Movies and liberals' dirty shame

In 1996, Milos Forman directed "The People vs. Larry Flynt ," the propagandistic film that made a "1st Amendment hero" out of the publisher of Hustler, a racist and filthy porn magazine.

[LM Bass]

Very good commentary.

It also brings to mind Obama's pre-election policy of banning certain reporters from his media entourage, if they happened to write any negative commentary about him.

Free speech will continue to be free, as long as the message is met with approval by leftists.

Even if the leftist acknowledges your right free speech, however, they will often attempt to shout you down, block your message, and in the end, act like a 2nd grader and call you names.

Think I am exaggerating? Take a look at the intellectual response of "ProfessorGAC (post no. 1)." Obviously, this was written by a real scholar and champion of liberty.

[Jack Stephens]

This reminds when private citizen Bush was "pretending to run for president"...he banned certain reporters that didnt agree with his view.

Dont be fooled by the fake intellectualism of post #2. Its more sodomite conservatism that has ruined this country. All in the name of some "imaginary man who floats among the clouds"!
----------

LM Bass wrote:

It also brings to mind Obama's pre-election policy of banning certain reporters from his media entourage, if they happened to write any negative commentary about him.

[KAG]

What a poorly-written piece. But when you see the dreaded L-word (Liberal) bandied about or in the title, you can bet its another idiotic pile of nonsense from some retarded right-winger.

[Barak Obama]

Just the response we expect from a liberal

KAG wrote:

What a poorly-written piece. But when you see the dreaded L-word (Liberal) bandied about or in the title, you can bet its another idiotic pile of nonsense from some retarded right-winger.

[jrptoo]

I agree with this guy. Liberals (as a collective, there are certainly many exceptions) like to ignore certain parts of the constitution when they feel it is convenient. Take the 2nd amendment as a classic example.

But, realize both sides are guilty of this. The Republicans (again, as a collective) are all about state's rights, and feel the commerce clause is grossly over-extended ... until it comes to issues like medicinal marijuana and euthanasia.

I personally think it is about time we take the constitution more seriously, even during the times when we happen to disagree with the outcome.

[Proud American]

It truly amazes me how both the right and the left accuse it other of the same thing. But it it amazes me more how at least once in every debate about free speach someone on the left also makes a dig about beleif in God. Each side wants to make it harder for the other side to be heard. So in order to make everyone happy perhaps we should do away with the first amendment. Who wants to give up their libery first? Any takers?

[Laughing Gravy]

It's too bad Jonah Goldberg doesn't know how to get his point across without resorting to the tired, old-style, shrill conservative rhetoric that was repudiated in the last election. He's afraid his case is weak, so he laughs off attempts to limit free speech by people he agrees with while mocking and demonizing the actions of those with whom he disagrees.

He says the people he doesn't like "are preening on their soapboxes for making filth as American as apple pie," but dismisses a warning from the president's spokesman that people should "watch what they say" as merely "off the cuff." (He was only speaking for the President of the Unired States, after all.)

No, Jonah, the Patriot Act didn't "target" libraries - just the people who use them. And the documentary in question didn't "run-afoul" of the law - it broke the law.

[middleclassguy]

When Senator Harry Reid sent Disney a threatening letter over a movie that portrayed Bill Clinton in an unfavorable light, there was no outrage. Senator Reid sent the letter on Senate Stationary and threatened to use his stature as a member of a committee that approves licensing to cause problems for Disney if the movie was not changed.

A US Senator violating the First Amendment. A US Senator trying to repress free expression. A US Senator threatening a broadcast license. There was no outrage. There was no call for hearings. There was no call for impeachment. There was no call for his resignation. There was not even a call for censure. Harry Reid then went one further and did the same thing to Rush Limbaugh. Love, or hate Rush; he has a right to free expression without interference from an elected official.

Harry Reid took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He violated his oath and the rights guaranteed under the first Amendment. No outrage!

[David]

The wonderful thing about free speech is it allows some to attack the person presenting a viewpoint instead of discussing the merits of the presentation. This permits the rest of us a basis of evaluation so we can easliy dismiss your comments due either to your complete bias or your lack of intellectual capacity.

[dalmatian847]

middleclassguy wrote:

When Senator Harry Reid sent Disney a threatening letter over a movie that portrayed Bill Clinton in an unfavorable light, there was no outrage. Senator Reid sent the letter on Senate Stationary and threatened to use his stature as a member of a committee that approves licensing to cause problems for Disney if the movie was not changed.
A US Senator violating the First Amendment. A US Senator trying to repress free expression. A US Senator threatening a broadcast license. There was no outrage. There was no call for hearings. There was no call for impeachment. There was no call for his resignation. There was not even a call for censure. Harry Reid then went one further and did the same thing to Rush Limbaugh. Love, or hate Rush; he has a right to free expression without interference from an elected official.
Harry Reid took an oath to uphold the Constitution. He violated his oath and the rights guaranteed under the first Amendment. No outrage!

The First Amendment only counts for LIBERAL free speech. did you miss the memo?

[dalmatian847]

Jack Stephens wrote:

This reminds when private citizen Bush was "pretending to run for president"...he banned certain reporters that didnt agree with his view.
Dont be fooled by the fake intellectualism of post #2. Its more sodomite conservatism that has ruined this country. All in the name of some "imaginary man who floats among the clouds"!
----------
<quoted text>

Sodomite conservatism? You mean Barney Frank has been on the wrong side all this time?

[thingy]

No one has banned you Jonah, from speaking such blather.

[Eighthman]

Liberals ARE communists. That's what's so funny.

[dalmatian847]

Laughing Gravy wrote:

It's too bad Jonah Goldberg doesn't know how to get his point across without resorting to the tired, old-style, shrill conservative rhetoric that was repudiated in the last election. He's afraid his case is weak, so he laughs off attempts to limit free speech by people he agrees with while mocking and demonizing the actions of those with whom he disagrees.
He says the people he doesn't like "are preening on their soapboxes for making filth as American as apple pie," but dismisses a warning from the president's spokesman that people should "watch what they say" as merely "off the cuff." (He was only speaking for the President of the Unired States, after all.)
No, Jonah, the Patriot Act didn't "target" libraries - just the people who use them. And the documentary in question didn't "run-afoul" of the law - it broke the law.

Thank God when Obama was in the Senate he voted against The Patriot Act and wiretapping and promptly issued an executive order repealing it when he was inauguarated...oh wait, never mind.

[Jack Stephens]

One of the "official" sponsors of MLB is a pill that makes your pee-nusss stay erect. What kind of lesson is this teaching?

----------

Laughing Gravy wrote:

It's too bad Jonah Goldberg doesn't know how to get his point across without resorting to the tired, old-style, shrill conservative rhetoric that was repudiated in the last election. He's afraid his case is weak, so he laughs off attempts to limit free speech by people he agrees with while mocking and demonizing the actions of those with whom he disagrees.
He says the people he doesn't like "are preening on their soapboxes for making filth as American as apple pie," but dismisses a warning from the president's spokesman that people should "watch what they say" as merely "off the cuff." (He was only speaking for the President of the Unired States, after all.)
No, Jonah, the Patriot Act didn't "target" libraries - just the people who use them. And the documentary in question didn't "run-afoul" of the law - it broke the law.

[Jack Stephens]

And I'll bet you still think we should have "coloreds only" drinking fountains, right?
----------

dalmatian847 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sodomite conservatism? You mean Barney Frank has been on the wrong side all this time?

[Religious Right]

This guy is an idiot, did he even research the term "express advocacy"? And to answer his unresearched question, express advocacy does not apply to the media

"(iii) any communication by any membership organization or corporation to its members, stockholders, or executive or administrative personnel, if such membership organization or corporation is not organized primarily for the purpose of influencing the nomination for election, or election, of any individual to Federal office, except that the costs incurred by a membership organization (including a labor organization) or by a corporation directly attributable to a communication expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate (other than a communication primarily devoted to subjects other than the express advocacy of the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate), shall, if such costs exceed $2,000 for any election, be reported to the Commission in accordance with section 434 (a)(4)(A)(i) of this title, and in accordance with section 434 (a)(4)(A)(ii) of this title with respect to any general election;"

[Kingfish]

Why does Jonah Goldberg hate America's freedom?

[TBM]

Banning is wrong. Censorship is wrong. Plain and simple. If you don't like it, then don't watch it, read it, etc. but no one has any right to stop someone else from watching it, reading it, etc.

[Azdak]

Much ado about nothing from a "columnist" who still needs help from his mother to tie his shoes. Goldberg is the ultimate smarmy douc.hebag, an empty poseur desperately trying to find someone to take him seriously.(regardless of his politics).

This is a legal dispute over the application of federal election law. Period. It has a certain constitutional relevance in that it may represent a new area under federal law, but there is no larger "censorship" issue involved, IMO.