Friday, September 08, 2006

Harry Reid & True Censorship

Sphere: Related Content

We all hear cries of censorship whenever anybody is not allowed to speak. Most times it is not, as censorship is when the government curtails free speech, not individuals.

Well, thanks to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, we are now seeing censorship attempted by the Democrats:

[T]he manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC… Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation…

The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events…

Emphasis mine. Durbin, Stabenow, Schumer, Dorgan and Reid all endorsed this veiled threat to a major television station. Think about that, they are attempting through coercion and force to stop a respected communications company from playing a film they've been told is dramatized simply because it makes their fromer president look culpable. He was of course but don't let the facts get in the way of revisionism.

As Americans--regardless of your ideology--we should be appalled by this. Senior Senators are using their elected position to force Disney into editing or removing a dramatic show for no good reason. I guess the Clintons still have pull in DC.

Allah has been all over this as has Texas Rainmaker, Sister Toldja and Flopping Aces.

On the wrong side of this issue we have Liberal Oasis incessantly whining about this almost-fair-to-Bush Alessandra Stanley piece in the NY Times among a thousand other things.

We also have this inane site waxing non-poetically.

This is a huge issue and the audience watching this will be enormous. I find it hilarious that Harry Reid used this issue to show that he could be tough. The fact is that he is not acting tough but more like a bully with his posse behind him. He is using the (veiled) threat of pulling ABC's license to operate over a made-for-TV movie. Instead of tough, he just looks as if he's trying to cover something up and petty.

The American people know full-well that Bill Clinton screwed up. They also know that George Bush screwed up. They are now seeing the way these two men and their backers handle the issue. Bush is by all accounts portrayed in a bad light. Do you see the right-side of the blogosphere going ballistic and threatening a TV station? Bush has said he made mistakes and has worked to make us safer, which he seems to have succeeded in doing to this point (regardless of what Schumer has to say).

Clinton's camp on the other hand is going bonkers over this issue. Why? The American public does not think that Clinton had nothing to do with 9/11. He was in office for the eight-years prior with the exception of the eight-months before 9/11. The plot was not planned in 8-months. What do they wish to hide? Evidently, Sandy Burger had something to hide and he stole it by inserting it in his pants.

Updates throughout the day. My guess is that ABC folds.

Update: Publicity stunt?

Update 2: My Lord will you all quit whining like little girls? This is why people hate liberals, you can't get your point across without whining incessantly.

Update 3: Clinton just wants them to tell the truth. My head just exploded from the hypocrisy in this one video clip. Just so I know we've not been hit by an asteroid and the change in the earths rotation hasn't transported us to Bizarro world or anything; isn't this the guy who lied to the country, his party, federal prosecutors while under oath and his wife?

No comments: