NationStates Jolt Archive

Michael Moore is suing US cable pay-per-view TV company 'IN DEMAND' for dumping his "pre-election special", which included the airing of his controversial documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

The company doesn't want to show this film on the eve of the election - they want to air it afterwards because of the controversy surrounding 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

When you have a 50% political division in your viewers, you wouldn't want to anger half of your audience.

Besides, who wants to pay $9.95 just to see Fahrenheit, and watch a bunch of self important actors tell you how to vote.

look at the "liberal media" go! they are refusing to air Fahrenheit 9/11 on PAY PER VIEW and they are forcing a commercial free kerry bashing "documentary" on 62 broadcast stations

thats one hell of a "liberal media" machine

no it that the peoples that control the media relized that bush will be a better lapdog then kerry

which may be good becouse bush is the lesser of the 2 evils

Michael Moore is suing US cable pay-per-view TV company 'IN DEMAND' for dumping his "pre-election special", which included the airing of his controversial documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

The company doesn't want to show this film on the eve of the election - they want to air it afterwards because of the controversy surrounding 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

When you have a 50% political division in your viewers, you wouldn't want to anger half of your audience.

Besides, who wants to pay $9.95 just to see Fahrenheit, and watch a bunch of self important actors tell you how to vote.

Have any idea on what grounds he's bringing a lawsuit? Wait ... let me guess: they're abridging his freedom to lie, right???

no it that the peoples that control the media relized that bush will be a better lapdog then kerry

which may be good becouse bush is the lesser of the 2 evils
i thought the nazis supported kerry? seperatist.

Depends on what the grounds are, really.

In the end, they ARE a privatized company, and if they say "no" then that's the answer. Hoever, there could very easily be some loophole I don't know about.

My dad's head is going to explode when he hears about this. He'll probably be on Moore's side. A company shouldn't be sued because they don't want to show something.

My dad's head is going to explode when he hears about this. He'll probably be on Moore's side. A company shouldn't be sued because they don't want to show something.
i vote we phone up michael moore and inform him to contact sinclair broadcasting company, im sure they would be more than willing to air fahrenheit 9/11 the night after the kerry bullshit in the name of all thats fair and good

My dad's head is going to explode when he hears about this. He'll probably be on Moore's side. A company shouldn't be sued because they don't want to show something.

I'm not really conversant with FCC regulations, but isn't there a provision which says something about this sort of situation?

My dad's head is going to explode when he hears about this. He'll probably be on Moore's side. A company shouldn't be sued because they don't want to show something.

By the use of the term "dumping", I'm assuming they had made an agreement in advance to show it. While they certainly aren't obliged by default to show anything they don't want to (from my understanding), that may not apply if a verbal or written agreement is in effect.

You can't sue someone for not wanting to show something. That's not what Moore is doing. Moore is able to sue because he had a contract with InDemand. The contract stated that Moore would be able to show his movie on the eve of the election. By cancelling or moving the air date, InDemand is in breach of their contract. THAT is how he can sue, not simply because InDemand didn't want to show it, but because they are violating their contract.

look at the "liberal media" go! they are refusing to air Fahrenheit 9/11 on PAY PER VIEW and they are forcing a commercial free kerry bashing "documentary" on 62 broadcast stations

thats one hell of a "liberal media" machine

The term 'media' typically refers to news (CBS, CNN, etc) NOT pay per view movie channels. Hell, individual stations aren't even refered to as the media.

If I remember correctly I think it has something to do with equal air time for the candidates?

Remember when Al Sharpton when on SNL and some states didnt' show the programming because not all the guys going for the Democratic nomination were being allowed to host?

I think the same applies with a the presidential election. If you show one you have to show the other. Now Michael Moore's stuff has been in the news, on the movie screen and on the tv so the kerry bashing show would be the 'equal time' coming into play.

Like I said I could be way off and not remembering my facts correctly.

Either way I still dislike Moore. I think he's a liar and just talks to hear his voice.

The guys from South Park said it best. Moore puts two images together to make it appear that something is there but really isn't. They said this after Moore screwed them with Bowling for Columbine. The guys were from that area he asked them for a quote and then asked them to draw a south park like comic to go along with it. When they refused to do the comic, Moore drew a south park-esque comic of his own and make it appear that the SOuth Park guys did it when actually they did not. So remember the source when you watch his movies.

If I remember correctly I think it has something to do with equal air time for the candidates?

Remember when Al Sharpton when on SNL and some states didnt' show the programming because not all the guys going for the Democratic nomination were being allowed to host?

I think the same applies with a the presidential election. If you show one you have to show the other. Now Michael Moore's stuff has been in the news, on the movie screen and on the tv so the kerry bashing show would be the 'equal time' coming into play.
what bullshit, no really. fahrenheit 9/11 NEVER aired on tv and was NEVER written up in the papers. and you wanna know what there was such hubris? the republicans threw a fucking fit because they didnt want it to air, and they are still raising hell while pretending sup partisan broadcasting company airing a anti-kerry film is fair and unbiased.



bunch of assholes you people are



and where is this information coming from i cant find it

InDemand PPV can play whatever they want, whenever they want... I'm sure Moore knew that prior to signing whatever contract was signed for him to allow them the right to show it in the first place.

InDemand PPV can play whatever they want, whenever they want... I'm sure Moore knew that prior to signing whatever contract was signed for him to allow them the right to show it in the first place.

That assumes though that the contract doesn't state a specific date or time slot. I don't know that it does, but it may have. He obviously had one in mind.

what bullshit, no really. fahrenheit 9/11 NEVER aired on tv and was NEVER written up in the papers. and you wanna know what there was such hubris? the republicans threw a fucking fit because they didnt want it to air, and they are still raising hell while pretending sup partisan broadcasting company airing a anti-kerry film is fair and unbiased.



bunch of assholes you people are



and where is this information coming from i cant find it


Odd... then how did my Kerry-supporting friend see F/911 when he said he didn't go to the movies to see it and didn't rent/buy it?

That assumes though that the contract doesn't state a specific date or time slot. I don't know that it does, but it may have. He obviously had one in mind.

I'm sure it doesn't; they wouldn't be that stupid to confine a movie with that much gross behind it to a particular time slot.

I'm not sure what you mean with the comment about the papers, but Fahrenheit 911 was written about frequently in newspapers.

Odd... then how did my Kerry-supporting friend see F/911 when he said he didn't go to the movies to see it and didn't rent/buy it?
the FILM ITSELF was never AIRED on tv nor was its script published, it was advertised, but you want to know the best advertising? the republikkkons who have been bitching for MONTHS UPON MONTHS

and you know kazaa? and bit torrent? and ares galaxy and uh all those other p2ps programs? yeah now stfu

I'm sure it doesn't; they wouldn't be that stupid to confine a movie with that much gross behind it to a particular time slot.

But you assume he would sign the contract to have it shown whenever they felt like, despite the fact that he is suing them for not showing it at a specific date? You're free to disagree, but I find that logic to be somewhat lacking.

Odd... then how did my Kerry-supporting friend see F/911 when he said he didn't go to the movies to see it and didn't rent/buy it?

He either illegally downloaded it or is lying to you.

InDemand PPV can play whatever they want, whenever they want... I'm sure Moore knew that prior to signing whatever contract was signed for him to allow them the right to show it in the first place.
Unless the contract specified when the show was supposed to be played.

look at the "liberal media" go! they are refusing to air Fahrenheit 9/11 on PAY PER VIEW and they are forcing a commercial free kerry bashing "documentary" on 62 broadcast stations

thats one hell of a "liberal media" machine

boradcasted as news so they dont have to give the eqaul time thing.

boradcasted as news so they dont have to give the eqaul time thing.
news my fucking ass

Unless the contract specified when the show was supposed to be played.

Understood, but, I doubt they would've signed a contract like that so close to an election, as per laws instituted years ago by the FEC.

I'm not really conversant with FCC regulations, but isn't there a provision which says something about this sort of situation?
How many times do I have to say this, you cannot ban any form of political speech from the airwaves, just like you can't ban religious speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that the only speech you can censor is commercial, in which the person or group doing the speaking are making a financial profit.

By the use of the term "dumping", I'm assuming they had made an agreement in advance to show it. While they certainly aren't obliged by default to show anything they don't want to (from my understanding), that may not apply if a verbal or written agreement is in effect.
very true, especially if they already accepted money from him.

The term 'media' typically refers to news (CBS, CNN, etc) NOT pay per view movie channels. Hell, individual stations aren't even refered to as the media.
Pay per view= commercial for profit companies. They signed a contract, they have abide by it.

If I remember correctly I think it has something to do with equal air time for the candidates?

Remember when Al Sharpton when on SNL and some states didnt' show the programming because not all the guys going for the Democratic nomination were being allowed to host?

I think the same applies with a the presidential election. If you show one you have to show the other. Now Michael Moore's stuff has been in the news, on the movie screen and on the tv so the kerry bashing show would be the 'equal time' coming into play.

Like I said I could be way off and not remembering my facts correctly.

Either way I still dislike Moore. I think he's a liar and just talks to hear his voice.

The guys from South Park said it best. Moore puts two images together to make it appear that something is there but really isn't. They said this after Moore screwed them with Bowling for Columbine. The guys were from that area he asked them for a quote and then asked them to draw a south park like comic to go along with it. When they refused to do the comic, Moore drew a south park-esque comic of his own and make it appear that the SOuth Park guys did it when actually they did not. So remember the source when you watch his movies.
First of all, there are no "equal time" requirement laws in the United States for the airwaves. Since such laws would violate the first amendment.
The only requirement is that if you sign a written contract with someone to air their stuff, then you have to air it, or face legal santions.

InDemand PPV can play whatever they want, whenever they want... I'm sure Moore knew that prior to signing whatever contract was signed for him to allow them the right to show it in the first place.
If there was such an arrangement, it would have been in the fine print in the contract. If this is a case, then Moore's case is pretty much zilch.

How many times do I have to say this, you cannot ban any form of political speech from the airwaves, just like you can't ban religious speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that the only speech you can censor is commercial, in which the person or group doing the speaking are making a financial profit.

Incorrect. If said "free speech" is intended to interfere with political appearances or elections, then, the FEC can ban it, which is what the FEC tried to do when this movie came out originally but failed, because the movie was already in release.

When you have a 50% political division in your viewers, you wouldn't want to anger half of your audience.


Too bad Sinclair isn't worried about losing half of its audience.

The term 'media' typically refers to news (CBS, CNN, etc) NOT pay per view movie channels. Hell, individual stations aren't even refered to as the media.

Media is communication mediums, individual stations qualify. And, as far as inDemand goes, the following media conglomerates own it:
Comcast, Time Warner Entertainment, Cox Communications Holdings Inc., MediaOne of Delaware Inc. and TCI Communications Inc. (an AT&T subsidiary) hold stakes in iNDEMAND (formerly Viewer's Choice)

That alone qualifies it for discussion.

boradcasted as news so they dont have to give the eqaul time thing.
it would be the opposite actually. If it was aired as part of a news program, they would have to at least offer equal time to the other side. That is the policy almost all American newsstations. If the other side refuses the offer of equal time, it does not prohibit the news station from going with the side they have.

Incorrect. If said "free speech" is intended to interfere with political appearances or elections, then, the FEC can ban it, which is what the FEC tried to do when this movie came out originally but failed, because the movie was already in release.
No the FEC tried to ban it under political pressure from extremist republican groups in Congress.
Now extremist Democrat groups in Congress are trying to get the FEC ban the anti Kerry program. As then, the FEC won't do anything, cause this stuff is protected free speech.

Too bad Sinclair isn't worried about losing half of its audience.
Maybe they'll rethink if they start losing money over it.

No the FEC tried to ban it under political pressure from extremist republican groups in Congress.
Now extremist Democrat groups in Congress are trying to get the FEC ban the anti Kerry program. As then, the FEC won't do anything, cause this stuff is protected free speech.

If you're speaking of the Swiftboat ads, that's because they are illegal, as all the participants have been proven through other means that they are lying which is illegal in endorsed commercial ads.

First of all, there are no "equal time" requirement laws in the United States for the airwaves. Since such laws would violate the first amendment.
The only requirement is that if you sign a written contract with someone to air their stuff, then you have to air it, or face legal santions.
They wouldn't show an episode of Saturday Night Live hosted by Al Sharpton in California because of it's proximity to the primaries required, what? Equal time.

there are equal time laws, they couldm't show arnie movies during the recall because of it. but paid advertisements are not bound by equal time laws.

Moore could always buy himself some time on cable and show his movie, of course he won't because he only wants to make money not spend it.

InDemand PPV can play whatever they want, whenever they want... I'm sure Moore knew that prior to signing whatever contract was signed for him to allow them the right to show it in the first place.

Ask youself, "Why, if Moore wanted to get the message out there so much, did he only try to get it broadcast on PAY TV"???

Didn't anyone else want to have the chance to broadcast it? Or is this really all about the $$ more than the message?

There's always a couple sides to these stories.

No the FEC tried to ban it under political pressure from extremist republican groups in Congress.
Now extremist Democrat groups in Congress are trying to get the FEC ban the anti Kerry program. As then, the FEC won't do anything, cause this stuff is protected free speech.
this falls under New York Times v Sullivan and im sure alot of other cases involving public airwaves and political crap

First of all, there are no "equal time" requirement laws in the United States for the airwaves. Since such laws would violate the first amendment.

Then why are media outlets so persnickety about any sort of political speech? I remember a telecast of a horse race that was shown on a TV station in Columbus. The announcer walked through the crowd asking people who (meaning which horse) they liked. One guy said, "I like Congressman Bob McEwen, because he--" and he was immediately cut off. I assumed he was cut off because the station didn't want to be forced to give equal time to McEwen's opponent. Why else would he have been cut off, unless there were legal ramifications for letting him spiel?

there are equal time laws, they couldm't show arnie movies during the recall because of it. but paid advertisements are not bound by equal time laws.

Also, there was a five-time "Jeopardy!" champion (this was back in the pre-Ken era) who was not allowed to play in the next year's Tournament of Champions because he was running for a state legislature seat in Ohio. Stations who aired "Jeopardy!" would have had to give his opponent equal time.

If you're speaking of the Swiftboat ads, that's because they are illegal, as all the participants have been proven through other means that they are lying which is illegal in endorsed commercial ads.

Bullshit. Every one of those veterans either served with Kerry or was in his chain of command. They have no reason whatsoever to lie. And don't EVEN try to say they just don't want Kerry as President! Why would they jeapordize the remainder of their lives just to stop a political candidate? For once, just try using your head for something besides a hatrack! :(

Bullshit. Every one of those veterans either served with Kerry or was in his chain of command. They have no reason whatsoever to lie. And don't EVEN try to say they just don't want Kerry as President! Why would they jeapordize the remainder of their lives just to stop a political candidate? For once, just try using your head for something besides a hatrack! :(

I agree.

I agree.

Kewl. You're one of the few in this "din of inequity" who does.

Bullshit. Every one of those veterans either served with Kerry or was in his chain of command. They have no reason whatsoever to lie. And don't EVEN try to say they just don't want Kerry as President! Why would they jeapordize the remainder of their lives just to stop a political candidate? For once, just try using your head for something besides a hatrack! :(

Please explain how they are jeaprodizing the remainder of thier lives with this. I'd love to hear this.

Please explain how they are jeaprodizing the remainder of thier lives with this. I'd love to hear this.

IF they were lying ( I know they're not, but just for argument's sake ) and there were any real proof that they were, their reputations would be in the toilet with virtually everyone, including me. Especially if Kerry were elected, their chances of being fired from their jobs, pilloried in the press ( even moreso than they already have been ), having their military records "disappear," etc., would be extremely high.

IF they were lying ( I know they're not, but just for argument's sake ) and there were any real proof that they were, their reputations would be in the toilet with virtually everyone, including me. Especially if Kerry were elected, their chances of being fired from their jobs, pilloried in the press ( even moreso than they already have been ), having their military records "disappear," etc., would be extremely high.
I guess when you live in a world where this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=362859) makes sense, that might work-but we live in a world where hardly anyone knows or cares what these people do for a living, can name more than two of them, and Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy are currently media personalities. You only get 15, and they've used up 14.

McConnell, US Senator versus Federal Election Commission
US Supreme Court 2003

Title 2 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 only prohibits corporations and unions from using their main funds for communications intended to influence an election.
Other issue advocacy ads are legal at any time even if they mention a candidate's name, as long as they don't specifically advocate a candidate's elecyion or defeat.

The US Supreme ruled that the section on communications must be upheld in the main.
Such speech must be regulated only as an in kind political contribution. But the standards for communications are looser than they are for financial contributions.
Section 323 only regulates broadcast communications funded by the local or state parties. It does not affect individuals.
"Moreover, because the record demonstrates abundantly, that the third category of "federal election activity", public communications, that attack or promote a federal candidate, directly affects the election in which the candidate is participating, application of section 323's contribution caps to such communications is closely drawn to the anticorruption interest it is intended to address."
Section 305 does not require broadcast stations to charge a candidate higher rates for unsigned ads that happen to mention his opponent.
The provision simply allows said stations to change their rates for such ads. Some stations may take advantage of this and institute discriminatory pricing between the candidates.
However, section 504 was declared unconstitutional as it violated the first amendment. Section 504 rests entirely on the fairness doctrine.
Section 504 requires broadcasters to maintain and disclose records of any request for air time that is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office OR that communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance, including communications that refer to any qualified candidates, any election to federal office, and a national legislative issue of public importance.
The core of Section 504 impinges on first amendment rights. Therefore it is subject to a more demanding test than mere rationalization based review.
Required disclosure requirements that deter constitutionally protected free speech rights or rights of association, are subject to higher scrutiny.
The government gives no interest whatever to support 504.
Majority rules that because Section 504 rests on codes already in place at another federal agency, the FCC, it does not violate free speech rights.
Hence, this is an FCC issue and not an FEC issue.
However, 504 is not upheld in its entirety.
The law does not address at what times such communications may air.

Decision by the FCC:
A request by Infinity Broadcasting Corp for a declatory ruling.
Infinity asked the FCC to declare that the Howard Stern show is a news program and as such is exempt from the equal opportunity requirement of section 315 of the 1934 communications act.
Section 315 states that if a broadcaster allows a legally qualified candidate for public office to use the station, it must offer equal opportunities to other candidates for that office.
However said section also states that appearances by candidates for public office on news programs are exempt from equal opportunity.
In 1959, Congress stated that to qualify as a news interview program, the show must be regularly scheduled, the content, format, and participants must be determined by the licensee, and the decision must be made in the exercise of the station's news judgment, not for the political advantage of any candidate.
while initially the Commission only accepted programs like Meet the Press and Face Nation as actual news programs, in 1984 this was changed to include programs like the Donahue show. Commission ruled that that fact that other sections of the Donahue show that do not include discussions of political events is immaterial.
Therefore, the FCC ruled that the news interview section of the Howard Stern show meets this requirement.
Hence, if Fox News wants to interview Bush or broadcast something in favor of Bush, they are not required to do the same for Kerry.

These laws apply only to broadcasters and not cable or pay per view stations.
Due to the fact that broadcasters, (according to both the rulings of the Supreme Court and the FCC), recieve federal dollars and hence are open to direct federal involvment in what they can broadcast. Whereas cable stations and pay per view stations do not receive federal dollars.

If you're speaking of the Swiftboat ads, that's because they are illegal, as all the participants have been proven through other means that they are lying which is illegal in endorsed commercial ads.
Actually only some of the participants were found to be lying.

If you're speaking of the Swiftboat ads, that's because they are illegal, as all the participants have been proven through other means that they are lying which is illegal in endorsed commercial ads.
I am referring to the anti kerry program that is due out. BTW.

Then why are media outlets so persnickety about any sort of political speech? I remember a telecast of a horse race that was shown on a TV station in Columbus. The announcer walked through the crowd asking people who (meaning which horse) they liked. One guy said, "I like Congressman Bob McEwen, because he--" and he was immediately cut off. I assumed he was cut off because the station didn't want to be forced to give equal time to McEwen's opponent. Why else would he have been cut off, unless there were legal ramifications for letting him spiel?
That's unusual but the station's decision was not based on legal requirements. Rather, I would say that the fellow's speech had nothing to do with the show format which was sports. If I was doing a sports show and some guy started spouting something not sports related I would cut him off too.

How many times do I have to say this, you cannot ban any form of political speech from the airwaves, just like you can't ban religious speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that the only speech you can censor is commercial, in which the person or group doing the speaking are making a financial profit.
I thought this was supposed to be a "documentary", not a political speech. And furthermore, you don't think Moore will make any money from this? In my mind, that would be a commercial venture.

I thought this was supposed to be a "documentary", not a political speech. And furthermore, you don't think Moore will make any money from this? In my mind, that would be a commercial venture.
A commercial venture yes, and also subject to what terms are in the contract he signed. Since we don't have access to said contract, we cannot say who is right or wrong in this case.
Also, there are a lot of things labeled "documentary" that really aren't.
Farenheit 911 being one of them.

Michael Moore is suing US cable pay-per-view TV company 'IN DEMAND' for dumping his "pre-election special", which included the airing of his controversial documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

The company doesn't want to show this film on the eve of the election - they want to air it afterwards because of the controversy surrounding 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

When you have a 50% political division in your viewers, you wouldn't want to anger half of your audience.

Besides, who wants to pay $9.95 just to see Fahrenheit, and watch a bunch of self important actors tell you how to vote.
What's "self important" and what actors are in Fahrenheit 9/11?

McConnell, US Senator versus Federal Election Commission
US Supreme Court 2003

Title 2 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 only prohibits corporations and unions from using their main funds for communications intended to influence an election.
Other issue advocacy ads are legal at any time even if they mention a candidate's name, as long as they don't specifically advocate a candidate's elecyion or defeat.

The US Supreme ruled that the section on communications must be upheld in the main.
Such speech must be regulated only as an in kind political contribution. But the standards for communications are looser than they are for financial contributions.
Section 323 only regulates broadcast communications funded by the local or state parties. It does not affect individuals.
"Moreover, because the record demonstrates abundantly, that the third category of "federal election activity", public communications, that attack or promote a federal candidate, directly affects the election in which the candidate is participating, application of section 323's contribution caps to such communications is closely drawn to the anticorruption interest it is intended to address."
Section 305 does not require broadcast stations to charge a candidate higher rates for unsigned ads that happen to mention his opponent.
The provision simply allows said stations to change their rates for such ads. Some stations may take advantage of this and institute discriminatory pricing between the candidates.
However, section 504 was declared unconstitutional as it violated the first amendment. Section 504 rests entirely on the fairness doctrine.
Section 504 requires broadcasters to maintain and disclose records of any request for air time that is made by or on behalf of a legally qualified candidate for public office OR that communicates a message relating to any political matter of national importance, including communications that refer to any qualified candidates, any election to federal office, and a national legislative issue of public importance.
The core of Section 504 impinges on first amendment rights. Therefore it is subject to a more demanding test than mere rationalization based review.
Required disclosure requirements that deter constitutionally protected free speech rights or rights of association, are subject to higher scrutiny.
The government gives no interest whatever to support 504.
Majority rules that because Section 504 rests on codes already in place at another federal agency, the FCC, it does not violate free speech rights.
Hence, this is an FCC issue and not an FEC issue.
However, 504 is not upheld in its entirety.
The law does not address at what times such communications may air.

Decision by the FCC:
A request by Infinity Broadcasting Corp for a declatory ruling.
Infinity asked the FCC to declare that the Howard Stern show is a news program and as such is exempt from the equal opportunity requirement of section 315 of the 1934 communications act.
Section 315 states that if a broadcaster allows a legally qualified candidate for public office to use the station, it must offer equal opportunities to other candidates for that office.
However said section also states that appearances by candidates for public office on news programs are exempt from equal opportunity.
In 1959, Congress stated that to qualify as a news interview program, the show must be regularly scheduled, the content, format, and participants must be determined by the licensee, and the decision must be made in the exercise of the station's news judgment, not for the political advantage of any candidate.
while initially the Commission only accepted programs like Meet the Press and Face Nation as actual news programs, in 1984 this was changed to include programs like the Donahue show. Commission ruled that that fact that other sections of the Donahue show that do not include discussions of political events is immaterial.
Therefore, the FCC ruled that the news interview section of the Howard Stern show meets this requirement.
Hence, if Fox News wants to interview Bush or broadcast something in favor of Bush, they are not required to do the same for Kerry.

These laws apply only to broadcasters and not cable or pay per view stations.
Due to the fact that broadcasters, (according to both the rulings of the Supreme Court and the FCC), recieve federal dollars and hence are open to direct federal involvment in what they can broadcast. Whereas cable stations and pay per view stations do not receive federal dollars.


I must also point that the Supreme Court also ruled that you cannot sign a valid enforeable contract that restricts your constitutional rights. Hence, if the issue is the station's right to free speech, that might overrule contrarian contract provisions. Too bad Moore doesn't have his own station.

Ok first of all... I did say at the end of my post I may not be remembering things correctly. Secondly, Chess you are extremely rude and should learn how to properly express yourself if you are wanting to win over supporters. Cursing and acting like child only makes you look like a fool.

Michael Moore's movie may may not have been shown in full length on tv but that is not what I was saying in my post. I was saying that it was covered by the news media and advertised on tv. Everyone knew about it and you didnt' have to go see it to know what it was about.

As for the equal time thing being bullshit. I dont' remember who posted that.. It may not be something enforced in the presidential election but it is when it comes to the, in this case democrates, running to be elected as the parties nominee for president.

It was brought up when Al Sharpton was on SNL and why many states didn't show that episode. Also, when Arnold was running for gov of California his movies were not allow to be shown in the state, any billboards promoting his movies were removed. So, this claim of yours that it's bullshit.. is false.

As I said I may not have expressed it clearly and it could be incorrect for the PRESIDENTIAL election but in other elections there is something called equal time.

As a side note to Chess.. it's not wise to assume someone is democrate or replican because they dislike Michael Moore. I know a lot of people that are democrate that hate him as much as republicans.

Ok first of all... I did say at the end of my post I may not be remembering things correctly. Secondly, Chess you are extremely rude and should learn how to properly express yourself if you are wanting to win over supporters. Cursing and acting like child only makes you look like a fool.

Michael Moore's movie may may not have been shown in full length on tv but that is not what I was saying in my post. I was saying that it was covered by the news media and advertised on tv. Everyone knew about it and you didnt' have to go see it to know what it was about.

As for the equal time thing being bullshit. I dont' remember who posted that.. It may not be something enforced in the presidential election but it is when it comes to the, in this case democrates, running to be elected as the parties nominee for president.

It was brought up when Al Sharpton was on SNL and why many states didn't show that episode. Also, when Arnold was running for gov of California his movies were not allow to be shown in the state, any billboards promoting his movies were removed. So, this claim of yours that it's bullshit.. is false.

As I said I may not have expressed it clearly and it could be incorrect for the PRESIDENTIAL election but in other elections there is something called equal time.

As a side note to Chess.. it's not wise to assume someone is democrate or replican because they dislike Michael Moore. I know a lot of people that are democrate that hate him as much as republicans.
equal time is not ads. and when did michael moores movie come out? oh right, now a week before the final election.

The thing is he's pushing for it to be seen again.

There is a quote in a magazine i believe it was People magazine that has michael moore saying that the point of his movie is to get Bush out of office and sure he may have exagerated the truth but if it gets Bush out of office then he did his job with the movie.

I wish I could find the actual quote. I'll do my best to hunt it down. Then maybe some of you who think Moore is a god send will finally realize how manipulative he is :)

How many saw bowling for columbine? Remember the part where he showed the banks giving guns away and made it appear that they did not background check and jsut handed them over. That's false. THat is him taking images and cutting them to suit is needs. Those of you that can't see that and actually think everything Moore says and does is the truth really need to wake up.

Moore is in this to make money and boy has he ever made money. He goes for shock value and anything to help him get a quick buck. Dont' base your vote in the election on his movie. Actually research the things he speaks about and see how much of it is taken out of context. You'll be surprised

I did see part of Bowling For Columbine, but turned it off as soon as I saw Moore.

Here are some quotes by michael moore. Look them up for yourself if you dont' believe me


There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them. People are easily manipulated . . . and we have disastrous media.



"I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a deserter. What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants" (Real mature hmm?)



"I like America to some extent."

''They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet," Moore told Britain's Mirror newspaper recently, referring to his fellow citizens as a whole."

"We need to change our ethic and aspire to be more Canadian-like,"

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html Has an interesting article "Michael Moore makes at least 17 factual errors or misrepresentations in his latest book, Dude, Where's My Country?, ranging from stating disputed information as fact to repeating a media myth to twisting his own sources."



http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

Here are some quotes by michael moore. Look them up for yourself if you dont' believe me


There's a gullible side to the American people. They can be easily misled. Religion is the best device used to mislead them. People are easily manipulated . . . and we have disastrous media.



"I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a deserter. What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants" (Real mature hmm?)

Hmm, well, Americans are gillible. Why else woould they think Swift boats are credible. A couple of religions have been good at misleading people. Scientology is a example.
The media is disasterous somethings.

Bush did desert/awol, he did mislead people and unpologetic about it regarding WMDs, he can barely say words somethings but he is getting nbetter, but I've never knew he was a drunk driver... I though this wife was?
If you didn't know she killed someone while speeding, running red light, and drunk. She wasn't comvicted because they payed off family.
And actually Supreme Court stole election not Bush, but he did accept stolen goods.

Depends on what the grounds are, really.

In the end, they ARE a privatized company, and if they say "no" then that's the answer. Hoever, there could very easily be some loophole I don't know about.
. . . or a contract. It would be interesting to read the contract.

I'm not really conversant with FCC regulations, but isn't there a provision which says something about this sort of situation?
FCC has no place in this. OnDemand is a cable service not a broadcast network.

look at the "liberal media" go! they are refusing to air Fahrenheit 9/11 on PAY PER VIEW and they are forcing a commercial free kerry bashing "documentary" on 62 broadcast stations

thats one hell of a "liberal media" machine


Even the liberal media wants to make money.

You can't sue someone for not wanting to show something. That's not what Moore is doing. Moore is able to sue because he had a contract with InDemand. The contract stated that Moore would be able to show his movie on the eve of the election. By cancelling or moving the air date, InDemand is in breach of their contract. THAT is how he can sue, not simply because InDemand didn't want to show it, but because they are violating their contract.
Ah! Now THAT makes sense.

"We need to change our ethic and aspire to be more Canadian-like,"



LOL funny especially how he's wanted in Canada for election tampering.

If I remember correctly I think it has something to do with equal air time for the candidates?
Not applicable. InDemand is a pay per view cable distributor.
Remember when Al Sharpton when on SNL and some states didnt' show the programming because not all the guys going for the Democratic nomination were being allowed to host?
Applicable. SNL is broadcast by NBC over public airwaves.
I think the same applies with a the presidential election. If you show one you have to show the other. Now Michael Moore's stuff has been in the news, on the movie screen and on the tv so the kerry bashing show would be the 'equal time' coming into play.

Like I said I could be way off and not remembering my facts correctly.
Bingo!

He either illegally downloaded it or is lying to you.
or was lent or given a bootleg copy.

no it that the peoples that control the media relized that bush will be a better lapdog then kerry

which may be good becouse bush is the lesser of the 2 evils

Well yes, it would be hard to find an evil inferior to Bush. When it comes to evil he's absolutly the worst.

Remember the wise words of Mae West - Whenever I'm forced to choose between two evils I always pick the one I haven't tried yet.

news my fucking ass
So, THAT is what your ass has been up to! :D

Seriously, the fact that people were moaning about it was what was news. Kinda like how the anti Passion Of Christ fans did more to advertise the movie than Gibson ever could have spent to get the same buzz.

Well yes, it would be hard to find an evil inferior to Bush. When it comes to evil he's absolutly the worst.

Remember the wise words of Mae West - Whenever I'm forced to choose between two evils I always pick the one I haven't tried yet.


So you're basing a vote for Kerry on the words that a Mae West character spoke in a movie?

Understood, but, I doubt they would've signed a contract like that so close to an election, as per laws instituted years ago by the FEC.
I'm not aware of any FEC rules that would apply. Do you have something in particular or just shooting the shit?

The term 'media' typically refers to news (CBS, CNN, etc) NOT pay per view movie channels. Hell, individual stations aren't even refered to as the media.

A medium is means by which information is communicated. For that matter it is any means by which energy moves, but Pay Per View channels are media.

For the record, back when the Sinclair :mp5: crap started I said that network TV was not the place for such a steaming pack of lies. Pay Per View was. I stand by it.

Aye, what the hey! This tub-o-lard already had his shot. What does he think, he actually controls something, or possibly is important! Blah, drivel cakes, I mean steaks!

His crap was aired, be happy, get over it, it's done. It's *TIME TO MOVE ON*

Next thing ya know he'll be sniveling that Sinclair's show was broadcast. Oh, wait, Sinclair does OWN something, AND is an IMPORTANT figure in the world.

I hope he loses and has to pay millions in court waste, fraud, and public salary. Then gets countered sued for stupidity! That would be hillary-ous!

First of all, there are no "equal time" requirement laws in the United States for the airwaves. Since such laws would violate the first amendment.
The only requirement is that if you sign a written contract with someone to air their stuff, then you have to air it, or face legal santions.
ERRRGGGHHH - That is the wrong answer V2. You will not go home with the Jamacian vacation, the 2005 GrandAm or the $10,000 Jackpot.

The correct answer is http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016b.html Has an interesting article "Michael Moore makes at least 17 factual errors or misrepresentations in his latest book, Dude, Where's My Country?, ranging from stating disputed information as fact to repeating a media myth to twisting his own sources."



http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031016.html

Compared to the legions of right wing hacksters (tammy bruce, anne coulter, bill o'reilly etc.) a mere 17 errors in an entire book is practically oracular insight. If I wanted to highlight errors in any of their books I wouldn't use a pen I'd use spray paint. I could probably find factual errors in their endnotes, if I could keep from tearing the pages out with my teeth.

A medium is means by which information is communicated. For that matter it is any means by which energy moves, but Pay Per View channels are media.

For the record, back when the Sinclair :mp5: crap started I said that network TV was not the place for such a steaming pack of lies. Pay Per View was. I stand by it.
Only media that recieves taxpayer money, which would be pretty all television or radio stations that makes broadcasts over the air waves.
Cable channels and sat radio are not government subsidized and hence not subject to government regs. They do however, have their own voluntary standards that they follow on this stuff.

Media is communication mediums, individual stations qualify. And, as far as inDemand goes, the following media conglomerates own it:
Comcast, Time Warner Entertainment, Cox Communications Holdings Inc., MediaOne of Delaware Inc. and TCI Communications Inc. (an AT&T subsidiary) hold stakes in iNDEMAND (formerly Viewer's Choice)

That alone qualifies it for discussion.
Interesting, but irrelevant. Since Time-Warner, a cable distrubutor, is the parent company of InDemand it is required to then offer candidate B equal time [b]if it sells or gives away time to candidate A."

Since MM is not a candidate but is a private citizen expressing his viewpoint in F911. See http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm for full exposition.

Compared to the legions of right wing hacksters (tammy bruce, anne coulter, bill o'reilly etc.) a mere 17 errors in an entire book is practically oracular insight. If I wanted to highlight errors in any of their books I wouldn't use a pen I'd use spray paint. I could probably find factual errors in their endnotes, if I could keep from tearing the pages out with my teeth.


Then go ahead. Point out some factual errors. You're presented with tallied evidence and you reply with crap. Back your statement up.

ERRRGGGHHH - That is the wrong answer V2. You will not go home with the Jamacian vacation, the 2005 GrandAm or the $10,000 Jackpot.

The correct answer is http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm
Wrong, if you read it more carefully it only says you have to offer equal time. So if the other guy can't afford to pay what you are asking, you don't have to give him the time slot.
Its not about equal time, but equal opportunity. Same as everything else in America.
And, section 315, the Equal Time Rule, requires broadcasters to afford equal opportunity to candidates seeking political office,
Generally, though, the FCC determined station "fairness" based on the overall programming record of the licensee. The Court reaffirmed the notion that licensees were not obligated to sell or give time to specific opposing groups to meet Fairness Doctrine requirements as long as the licensee met its public trustee obligations.
In the 1985 Fairness Report, the FCC concluded that scarcity was no longer a valid argument and the Fairness Doctrine inhibited broadcasters from airing more controversial material. Two cases gave the commission the power to eliminate the Doctrine; in TRAC v. FCC, the court ruled that the Doctrine was not codified as part of the 1959 Amendment to the Communications Act as previously assumed. Secondly, the FCC applied the Fairness Doctrine to a Syracuse television station after it ran editorials supporting the building of a nuclear power plant (Meredith Corp. v. FCC, 809 F. 2d. 863 (1987); Syracuse Peace Council 3 FCCR 2035 (1987)). Meredith Corporation challenged the Doctrine and cited the 1985 FCC Report calling for the Doctrine's repeal. The courts remanded the case back to the commission to determine whether the Doctrine was constitutional and in the public interest. In 1987, the FCC repealed the Doctrine, with the exception of the personal attack and political editorializing rules which still remain in effect.
Looks like the FCC repealed the Fairness Doctrine.

Maybe they'll rethink if they start losing money over it.
Lookie Here (http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&mode=basics&comparison=on&symbol=sbgi&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&selected=sbgi)

Lookie Here (http://quotes.nasdaq.com/quote.dll?page=charting&mode=basics&comparison=on&symbol=sbgi&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&symbol=&selected=sbgi)
Hell, in that case they ought to be showing it. It'll increase their viewer ship cause of it being controversial.

Michael Moore suing someone who does something he thinks is against him. Big deal. Jabba always threatens legal action whenever someone does that. After all, how many times did he say he was going to sue whoever called him out on his lies in F9-11?

Suffice it to say, Sean Hannity is still waiting for the legal papers from Jabba's lawyers. I wouldn't lose sleep if I were the CEO of iNDemand.

Looks like cable and pay per view stations are now governed by the 1996 Telecommunications Act.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/U/htmlU/uspolicyt/uspolicyt.htm

the act mandates that the industry develop a ratings system to identify violent, sexual and indecent or otherwise objectionable programming. The Communications Decency Act of 1996, embedded in the Telecommunications Act, requires the FCC to devise a rating system if the industry fails to develop such a system within one year of passage of the act.
In conjunction with the establishment of a ratings system, the Telecommunications Act requires television set manufacturers to install a blocking device, called the V-chip, in television receivers larger than 13 inches in screen size by 1998.
Other provisions of the Communication Decency Act require programmers to limit minors' exposure to objectionable material by scrambling channels depicting explicit sexual behavior and blocking access channels that might contain offensive material.

Check it out: it's a violation of federal law to flame:
The Telecommunication Act of 1996 includes Title V, called the Communications Decency Act of 1996 (CDA). The inclusion of the CDA culminates more than a year of debate by members of Congress over the degree to which government could regulate the transmission of objectionable material over computer networks. It creates criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly transmits material that could be construed as indecent to minors. The act criminalizes the intentional transmission of "any comment, request, suggestion, image, or other communications which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent...." Enforcement of the CDA includes the filing of criminal charges against any person who uses the computer network for such a transmission. Additionally, the CDA establishes an "anti-flame" provision by prohibiting any computer network transmission for the purpose of annoying or harassing the recipients of messages. If enforced, penalties under the CDA could range as high as $250,000 for each violation.

Bet you didn't know you could be fined by the federal government for flaming.

Oh, but it was declared unconstitutional:

Various free speech advocates and First Amendment scholars claim that the language in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 is overly broad. Computer experts express concern over whether government should regulate the flow of information on the Internet and other computer-based networks. On the day the President signed the bill into law, the ACLU and other plaintiffs filed suit against Attorney General Janet Reno seeking to enjoin the enforcement of the provisions of Title V on the grounds that it was unconstitutional. Judge Ronald L. Buckwater, a federal judge in Philadelphia, ruled that the language in the law regarding indecent material was unconstitutionally vague but upheld parts of the law regulating obscene and patently offensive information.

Just felt like sharing a few of my thoughts on some of the posts in this thread.
How many saw bowling for columbine? Remember the part where he showed the banks giving guns away and made it appear that they did not background check and jsut handed them over. That's false. THat is him taking images and cutting them to suit is needs. Those of you that can't see that and actually think everything Moore says and does is the truth really need to wake up.Hmm...must be my TV, cause the version I watched had the women at the bank telling Moore they were a licensed gun supplier and he could get the gun only after filling in all the forms and the background check.
I'm not saying Moore doesn't manipulate images for effect, but best find an real example before criticising him. Also does it not occur to you he was wanting to show an absurdity of a bank giving away guns?
I did see part of Bowling For Columbine, but turned it off as soon as I saw MooreWTF did you expect to see in a movie by Michael Moore?!! Skippy the Kangaroo?
Or perhaps are you just showing how 'cool' you are by informing the rest of us that you refused to watch it? Good way to go about ensuring never being forced into questioning your opinions, I guess.
"I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a deserter. What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar, and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants" (Real mature hmm?)Lord knows, he's not allowed to crack a joke now and again. :rolleyes:
So you're basing a vote for Kerry on the words that a Mae West character spoke in a movie? Why not, that's far better than some of the other reasons I've seen thrown about the place! :)
Odd... then how did my Kerry-supporting friend see F/911 when he said he didn't go to the movies to see it and didn't rent/buy it? J'Accuse! Can anyone else see the mistake in the above quote? That's right: "my friend". Obviously a false statement thrown in to try to support a crumbling premise. :)

Michael Moore is suing US cable pay-per-view TV company 'IN DEMAND' for dumping his "pre-election special", which included the airing of his controversial documentary 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

The company doesn't want to show this film on the eve of the election - they want to air it afterwards because of the controversy surrounding 'Fahrenheit 9/11'.

When you have a 50% political division in your viewers, you wouldn't want to anger half of your audience.

Besides, who wants to pay $9.95 just to see Fahrenheit, and watch a bunch of self important actors tell you how to vote.
His arteries and ass should sue him for making them clogged and gigantic, the fat lying pig.

Interesting, but irrelevant. Since Time-Warner, a cable distrubutor, is the parent company of InDemand it is required to then offer candidate B equal time [b]if it sells or gives away time to candidate A."

Since MM is not a candidate but is a private citizen expressing his viewpoint in F911. See http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm for full exposition.
I wasn't discussing the idea of equal time with that post, rather the notion that PPV wasn't media. So you're right, it is irrelevant to your argument, but I wasn't talking about your argument. Pulling it out was irrelivant.

The relivancy in that particular post was corperate media ownership. I haven't looked, but I believe this whole 'equal time' tangent didn't even come up until after I had pointed this out, or at the very least by the time what I was responding to.

In 1987, the Federal Communications Commission repealed most of the elements of the so-called "fairness doctrine," which required broadcast TV and radio stations to provide "access for expression of divergent points of view."

After the 1987 repeal, the FCC still required stations to provide candidates not endorsed by the station with a "reasonable opportunity to reply." The post-1987 rules also gave candidates free reply time if they were attacked by the station based on "honesty, character, integrity" or similar personal qualities. News programs were exempt from these rules. In late 2100, the FCC suspended these two rules.

Fairness doctrine opponents claim that the doctrine is government regulation of free speech. Supporters say it guarantees public figures air-time to respond to detractors.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2519/is_9_22/ai_80813222

His arteries and ass should sue him for making them clogged and gigantic, the fat lying pig.

So let me get this straight: because Moore is fat...he's subhuman?

Wow, I didn't know you were THAT filled with hate. Must be hard, hating all the overweight people. Especially in America. I mean...holy shit, that's a whole lot of hate.

I am a pathetic Liar!

***Cough***