Judges: Anti-Clinton Film Is Advertising

[101A]

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.

MKUABHBCCM!

OR:

Mikuabihhbic !

I don't know. Has a nice ring to it.

[George Gervin's Afro]

can we all just acknowledge that this is a hit piece? This type of thing happens on both sides all of the time. I like the fact that things like this can be regulated because they borderline on absurdity. I certainly wouldn't want a 'movie' about how Mormons secretly want to take over the USA and Romney is the first wave. Or a movie about Obama going to a muslim school when he was 6 yrs old and his father being a radical muslim... these are hit peices and I am glad this crap doesn't get on the airwaves.. i am all for freedom of speech but elections are to important to allow obvious character assasinations to go on unchecked especially 1 week before an election. No one would have any time to respond or defend themselves from these hit pieces.. I certainly wouldn't want a Micheal Moore movie that attacks Guiliani to air right before an election.. we all know that there are nuts in this country who will lie through thier collective teeth so they can affect the outcome elections..

[DarkReign]

What I dont understand is why the people who financed this film dont want to be credited for it?

Because thats what this is about. Bopp is arguing against disclosure of finance. Does Moore cite his financers? I dont know. Is he releasing a movie/do entary during the Presidential primary race? Dont know either.

[JoeChalupa]

Wgaf.

[CubanMustGo]

Moore's films: 'Do entaries' that you have to pay to see in a movie theatre.
This case: something some group wants to show on free TV.

Please recognize the difference between the two. If the promoters of this program wanted to solely screen it in theaters and raise funds for the neocon cause, they would be perfectly within their rights. Since they want to show it on broadcast TV, different rules do apply.

[ChumpDumper]

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.

So they are cowards. Not a big deal.

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.

You don't seem to know how advertisements work. They paid to produce it and they would pay to air it. It's a freaking infomercial. The law only changes where the money to air it would have to come from. If you think it was going to be the movie of the week supported by local advertisers, you just completely contradicted your own first bullet point.

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.

You're acting like these people have no money and are losing their shirts over this. They made a commercial and were prepared to pay for its airing from private funds, and they are in court to try to keep it that way.

[JoeChalupa]

Is this like that DVD that Morrison did on Hillary?

[fyatuk]

So they are cowards. Not a big deal.

All good businessmen are.

You don't seem to know how advertisements work. They paid to produce it and they would pay to air it. It's a freaking infomercial. The law only changes where the money to air it would have to come from. If you think it was going to be the movie of the week supported by local advertisers, you just completely contradicted your own first bullet point.

You're acting like these people have no money and are losing their shirts over this. They made a commercial and were prepared to pay for its airing from private funds, and they are in court to try to keep it that way.

I read one of the paragraphs wrong. You're certainly right, now that I've bothered to read the thing correctly.

[2centsworth]

can we all just acknowledge that this is a hit piece? This type of thing happens on both sides all of the time. I like the fact that things like this can be regulated because they borderline on absurdity. I certainly wouldn't want a 'movie' about how Mormons secretly want to take over the USA and Romney is the first wave. Or a movie about Obama going to a muslim school when he was 6 yrs old and his father being a radical muslim... these are hit peices and I am glad this crap doesn't get on the airwaves.. i am all for freedom of speech but elections are to important to allow obvious character assasinations to go on unchecked especially 1 week before an election. No one would have any time to respond or defend themselves from these hit pieces.. I certainly wouldn't want a Micheal Moore movie that attacks Guiliani to air right before an election.. we all know that there are nuts in this country who will lie through thier collective teeth so they can affect the outcome elections..

so limit speech on things you consider absurd? Even if we all agree it's absurd, who cares. This type of censorship is dangerous IMO.

I'm sure "hate" speech is next.

[Wild Cobra]

I own the dvd my friend

Sorry, I misuderstood your sarcasm. Let me make sure I understand. You agree Moore's piece is just political propagada, right?

[Wild Cobra]

can we all just acknowledge that this is a hit piece?

"Hit Piece" has such a negative conotation to it. What I'm concerned with is if it is accurate and truthful or not. Shouldn't we want th truth?

I'll bet there is no need to misrepresent anything like leftist pundits do aganst the right. I'll bet it's fair and accurate!

This type of thing happens on both sides all of the time. I like the fact that things like this can be regulated because they borderline on absurdity.

I would agree with regulating anything that is slanderous like Moore's works factually are. I am not for regulating works that are factually correct. I would agree with restrictions on any conservative "hit pieces" that contain slander as well.

I certainly wouldn't want a 'movie' about how Mormons secretly want to take over the USA and Romney is the first wave.

LOL... That sure would be something made up and slanderous, wouldn't it.

Or a movie about Obama going to a muslim school when he was 6 yrs old and his father being a radical muslim...

Well, he did go to a Muslin school, however, I don't know if his father was radical. Do you?

Again. Is it factually accurate or not. That should be the standard if it is otherwise damaging to someone.

these are hit peices and I am glad this crap doesn't get on the airwaves.. i am all for freedom of speech but elections are to important to allow obvious character assasinations to go on unchecked especially 1 week before an election.

How can you say with integrity that it is a hit piece?

Is it factual or not?

And you are not a proponent of the first amendment in my view. You agree with censorship of things that you disagree with.

No one would have any time to respond or defend themselves from these hit pieces.. I certainly wouldn't want a Micheal Moore movie that attacks Guiliani to air right before an election.. we all know that there are nuts in this country who will lie through thier collective teeth so they can affect the outcome elections..

Was that your at ude when Fahrenheit 9/11 came out on 25 June, 2004... DVD released July 10, 2004...

That was indeed slanderous against president Bust just before the election.

Again, is the Hillary piece fiction or fact? Shouldn't we have facts before an election, or do you want to remain in fantasyland?

[Wild Cobra]

What I dont understand is why the people who financed this film dont want to be credited for it?

Maybe like someone else mentioned. They would become part of a 'whacko hit list'. Yet, I don't think is was said they don't want to disclose who they are.

Because thats what this is about. Bopp is arguing against disclosure of finance. Does Moore cite his financers? I dont know. Is he releasing a movie/do entary during the Presidential primary race? Dont know either.

No, go back and re-read it. The article mentions that aspect, but doesn't quote him saying that.

[ChumpDumper]

They don't want Hillary to murder them!