Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" gets US release date - June 25

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Atahualpa, censorship is when one person tries to silence another and is usually relevant only to a
state-individual relationship. It isn't censorship for me to refuse using my money to promote what you have to say. If I prevent you or your associates from using your money to promote your views, then that would be censorship.

well its not like this will be going to cost more than they'll earn with it.

Well, censorship is probably a bad word, here. Anyway I think its "bad practice".

Companies should put out movies they don't want to? What kind of laws do they have in Europe?

I dont know what laws we have here concerning that. I dont think it is regulated by law. I dont think it is necessary to write a law here. Still I dont think high of companies holding back information.

[Boris Godunov]

Disney hasn't been known for making good business decisions lately.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I look forward to seeing it.

Me too. There's nothing more humorous than one of Moores docudramas. Its sure to be a big hit on the 'history' channel.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Dissident


I'm not interested in it. I just don't like information to be suppressed.

Really...

If he wanted to continue to play that bit of drama he should have released it on Kazaa, though it may already be on there,

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I am curious as well.

The kind of censorship Disney attempted should not be tolerated. At least thats what Democracy is all about and if it cant survive critics its probably not much worth.

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for Mickey Mouse.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I am curious as well.

The kind of censorship Disney attempted should not be tolerated. At least thats what Democracy is all about and if it cant survive critics its probably not much worth.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I am curious as well.

The kind of censorship Disney attempted should not be tolerated. At least thats what Democracy is all about and if it cant survive critics its probably not much worth.

Ironic that companies should be forced to put something out if they don't want. A reverse censorship if you will. Freedom of the speech as long as it is the message that I want!!

[nazi]

You will put out this movie or suffer the consequences

[/nazi]

[Imran Siddiqui]

Disney hasn't been known for making good business decisions lately.

Yeah, they are having some big league problems, especially with their animated movies.

[Boris Godunov]

This is a bad move, too. They're not kidding anyone, and the movie stands to make a lot of money.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Berzerker
If I prevent you or your associates from using your money to promote your views, then that would be censorship.

Disney is preventing Moore and Miramax from using Miramax's money to promote their views. That's censorship.

They are also using a clause in their agreement with Miramax that doesn't really apply to this movie. They'd probably lose in court, but it would probably take until 2005 or so to resolve that.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Disney is preventing Moore and Miramax from using Miramax's money to promote their views. That's censorship.

Disney kinda owns Miramax, so it isn't censorship. Moore can use any other publisher, or even do it himself (as Mel Gibson did). Was it censorship when no one wanted to release 'The Passion'?

[Sava]

It will be great.

And frothing Moore haters will cry like little babies once more.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Disney is preventing Moore and Miramax from using Miramax's money to promote their views. That's censorship.

Disney kinda owns Miramax, so it isn't censorship.

NYT: "Disney has contractual agreement with Miramax principals Harvey and Bob Weinstein that lets it block distribution of films under certain circumstances; dispute centers on whether film falls into any of those categories"

Disney does not have an unconditional veto. According to various sources, they can block "NC-17" films and "big budget" movies. Fahrenheit 9/11 is neither AFAIK.

Moore can use any other publisher, or even do it himself (as Mel Gibson did). Was it censorship when no one wanted to release 'The Passion'?

No, it wasn't. The point isn't that Disney isn't giving Moore a soapbox but that it is stealing the soapbox Miramax gave him.

[Verto]

I can't wait to not see it. Bowling for Columbine was enough BS for me.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Disney does not have an unconditional veto. According to various sources, they can block "NC-17" films and "big budget" movies. Fahrenheit 9/11 is neither AFAIK.

And yet, they have some ownership of Miramax. They can try to stop them from showing films. How is that censorship? Have they prevented every other studio from showing it? No, they just don't want to be associated with it.

The point is that no matter what the loony left says this is in no way censorship.