Disney blocks distribution of Moore's film:
http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/news?e=pri&dt=040505&cat=news&st=newsd82cikdo2&src=ap

Ironic, eh?

Michael Eisner is in much hot water with '''The Alamo''', while Roy Disney and the stockholders themselves want him ''out''. So I'd say '''Fahrenheit 9/11''' is just too gosh darn scary at this time for Eisner to be handling...

Lovely. But there is no censorship, of course. It's all a big misunderestimating.
Disney people are rather funny, eh?
Cheers, Translator

Censorship typically involves government's restriction of information (typically prior restriction) -- not private industry's decision as to whether or not to market a product.

They're different issues. They're related, but still different.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 05-06-2004).]

Interesting editorial(from LA Times) on the same topic:
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/8612816.htm

I'm actually Moore... I mean MORE disturbed that Michael Moore's title alludes to one of Bradbury's works. As far as I'm concerned, Moore could well be the best propoganda writer for 1984's ministry of information. Bradbury, on the other-hand, is a writer of integrity, real imagination, and heart.

Censorship exists outside of the governmental realm as well. It happens when powerful entities silence opinions of others. I fully disagree that this is not cesorship.
Hello Bomar. We always welcome mental asylum memebers to this forum. It's fun to play around with them.
Cheers, Translator

Translator, I don't understand the mental asylum joke, but I do agree with your comment that this is censorship. Maybe the definition of censorship is interpreted differently from person to person, but in my opinion, any time someone is being muzzled, as I see happening here, that is censorship, and I feel the current administration is behind it. It's chilling. I hope some other movie company will have the guts to step forward and distribute this movie. I'm not even sure that I will like or even agree with it, but he has the right to be heard.

lmskipper:

Censorship???
Nonsense.

It's all about the money, the profit and loss and making company decisions that the stock holders approve of....

Eisner is about to be thrown out of Disney for giving the green light to the movie, '''The Alamo'''. It appears this event is about the last straw....

Many of the voting delegates on Disney board of directors want him out... This time around, the Moore movie has nothing to do with censorship......

Nard, why can't it be both? Of course money is involved (when isn't it?), and I agree that Eisner's neck is on the chopping block, but I also see censorship here too. The movie is critical of Bush and others in the current administration and how they handled 9/11. Whether or not what Moore has to say is convincing, I do not know and will not know until I actually get to see the movie. But even the suggestion of criticism planted in people's minds when an election is coming up could be a blow to the reelection campaign. Actually, I doubt it, because Bush seems to be the true Teflon man of late. But Bush doesn't want to take any chances. And since Disney is headquartered in his brother's state, it would be even more of an embarrassment. I feel this is one of the main reasons, in addition to the ones you mentioned, why the movie is being stifled. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't disagree with you, but am just expanding on what you say. Can chat more later if you like, but right now I'm headed out on the usual Saturday errands.

I agree with Bomer.Monk's comment. Moore has been asked not to use the title, in deference to Bradbury's wishes. He has refused. This is especially offensive because Bradbury tends toward conservative politics (in some areas anyway -- my own view is that it is difficult to nail down Bradbury's political views in all areas), and I can't imagine Moore is not aware of this. He is trading on a name when he has been asked not to.

This is typical of Moore, who constantly uses others to advance his own agenda. The Academy Award "speech" was a good example. He called everyone up as though sharing the award with them, then made his speech. In an interview subsequent to the Awards, one of the persons called on stage said he did not share Moore's views and the he had not been warned that when Moore called him up Moore would make it look like they all agreed with Moore's position. Moore uses people. And he's using Bradbury's name here.

While the term "censorship" can be variously defined, it is typically tied to governmental action. This is an important distinction because if government blocks something, the ideas expressed will not find an audience. This is not the case with Moore's work. He will find an outlet and his ideas will become a part of the arena of public debate and discussion. The fact that Disney doesn't want to distribute it is a corporate decision -- not governmental censorship.

Unfounded claims that the Bush's are behind this decision are really "black helicopter theories" until there is some compelling evidence to support them. While it is possible that evidence will come to light; until it does, this is just the stuff of legend and accusation.


[This message has been edited by Mr. Dark (edited 05-08-2004).]

Actually, if you look up censorship in Webster's, it says the following: "the institution, system, or practice of censoring." So when you cross-reference to censor, this is what it says: "one who supervises conduct and morals." No requirement is mentioned that it must be the government. Also, I am about as far from the "black helicopter" theorists as a person can get, and I don't appreciate that characterization, just because you don't agree with my beliefs about Bush and his minions.

(1) That's why I said there are various definitions to censorship. The scary one, for me, is governmental, as that stills ALL voices, whereas corporate "censorship" does not -- at least not in America. Moore will get distributed.

(2) I didn't characterize YOU in any way. The claims that George W is somehow behind this is unfounded at this point. If you're willing to make these kinds of accusations without evidence, that's your choice. I am not.

Can this following 'web link' change a few opinions previously posted here....?
Try it and see:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/cat_film.php