NationStates Jolt Archive

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041014%2F1402916223.htm&sc=1131

Once again the dems are trying to take away our right to free speech.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041014%2F1402916223.htm&sc=1131

Once again the dems are trying to take away our right to free speech.
Bastards - why the hell did that 'equal time for all candidates' bill have to be shot down?

Once again the dems are trying to take away our right to free speech.
Always!

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041014%2F1402916223.htm&sc=1131

Once again the dems are trying to take away our right to free speech.
freedom of speech does not entail slander

well... since it is against the law (I believe the McCain-Feingold thing) it shouldn't be aired. If they wanted to do it, they should have done it outside the window the law allows.

As to McCain-Feingold, yes it does limit free speech. But it's the law we have, we have to follow it.

freedom of speech does not entail slander

It never ceases to fascinate me that lefties always refer to anything the right has to say about left-wing candidates as "slander," yet remain strangely silent about liars like Michel Moore.

I do believe that there is nothing wrong with airing this documentary, just as I think airing F 9/11 was fine. Freedom of speech and freedom to express one's beliefs are protected rights that citizens have. But I do see a problem with them airing it 2 weeks before election - it should have aired at least a full month before the elections if you ask me, at least out of respect. Moore respected that enough.

It never ceases to fascinate me that lefties always refer to anything the right has to say about left-wing candidates as "slander," yet remain strangely silent about liars like Michel Moore.
http://www.sacredcowburgers.com/parodies/fat_n_white_911.jpg
You know that if the pigs lies about bush were on TV, the liberal dolts would be so happy.

It never ceases to fascinate me that lefties always refer to anything the right has to say about left-wing candidates as "slander," yet remain strangely silent about liars like Michel Moore.

Again, you ignore the fact that no one's trying to keep things like "Michael Moore Hates America" off of DVD. The difference between TV and movies is fairly pronounced. Why do you like making arguments that have already been refuted?

And why don't you comment on the hypocricy of "righties" about trying to keep Moore's movie from being distributed?

And why don't you comment on the hypocricy of "righties" about trying to keep Moore's movie from being distributed?
Because that would involve doing what's right and thinking for yourself!

I do believe that there is nothing wrong with airing this documentary, just as I think airing F 9/11 was fine. Freedom of speech and freedom to express one's beliefs are protected rights that citizens have. But I do see a problem with them airing it 2 weeks before election - it should have aired at least a full month before the elections if you ask me, at least out of respect. Moore respected that enough.

Well, there is the fact that it is not a documentary. Documentary by definition is a work of history assembled from documents (or more loosley to include film), this is a work of fiction assembled from a desire to see George Bush elected this time. That makes it a campaign infomercial. 60 minutes of prime time air time donated to the Bush campaign after Sinclair has already donated the maximum allowed. That's not free speech, that's very expensive speech being given away. If the program was billed as a campaign ad, that the Bush campaign paid for, that would be one thing but this is nothing less than an assault on democracy by the Sinclair group.

There are no laws which prevent it from airing. If you don't like it, write your congressperson to have it changed for 2008. I heard enough rules-lawers bitching in the 2000 election from the Democrats. Of course, I see the electoral process still stands... what will your cause be next week?

Well, there is the fact that it is not a documentary. Documentary by definition is a work of history assembled from documents (or more loosley to include film), this is a work of fiction assembled from a desire to see George Bush elected this time. That makes it a campaign infomercial. 60 minutes of prime time air time donated to the Bush campaign after Sinclair has already donated the maximum allowed. That's not free speech, that's very expensive speech being given away. If the program was billed as a campaign ad, that the Bush campaign paid for, that would be one thing but this is nothing less than an assault on democracy by the Sinclair group.
Do you have any information that the rest of us are missing? Do you know for a fact that this is a work of fiction? Or are you simply stating your opinion.

Inquiring minds want to know.

I may not like this, but I believe that if you really believe in free speech then this program has to air. I may not agree with the ultra-conservative, but they do have a right to voice their opinions.

From my understanding of the article the film is a compilation of Kerry's senate testimony about the Vietnam War and some responses from other veterans of the war ... hardly sounds like fiction.

If you believe in free speech, then you would air the opposite side for the same amount of time, as falls in line with McCain-Feingold reforms.

http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20041014%2F1402916223.htm&sc=1131

Once again the dems are trying to take away our right to free speech.

You wanna talk parties trying to take away rights?

Nevada Voter fraud (http://nevadaappeal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041003/ELECTIONS/110030034)

Ohio worried about Dems "rocking" the vote. (http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/09/29/20040929-A1-01.html)

Floridia: The Return of Jim Crow (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=palast)

Colleges, bastions of liberalism, under political sniper fire. (http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_campuscamp_dorights.php)

Hearing republicans complain about civil rights is like hearing George Bush complain about the legacy system.

If you believe in free speech, then you would air the opposite side for the same amount of time, as falls in line with McCain-Feingold reforms.This doesn't fall under that law, else it would have been stopped. Besides... they were offered the same amount of time immediately after the airing of this, and refused it.

If you believe in free speech, then you would air the opposite side for the same amount of time, as falls in line with McCain-Feingold reforms.

By no means do I wish to state that the Democrats have no right to air their viewpoints- I'm just saying that Sinclair do have a right to voice their own. Whether or not the Democrats wish to counter is up to them.

Do you have any information that the rest of us are missing? Do you know for a fact that this is a work of fiction? Or are you simply stating your opinion.

Inquiring minds want to know.

It is produced by the conclusivly discredited and ironicly named "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Unless the gist of the program is "gee we're sorry about that us-being-collossal-douchebags thing. We're really just evil nasty people who like to destroy reputations for money, and not even very much money," then it's political advertising.

If they want to air it on pay-per-view that's fine. It's a money making endeavor capitalizing on political opinion. Perfectly valid free speech just like Rush Limbaugh or the entire Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com) line-up. Still a pack of lies, but free speech nonetheless. The way it's being aired on Sinclair Broadcasting violates campaign finance laws.

By no means do I wish to state that the Democrats have no right to air their viewpoints- I'm just saying that Sinclair do have a right to voice their own. Whether or not the Democrats wish to counter is up to them.
Yes, I agree, however, it was my understanding that they were going against the reforms I mentioned. Apparently not. Either way, I think it is crappy to try to blame Kerry for standing up for humanity and placing the blame the government should have shouldered for not fighting a proper and intelligent war and causing POW's to stay longer, on Kerry. If it hadn't ha been Kerry, any statement made by the opposite side would have been enough fuel the torture that happened. And if we weren't shooting anything that moves via military policy, maybe they wouldn't have had a desire to hurt us so much. Blame-shifting is great isn't it?

You wanna talk parties trying to take away rights?

Nevada Voter fraud (http://nevadaappeal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041003/ELECTIONS/110030034)
As this turns out the accusations are being made by an employee who was fired for falsifying his application. So it's shady at best.

Ohio worried about Dems "rocking" the vote. (http://www.columbusdispatch.com/election/election-local.php?story=dispatch/2004/09/29/20040929-A1-01.html)
What does this have to do with voter fraud? Some people decided to violate a secretary of states directive concerning the printing of voter registration forms.

Floridia: The Return of Jim Crow (http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20010205&s=palast)
Yea, ok, The Nation... browsing that site I would almost say it's more skewed than moveon.org. Almost.

Colleges, bastions of liberalism, under political sniper fire. (http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_campuscamp_dorights.php)
I haven't heard a ruling on this one way or the other. Is there some federal law stating that students have the right to register to vote at their temporary addresses? Or is there some state law saying that they must register at their permanent address? An official ruling one way or another would go a long way to address this issue.

Hearing republicans complain about civil rights is like hearing George Bush complain about the legacy system.
Democrats and Republicans both have perpetrated gross voter frauds in their collective effort to gain power. Neither side has the monopoly on that.

I do believe that there is nothing wrong with airing this documentary, just as I think airing F 9/11 was fine. Freedom of speech and freedom to express one's beliefs are protected rights that citizens have. But I do see a problem with them airing it 2 weeks before election - it should have aired at least a full month before the elections if you ask me, at least out of respect. Moore respected that enough.
Both are of the same rough caliber I'd imagine. The difference is F911 didn't use the publically licensed airways. Ethics aside that is a violation of the license.

There are no laws which prevent it from airing. If you don't like it, write your congressperson to have it changed for 2008. I heard enough rules-lawers bitching in the 2000 election from the Democrats. Of course, I see the electoral process still stands... what will your cause be next week?
see above - it violates the equal time requirement of their license.

This doesn't fall under that law, else it would have been stopped. Besides... they were offered the same amount of time immediately after the airing of this, and refused it.
You got a link on that? The LA Times story said they never got the offer.

You got a link on that? The LA Times story said they never got the offer.http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtmlOn the Sinclair website, front page where it says, "Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000. It's part of a news program (now since it was refused) that airs after the film.

http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtmlOn the Sinclair website, front page where it says, "Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000. It's part of a news program (now since it was refused) that airs after the film.
Hardly an objective source of how and when Kerry's people got the word. But even then it would take more than a week or so to organize such an event. I used you link to make that comment to them. This smells like an ambush and in fact may well work against your boy.

Yes, I agree, however, it was my understanding that they were going against the reforms I mentioned. Apparently not. Either way, I think it is crappy to try to blame Kerry for standing up for humanity and placing the blame the government should have shouldered for not fighting a proper and intelligent war and causing POW's to stay longer, on Kerry. If it hadn't ha been Kerry, any statement made by the opposite side would have been enough fuel the torture that happened. And if we weren't shooting anything that moves via military policy, maybe they wouldn't have had a desire to hurt us so much. Blame-shifting is great isn't it?

Point to you.

Right now, I believe the George W. Bush campaign will do just about anything to defeat Senator John Kerry. Kerry, if I'm not mistaken, is actually gaining in the polls now that he's not shooting himself in the foot, so the Bush campaign is working in overdrive to defeat him. If one of those ways is to bring up a 30-year-old, barely relevant episode, then it just shows how desperate he is.

As this turns out the accusations are being made by an employee who was fired for falsifying his application. So it's shady at best..
The voter applications were turned over, and the elections board found that none of those people had been registered. Even if you doubt the motives of the complaintant the evidence is there.


What does this have to do with voter fraud? Some people decided to violate a secretary of states directive concerning the printing of voter registration forms.
Ohio state voting law says that if there are errors that are not relevant to the voters eligebility or are not the fault of the voter then the voter is to be permitted to vote. The secretary of state is the one trying to supress new voters who are largely signing up through democratic voter drives.

Yea, ok, The Nation... browsing that site I would almost say it's more skewed than moveon.org. Almost. .
Unless you think you have more accurate information on this story from some other more objective source then this is hardly a valid criticism. Of course the common republican tactic through this campaign has been "if you can't debate the message slander the messenger."

I haven't heard a ruling on this one way or the other. Is there some federal law stating that students have the right to register to vote at their temporary addresses? Or is there some state law saying that they must register at their permanent address? An official ruling one way or another would go a long way to address this issue.

I was mostly interested in the Arkansas story from a couple of weeks ago where the Fox affiliate showed up and told the students that they were not allowed to register, even though they were. The students told the reporters that they were mistaken, but the "reporters" (no one working for Fox can be called a reporter without the ironic inverteds, it's one of those truth in advertising things) went ahead and did a story that very day saying that students were signing up potetially illegal voters and could be found guilty of federal crimes for it.

http://sbgweb2.sbgnet.com/index.shtmlOn the Sinclair website, front page where it says, "Massachusetts Senator John Kerry has been invited to participate. You can urge him to appear by calling his Washington, D.C. campaign headquarters at
(202) 712-3000. It's part of a news program (now since it was refused) that airs after the film.
A 15 minutes (or even 60) discussion with panelists is not what I consider equal time. Equal time would be 60 minutes of F9/11.

Also the fact that Sinclair FORCES their associated stations to air it is saying alot on the free speech argument. Gives them the chance to opt out of the programming and I'll argue for it.

Hardly an objective source of how and when Kerry's people got the word. But even then it would take more than a week or so to organize such an event. I used you link to make that comment to them. This smells like an ambush and in fact may well work against your boy.So the other media outlets couldn't invite Kerry to their own programs? Or even find and air a legal anti-Bush documentary at the same time? Every other broadcast group has free reign to gang up on Sinclair right now.

A 15 minutes (or even 60) discussion with panelists is not what I consider equal time.You missed the part where I said that time slot turned into a panelist discussion because it was refused by the Kerry camp.

Does anyone know how to find out what companies advertise on Sinclair if they don't broadcast in your area?
I'd like to comlain to them that if they continue to support these vile bastards that they are nothing less than an enemy of democracy.

A bit inflammatory, I know, but these letters seem to be considered with a bell curve view as to their relevance.

The voter applications were turned over, and the elections board found that none of those people had been registered. Even if you doubt the motives of the complaintant the evidence is there.
Your original post didn't say that. I haven't seen that... perhaps a link to back up that portion of your claim.

Ohio state voting law says that if there are errors that are not relevant to the voters eligebility or are not the fault of the voter then the voter is to be permitted to vote. The secretary of state is the one trying to supress new voters who are largely signing up through democratic voter drives.
The Secretary of State (the one in question was from a decade ago) issued a directive that voter registrations had to be on 80 weight paper for a couple of valid reasons. Those organizations attempting to "get out the vote" had the responsibility to find out what rules were in place to do what they were trying. They violated those rules. However, it has nothing to do with the clandestine Republican operation to disenfranchise Democrat voters.

Unless you think you have more accurate information on this story from some other more objective source then this is hardly a valid criticism. Of course the common republican tactic through this campaign has been "if you can't debate the message slander the messenger."
I've seen the accusation before, I've seen it refuted. The credibility of the messenger has a lot to do with the credibility of the message. Do you trust Moore without question?

I was mostly interested in the Arkansas story from a couple of weeks ago where the Fox affiliate showed up and told the students that they were not allowed to register, even though they were. The students told the reporters that they were mistaken, but the "reporters" (no one working for Fox can be called a reporter without the ironic inverteds, it's one of those truth in advertising things) went ahead and did a story that very day saying that students were signing up potetially illegal voters and could be found guilty of federal crimes for it.
Like I asked.. is there some relavent federal statute or law that says a person was required to register at their permanent address or is there one that allows registering at temporary addresses. That is the issue at hand. Your source doenst state that. The Fox reporter was reporting on what she thought the legality of the issue was.

You missed the part where I said that time slot turned into a panelist discussion because it was refused by the Kerry camp.
Sure, but can you find me a link that said that Kerry would have an hour of programming free after the program? All I can find is that Sinclair offred Kerry to appear on a program after the documentary aired. Never mentionned the format, duration or cost to the Kerry campaign. That's why I don't think it would have been an equal time thing.

Does anyone know how to find out what companies advertise on Sinclair if they don't broadcast in your area?
I'd like to comlain to them that if they continue to support these vile bastards that they are nothing less than an enemy of democracy.

A bit inflammatory, I know, but these letters seem to be considered with a bell curve view as to their relevance.
http://www.boycottsbg.com/advertisers/

Your original post didn't say that. I haven't seen that... perhaps a link to back up that portion of your claim.


The Secretary of State (the one in question was from a decade ago) issued a directive that voter registrations had to be on 80 weight paper for a couple of valid reasons. Those organizations attempting to "get out the vote" had the responsibility to find out what rules were in place to do what they were trying. They violated those rules. However, it has nothing to do with the clandestine Republican operation to disenfranchise Democrat voters.
It doesn't matter how long ago the directive was made. The law in Ohio is is that if mistakes are made in registering voters discarding the registrations is not a permissable response unless the mistake entails failure of the organization to determine if the voter was eligible in the first place, or was due to neglect on the part of the voter. Now the 80 pound stock card rule was to ensure that these cards would be durable so that records would not be damaged. Now that that information is all kept on computers the 80 pound stock rule is completly irrelevant.


I've seen the accusation before, I've seen it refuted. The credibility of the messenger has a lot to do with the credibility of the message. Do you trust Moore without question?

No, nor do I take Michael Moore's having said something as proof that it is untrue. If one is presented with information, but doesn't trust the source, the proper response is not to say "I remain in possession of sufficient doubt to continue wallowing in ignorance" but is rather to ask for, and look for, sources that you consider more credible. I've seen evidence for that Florida story on C-span where a Florida politician made a speech before the House of Representatives about the supression of the black vote in the 2000 election. There was no discussion of it to follow though, she was interupted, hauled off the floor and her speech was stricken from the record. Now if C-span keeps archives I wouldn't know where to begin to look for that segment so all I can really offer is my word as to its honesty, but you don't know me. Statisticly you are likely to think that my label as a liberal is the source of my beliefs rather than the reverse, so my word is unlikely to satisfy. Regardless, if you care about the state of the democratic process then the appropriate response to any story you don't like is to investigate, not to steadfastly proclaim your continued capacity for doubt like some sort of mental super-hero impervious to all new information.

Like I asked.. is there some relavent federal statute or law that says a person was required to register at their permanent address or is there one that allows registering at temporary addresses. That is the issue at hand. Your source doenst state that. The Fox reporter was reporting on what she thought the legality of the issue was.

Ok, (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/27/1433241) pay particular attention to the "29 days before the election bit."
But for future reference, statutes are state laws, so no, there are no federal statutes.

Does anyone know how to find out what companies advertise on Sinclair if they don't broadcast in your area?
I'd like to comlain to them that if they continue to support these vile bastards that they are nothing less than an enemy of democracy.

A bit inflammatory, I know, but these letters seem to be considered with a bell curve view as to their relevance.

Check a few of the wack nut Christians for morality sites. They usually have that stuff listed....

you wanna see something about 9/11 watch this
impartial to either side and graphic

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm

you wanna see something about 9/11 watch this
impartial to either side and graphic

http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm
I'm not real clear on what point you are trying to make. None of this is downplaying the significance of 9-11 or discarding the sacrifices that have been made by individuals.

ooh thats a good idea, email all companies that support sinclair that you will boycott their products if support continues

It's been working--a number of companies have already pulled their ads from Sinclair stations. They don't want the controversy.

It never ceases to fascinate me that lefties always refer to anything the right has to say about left-wing candidates as "slander," yet remain strangely silent about liars like Michel Moore.
The same goes for O'Reilly and Coulter and Hannity and Savage.
It's Michael, btw, so keep that in your "always" mindset.

The same goes for O'Reilly and Coulter and Hannity and Savage.
It's Michael, btw, so keep that in your "always" mindset.
well michael moore is borderline, but he isnt full out slander or libel, unlike coulter or hannity or the rest of the nutjobs

well michael moore is borderline, but he isnt full out slander or libel, unlike coulter or hannity or the rest of the nutjobs
I would tend to agree. He also tends to be several shades less fascist.

Moore uses propaganda at times, but we need someone to counteract the great masses of propaganda of the other side. He leans on facts a bit, but I wouldn't say he crushes them like some. He's working justly, and that's good enough for me. I'm informed enough on the issues that I can take the little things with a grain of salt, as a necessity. The true things that he works to expose make it worth it. He's not just some fat rich jerk who flies around in a gold-plated jet shaped like a burning American flag.

But more to the point, Farenheit 9/11 met with resistance at every step, and ended up not allowed in half the theaters. Basically, you had to go looking for it, and be willing to pay those uber-high movie prices just to watch it, and then listen to it demonized by every news network in existence. This, now this is free, and on several channels, easily accessible, and apparently mandatorily imposed on the networks who air it, and air it practically right before the elections. See what I'm saying here, guys?

It is produced by the conclusivly discredited and ironicly named "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." Unless the gist of the program is "gee we're sorry about that us-being-collossal-douchebags thing. We're really just evil nasty people who like to destroy reputations for money, and not even very much money," then it's political advertising.

If they want to air it on pay-per-view that's fine. It's a money making endeavor capitalizing on political opinion. Perfectly valid free speech just like Rush Limbaugh or the entire Air America (http://www.airamericaradio.com) line-up. Still a pack of lies, but free speech nonetheless. The way it's being aired on Sinclair Broadcasting violates campaign finance laws.
The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that free of political speech takes precedence of campaign finance laws. That is why previous versions of campaign finance reform were struck down as unconstitutional.

Colin Powell became the house slave and lied for bush so that his son could get to be head of the FCC. His son is grateful.

I think you mean freedom.

It doesn't matter how long ago the directive was made. The law in Ohio is is that if mistakes are made in registering voters discarding the registrations is not a permissable response unless the mistake entails failure of the organization to determine if the voter was eligible in the first place, or was due to neglect on the part of the voter. Now the 80 pound stock card rule was to ensure that these cards would be durable so that records would not be damaged. Now that that information is all kept on computers the 80 pound stock rule is completly irrelevant.


I've seen the accusation before, I've seen it refuted. The credibility of the messenger has a lot to do with the credibility of the message. Do you trust Moore without question?

No, nor do I take Michael Moore's having said something as proof that it is untrue. If one is presented with information, but doesn't trust the source, the proper response is not to say "I remain in possession of sufficient doubt to continue wallowing in ignorance" but is rather to ask for, and look for, sources that you consider more credible. I've seen evidence for that Florida story on C-span where a Florida politician made a speech before the House of Representatives about the supression of the black vote in the 2000 election. There was no discussion of it to follow though, she was interupted, hauled off the floor and her speech was stricken from the record. Now if C-span keeps archives I wouldn't know where to begin to look for that segment so all I can really offer is my word as to its honesty, but you don't know me. Statisticly you are likely to think that my label as a liberal is the source of my beliefs rather than the reverse, so my word is unlikely to satisfy. Regardless, if you care about the state of the democratic process then the appropriate response to any story you don't like is to investigate, not to steadfastly proclaim your continued capacity for doubt like some sort of mental super-hero impervious to all new information.

Like I asked.. is there some relavent federal statute or law that says a person was required to register at their permanent address or is there one that allows registering at temporary addresses. That is the issue at hand. Your source doenst state that. The Fox reporter was reporting on what she thought the legality of the issue was.

Ok, (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/09/27/1433241) pay particular attention to the "29 days before the election bit."
But for future reference, statutes are state laws, so no, there are no federal statutes.

The majority of states only accept voter registrations from your permanent address. And they can easily check to see if that is your permanent address.

freedom of speech does not entail slander

He is a public figure. He would lose a slander suit.

well michael moore is borderline, but he isnt full out slander or libel, unlike coulter or hannity or the rest of the nutjobs

Why do you keep using "libel" and "slander"? You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Take a basic law class in high school, learn the basics, then use big boy words. ;)

I think the main issue with this is the timing. Had Mr Moore been given an hour of prime time to "slander" President Bush, there would be as much uproar.
Sadly, this whole election has turned into the worse type of mud-slinging. This won't help either camp. It will cause more doubts about Kerry's record in Vietnamn, and will at the same time make President Bush look afraid and somewhat slimy.

No matter who is voted in, the US will continue to be divided by the fundementals of the Dems and Reps.

anyway, y do the republicans keep bringing up kerry's 'nam service??
bush b/sed his way out of doing any service, so they can hardly run kerry down, atleast he went