President Bush 'assassinated' in new TV docudrama

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 31 2006, 03:15 PM) [snapback]312410[/snapback]</div>

I WOULD like to know why this is any different, as asked by hyo.

And, from the article about the show itself:

What...the ideas aren't THERE and it takes a tv show to place them? Since when is THINKING illegal? Since when is TASTELESSNESS illegal?

Vote with your on/off switch, or with your channel changer. Do not, please, go the censorship route. YOU don't find something to your liking...DO NOT WATCH IT. Personally, I think televangelists are pornographic. Do I say YOU should not be allowed to choose to watch them?

I have chosen not to watch ANYTHING centered on Bush. I don't say YOU shouldn't. Who gets to draw the line as to what is and is not "acceptable?" THAT is my question. For me, "tasteless" just doesn't cut it...tasteless to whom, as decided by whom?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 10:51 AM) [snapback]313104[/snapback]</div>

There has always been a limit to free speech, even in America, which has the most liberal free speech laws in human history (there is no prior restraint of speech in America, as there is in Canada and Great Britain). You cannot use speech to incite a riot, for example, and you cannot use speech to encourage people to assassinate someone without running afoul of the law.

I don't think this reprehensible, shameful, irresponsible and possibly hateful television production rises to that level. It is on the same par with the stupid, irresponsible, shameful and hateful statement from Pat Robertson advocating "taking out" Hugo Chavez, but once again, we see that people's political affilliation clouds their judgement, and they object to one more stridently than another.

Of course, the television production had to include months of planning, financing, and a team of people writing and producing it. So there are a lot more of the guilty in this case. In Pat Robertson's case, all he had to do was open his mouth and let something stupid fly out (which we should be used to.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 2 2006, 11:18 AM) [snapback]313113[/snapback]</div>

"I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire

And I am NOT talking about crying "FIRE" in a crowded theater.

And READ the rest of what I said, FSH.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 03:15 PM) [snapback]313127[/snapback]</div>

Unless my reading comprehension has left the building, it appears that you are vigorously agreeing with each other.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 2 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]313215[/snapback]</div>

OMG that IS a scary thought! Reads to me like allowing such stuff is equivalent to incitement to riot (or assassinate, or whatever). I'll be MORE THAN happy to eat my words if FSH is actually agreeing with me, and not just responding to what s/he knows from other posts to be my politial position on that scale.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 06:33 PM) [snapback]313221[/snapback]</div>

Yeah, I know what you mean, but there has to be some common ground, right?

Here are the pieces of commonality:

FSHAGAN:

RUFARO

I read those as essentially the same position. No to censorship. Personal choice to view or not. Its the adult position, however there are many out there (on the LEFT & RIGHT) who wish to turn adults into children by censoring media. I think that boobies (etc, etc) on late night TV is perfectly ok - if a parent cannot control what their children watches on TV at night, then how can you assume that they can control what they browse on the internet, who they visit, etc, etc. I am heartily sick of the religiously correct (Focus on the Family) and the politically correct BS that I am subjected to on a continual basis.

 

Fair enough, Triphop. I see what you mean.

To clarify: My position is we CANNOT start censorship of ideas with which some of us do not agree.

At the risk(!) of being repetitive, who gets to decide?

There is a HUGE difference between "off-the-cuff" remarks and "fiction."

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 06:52 PM) [snapback]313233[/snapback]</div>

In other words - you don't get to choose your facts. If you say something and its wrong - its quite OK to say: Sorry! This is what I meant to say: ...

I have seen on this very site that kind of nonsense - and, no, its not OK - quit repeating the lies you get told. (you seem quite open-minded - this is always preferable to the kettle-drum roll of BS you can find.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 2 2006, 08:44 PM) [snapback]313343[/snapback]</div>

No, that is not at all what I either meant or said. FACTS are, indeed facts. This "conversation" has been about FICTION. Note the "drama" bit in the thread's title.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 11:59 PM) [snapback]313350[/snapback]</div>

Indeed - we have to agree on facts - my point.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 2 2006, 09:03 PM) [snapback]313352[/snapback]</div>

Well, no...see the arguments on here about stuff like evolution and global warming. Some folks do not agree on facts. My position here has been that we are talking about what is OBVIOUSLY fiction, and everyone's right to choose to watch/produce such fiction. Triphop, you are jumping all over me for defending the right to watch/produce crap like the "docudrama" in the title of this thread. *I* won't watch it. I do not believe *I* have the right to censor it. It is NOT the same as shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or "incitement to riot." It is a FANTASY, just like the Harry Potter movies are fantasies. And there are those who want to censor those books and movies because they SEEM to support beliefs repugnant to some.

My point is IDEAS cannot/should not be censored. I think that FSH is saying that it IS ideas that should be censored, in case propounding ideas gives OTHER people ideas (in this case, show a fictional film about assassinating dubya, and it may spark THAT idea in someone who had not previously thought of it). How absurd is that? How frightening?

Let's just not talk about the elephant in the room instead, ok?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 3 2006, 12:18 AM) [snapback]313358[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. The whole topic is flame-bait. Luckily they have left the room. I do believe that facts ultimately win out. Global Warming will be harder & harder to deny - lets hope that we have some wiggle room left. Actually GW is one of those things that depress me the most. It would be much easier to simply ignore it. Pretend it does not exist. Cowardly yes, easier too.

As for this film - who cares? I might see it one day and it might be a laugh or a good movie. I will judge it when it is in front of me. This might occur over a beer or wine at a friends house or however. The crazy thing for me are those people who will get all excited over something they have never seen. Thinking Passion of the Christ, the Michael Moore movies or that thing about Reagan. I have heard heartily argued posts from people who do not let ignorance stop them from spewing forth.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 3 2006, 12:33 AM) [snapback]313363[/snapback]</div>

Agreed. Does anybody even know what the premise of the movie is? Does it actually ADVOCATE the assassination of W? If it does, I can see how some people would be upset by it ... but to be outraged just because his assassination is depicted in a fictionalized story doesn't make too much sense. I agree it might be in bad taste to depict any real-life person being done harm to (although I think it really depends on who it is -- how many Americans would be outraged at the depiction of Osama bin Laden being blown away?), but there are a lot of movies out there that I would consider to be in bad taste -- I'm thinking "Saw" and "Hostel'" for example -- I wouldn't spend money to go see them and I wonder about people who enjoy that sort of thing, and I don't see a whole lot of protests and outrage against them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PriusRos @ Sep 3 2006, 09:12 AM) [snapback]313461[/snapback]</div>

It was described in the Guardian piece I mentioned a few days ago. Here's an extract:

 

As for the premise of the show itself, I think it's deeply flawed. I doubt if any Arabs other than Saudis have been allowed within 5 miles of Bush recently, and I think he would be far more likely to be assassinated by a white, American-born nutcase than an Arab.
[/quote]


I think it's naive to think that there aren't a variety of people who might be inclined to assassinate a man who has caused so much ill will around the world, "nutcases" or not. Equally naive is this comment (from a BBC article on the film) by John Beyer of UK TV pressure group MediaWatch who said the film was "irresponsible". He said it could even trigger a real assassination attempt and told the Daily Mirror: "There's a lot of feeling against President Bush and this may well put ideas into people's heads." Ummm...do we really think that there are people out there who never considered doing this until they saw the film? That's like banning sex education films in school so teens won't think of having sex.

I would never advocate solving political problems by assassinating leaders but I'm not opposed to a film that, if done responsibly, depicts where political actions might lead. Maybe this is a wake-up call and could prevent some awful events from occurring.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 2 2006, 03:41 PM) [snapback]313226[/snapback]</div>

Do you think that could lead to a slippery slope scenario?

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]313358[/snapback]</div>

Do you mean these kinds of facts? http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
If no one questioned facts would these evolutionary facts have ever been discovered?
Many of these kinds of facts are still taught in school.
I may misunderstand your position so forgive me.
Wildkow

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(triphop @ Sep 2 2006, 03:26 PM) [snapback]313215[/snapback]</div>

Indeed. I seem to have the unique ability to piss people off when agreeing with them.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rufaro @ Sep 2 2006, 09:18 PM) [snapback]313358[/snapback]</div>

Not at all. In this country, we have a constitutional right to free speech, which includes obnoxious speech. In court cases, there's a range of limitations based on the kind of speech ... but almost never with religious and political speech. That simply doesn't exist elsewhere in the world, even in countries we normally associate with having all the freedoms we do (Canada, England, etc.)

Where free speech does get limited is when the government can show that the speech could incite a riot, etc., or where some other compelling reason stands in the way. That's an impossibly high standard for political or religious speech, which is why you can still find information on how to make a bomb big enough to blow up a building to start your insurrection at your local library, or buy it online. There are limits to free speech where the type of speech is not deemed important enough to override some other compelling interest (i.e., violent porn, releasing minor's names who have been victimized, etc.), or where a quid pro quo exists (i.e., use of the public airwaves in return for not saying "poo-poo head" or whatever the current list of words use). (For the record, like most Americans, I agree with some of these decisions and disagree with some ... leaning toward disagreeing with most, as I'm more liberal in speech issues than most).

I cannot think of a scenario where a work of fiction regarding political or religious speech could possibly be censored by the government without violating the first amendment.

But since you seem to want to be mad at me, here goes: Free speech, which is nearly absolute, is exactly the reason that you have groups vigorously advocating censorship. To limit their speech on that is to venture into that ultra-protected area of political free speech, and you cannot do that without being a total hypocrite. You can still rail against Focus on the Family, but they have an absolute right to do what they are doing.

And, there is nothing - absolutely nothing - you can do to stop a group from applying pressure to a private organization to get them to stop some kind of protected speech. If people threaten the Canadian TV station with economic boycotts of their sponsors, letter-writing campaigns, etc., that is entirely within their rights in the US. That is not censorship by the government, which is what the first amendment protects us against. That is the use of free speech by that group.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 3 2006, 02:09 PM) [snapback]313532[/snapback]</div>

Noticed that. What gets me about you is the GW thing. If I do hope you have nothing to do with evoltion/creationism - thats like "out there"...

// Talk about arguing the facts.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Sep 3 2006, 12:38 PM) [snapback]313501[/snapback]</div>

Not if you stay on top of your game. Thats where I intend to stay.

Creation fails by Occams razor. Sure, its possible, but the facts do not support this. Creation is a story for nomads - we drive Priuses, so we can consider ourselves *JUST* a bit more sophisticated than a bunch of camel jockeys.

// Capiche?

 

we drive Priuses, so we can consider ourselves *JUST* a bit more sophisticated than a bunch of camel jockeys.

// Capiche?



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: