• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Advertising Ban

W

Witling

Golden Member
According to The Hill, which I would characterize as a trade publication for Washington D.C. government,

"Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, ?Fahrenheit 9/11,? on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel."

The Hill
 
Great. The controversy over the ban will mean a lot of free promotion for the film, just like Disney's attempt to stop its distrubution. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

Excellent film, by the way, just saw it tonight.
 
< sarcasm >

Ban the First Amendment! It gets in the way of Der Bushreich!

< /sarcasm > :roll:
 
This is hilarious. The liberals pushed and pushed for McCain-Fiengold, now they are bitching because of its ramifications.
 
Originally posted by: Harvey
< sarcasm >

Ban the First Amendment! It gets in the way Der Bushreich!

< /sarcasm > :roll:
Click to expand...

It seems the democrat pushed campaign finance reform has bitten them in the ass time and time again.

They had to use loopholse(527s) to raise money as they couldnt keep up with Bush et al in personal contributions.

Now they are crying "censorship" over this Moore issue. Even though the US Supreme Court upheld the no corprate ads 90 days before an election. Hell the democrats pushed and pushed for this because they accused the republicans using corporations to air political ads.

And yes Moore commericals for his film do fall into it. His movie is OVERTLY political in attacking Bush, as have been the commericals.

Now if he just used the title, with qoutes(Blah Blah Blah - NY Times etc), and not actual movie clips, it would pass muster.
 
Originally posted by: digitalsm

And yes Moore commericals for his film do fall into it. His movie is OVERTLY political in attacking Bush, as have been the commericals.
Click to expand...

Of course it is "political" - how can a film about politicians and politics not be "political".

If you meant "OVERTLY partisan", I would be forced to disagree. While Moore is no doubt a democrat, I would suggest that partisanship takes a back seat when the leader of the free world is a man who is such a simp that he is unable to take the initiative to interrupt his photo-op playdate with an elementary school.

It is obvious that you have not yet seen the film.
 
Digitalism, You said "Now they are crying "censorship" over this Moore issue. Even though the US Supreme Court upheld the no corprate ads 90 days before an election. Hell the democrats pushed and pushed for this because they accused the republicans using corporations to air political ads." Gee, the article didn't mention anything about Democrats or liberals crying "censorship." Nobody seems to be claiming that in this thread. May I suggest that when you post a brand new thought that you provide some support for the statment. Some of us have trouble keeping up with you. I think the overwhelming consensus on this thread is that banning adertising is the dumbest thing anyone could do. That's a far cry from complaining about censorship. Again, if you don't want to stick to our facts, please give us a link to yours.
 
Originally posted by: Witling
Digitalism, You said "Now they are crying "censorship" over this Moore issue. Even though the US Supreme Court upheld the no corprate ads 90 days before an election. Hell the democrats pushed and pushed for this because they accused the republicans using corporations to air political ads." Gee, the article didn't mention anything about Democrats or liberals crying "censorship." Nobody seems to be claiming that in this thread. May I suggest that when you post a brand new thought that you provide some support for the statment. Some of us have trouble keeping up with you. I think the overwhelming consensus on this thread is that banning adertising is the dumbest thing anyone could do. That's a far cry from complaining about censorship. Again, if you don't want to stick to our facts, please give us a link to yours.
Click to expand...


There have been plenty of elected democrats crying foul over this. McCain-Feingold was a democrat backed bill. The democrats added in this part about no corporate political ads 90 days before the election. Republicans cried foul, fought it in the Supreme Court and lost. Meanwhile the Democrats were laughing at the republicans. Now the tables are turned... and all I can do is laugh.
 
Originally posted by: myusername
Originally posted by: digitalsm

And yes Moore commericals for his film do fall into it. His movie is OVERTLY political in attacking Bush, as have been the commericals.
Click to expand...

Of course it is "political" - how can a film about politicians and politics not be "political".

If you meant "OVERTLY partisan", I would be forced to disagree. While Moore is no doubt a democrat, I would suggest that partisanship takes a back seat when the leader of the free world is a man who is such a simp that he is unable to take the initiative to interrupt his photo-op playdate with an elementary school.

It is obvious that you have not yet seen the film.
Click to expand...

I saw it on Friday. Yes it is overtly political, and yes the trailers for the film are overtly political. Moore has even said that its political, and the sole intention is to get Bush out of the White House in November.

By the letter of the law, that the democrats themselves crafted, his current trailers DO run afoul if he were to air them after July 30. The FEC isnt saying he cant advertise his movie, its saying he cant advertise it in the way he is currently doing so.

IMHO he could just as easily, slap the title of the movie at the top of the black screen, have that music in the background, then have comments from critics and the "awards" its won flash across the screen. Simple, effective, wont violate the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform law the democrats crafted.
 
Originally posted by: digitalsm
This is hilarious. The liberals pushed and pushed for McCain-Fiengold, now they are bitching because of its ramifications.
Click to expand...

WTF does this have to do with McCain (in this thread). I actually haven't seen anything about libs crying over the ban.
 
Originally posted by: cobalt
Originally posted by: digitalsm
This is hilarious. The liberals pushed and pushed for McCain-Feingold, now they are bitching because of its ramifications.
Click to expand...

WTF does this have to do with McCain?
Click to expand...

Uh, McCain was the republican co-sponser for the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Politicos refer to it as McCain-Feingold.
 
There is no better way to promote this film than to ban it. (or even ads for it).
Click to expand...
You're right. I can just see it now. At interviews moore will be saying "The government is trying to ban my movie! What are they trying to cover up?". That will make a great soundbite. The FCC is so laughable sometimes.
 
Are people really this dumb? What digitalsm is saying is 100% correct. The film's advertising being banned after a certain date is due to McCain-Feingold, and is not censorship in any form.
 
Originally posted by: zephyrprime
There is no better way to promote this film than to ban it. (or even ads for it).
Click to expand...
You're right. I can just see it now. At interviews moore will be saying "The government is trying to ban my movie! What are they trying to cover up?". That will make a great soundbite. The FCC is so laughable sometimes.
Click to expand...

Its not the FCC, its the FEC, Federal Election Commission. They are following the law, as authored by the democrats, and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States.

I am wrong on one thing though. Its the dates. I thought it was 90 days before a general election. Its 30 days before a primary, and 60 days before a general election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top