splice in some pro-European Socialist talkers, kill it.
Not that I don't think Hilary deserves to be slimed. I just don't want it on my TV schedule
Yep... Just goes to show these are liberal activist judges. Moore can slam republicans all he wants, but when the film is 180 degree from that...
Funny how Moores work is actual propaganda. I'll bet the Clinton piece didn't need to skew the truth one bit!
If you really believe that, then you should see the other side. Watch "Fahrenhype 9/11." It interviews several people who were in Moore's piece and they tell how Moore misrepresented them, and tell the truth about what happened!
IMDB: Fahrenhype 9/11
Always listen to the other side before jumping to conclusion, else be labeled a Kool-Aid drinking Lemming...
Maybe in this case, a "moore-on."
Yep... Just goes to show these are liberal activist judges.
linkJudge Lamberth received his appointment to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in November 1987. He was appointed Presiding Judge of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in May 1995 by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
linkRandolph, Arthur Raymond
Born 1943 in Riverside, NJ
Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on May 8, 1990, to a seat vacated by Spottswood W. Robinson, III; Confirmed by the Senate on July 13, 1990, and received commission on July 16, 1990.
Yep. We need Republicans in the White House to appoint real conservative judges to the federal bench....
Well, maybe I'm wrong. However, I will point out that Randolph did replace a liberal judge, and the democrat senate may have requested certain people in exchange for other appointments Reagan wanted elsewhere. Hard to really say. I didn't find much on who Lamberth replaced, but again... Having to appease a democrat senate for confirmation...
Now even if both are conservatives. In the case of judges, it does mean enforcing the law. Maybe the finance reform laws are worse than I knew of.
So they can still show it on television.Under campaign finance laws, Citizens United would be required to disclose its funding for the ads. It would also have to disclose donors and pay the costs of airing it on cable television from a political fund.
The difference being they have to pay to air it instead of getting free time or someone else paying them to air it.
Someone else can easily pay for it through the fund.
Which will be public, etc. Meaning you risk backlash from Clinton supporters if you pay to have it aired.
I don't really care. The people who made the film are probably just annoyed they lost a payday.
Are they somehow ashamed?
They have 300 days to find someone to pay for airing it somewhere.I don't really care. The people who made the film are probably just annoyed they lost a payday.
If Hilary even gets the nomination, the money will be there.
Well, we can thank McCain/Feingold for the limits on free speech.
The parts that were challenged were found uncons utional. More challenges need to be made. This is a clear violation of freedom of speech when films can effectively be banned.
Maybe the timing is as much to discredit McCain as it is to discredit Schrillary?
They are clearly political advertisements and are planned to be used as such. Why pretend they aren't?
I agree to a point. I really don't know their agenda, I can assume, but I'm not a mind reader. Timing for now however helps knock McCain out of the primaries, and if there are court challenges to come, they can be expedited for before the November elections.
I do think it's a two-for-one hit with the timing.
I don't think the average primary voter is going to make a connection of this case to McCain.
"McCain kept us from anonymously bashing Hillary on basic cable in certain markets!" doesn't seem like much of a battle cry.
you're probably right, but it's still scary that free speech is limited to somehow protect us.
I'm all for disclosure though, and I can't figure out why the people who financed this venture wouldn't be proud of having their names attached to it.
To a point, I agree. However, many republicans do listen to talk radio which points out McCain/Feingold every now and then. It can make the difference with a pretty large share of votes when real freedom issues are at stake. Remember, I'm talking primaries when it comes to McCain. It doesn't matter what the democrats hear, or don't hear.
I own the dvd my friendIf you really believe that, then you should see the other side. Watch "Fahrenhype 9/11." It interviews several people who were in Moore's piece and they tell how Moore misrepresented them, and tell the truth about what happened!
1) If it's a business, or a rich guy who owns businesses (or has a high position in a business), there's the risk of boycott by liberals, who are a little over a third of the nation. It's not about any sort of being ashamed, it's about business.
2) You missed my point. Someone was going to pay THEM for the broadcast rights. That's where their profit was going to be. They have lost that completely. Even if someone contributes to a political fund they set up and allows them to air it, the people who made it will get 0.00 profit for it.
The only way to salvage that is to wait until after Clinton is done with the election, and then hope someone is still interested enough to buy the broadcast rights. That's not too terribly likely to happen, at least not for anywhere near the same price they could have commanded now.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
