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

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Not only that, but Atahualpa's first post in the thread notes how he's looking forward to see it, so I don't see how he can claim he was under the impression Disney had suppressed and "trashed" the film.

I hear the furious sound of backpedaling...

I argued with DinoDoc's generic question of a company having all rights to do whatever they want with the products they own.

To make this Disney case fit the generic case I put it under the assumption that they did wreck the movie.

Its all consistent and logic

[Atahualpa]

Originally posted by SpencerH


Disney has every right to censor its product. They could have bought and buried this movie, and it is their right to do so. In the USA, the government does not have the right to do what private citizens or companies can do. It seems to me that you're caught up in a word that is changing definition i.e. 'censorship' is coming to refer to only government actions.

Tell that those people who make english dictionaries

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
I argued with DinoDoc's generic question of a company having all rights to do whatever they want with the products they own.

But, as SpencerH points out, the companies do have a right to dispose of something they own as they see fit. I mean, you do know about the concept of private ownership, yes?

[Verto]

Originally posted by MrFun
I really don't care to hear any blabberings from any extremists -- left or right.

Michael Moore

[Sava]

I wouldn't call what Disney did, "censorship" necessarily. I think it might be "attempted censorship"... but it seems as if they just didn't wanna touch it with a ten-foot pole. If they try to prevent Moore from releasing it with another distributor... then I'd go so far as to accuse Disney of censorship.

Michael Moore

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
In Disney's mind it did depend on profitability. Disney wants to market themselves as a non-offensive company to everyone. I guess they figured in the long run releasing this movie would hurt that image that they have cultivated.

So? Obviously Disney has some sort of motive for their actions. Do you think states enforce censorship for fun? But is this the place to have a philosophical talk about that (is there such a thing as alturism and infinitive regress and blablabla...)? The point is that they stopped the documentary for its political implications (and for the long term effects this might have for their profits) and this is -imho- a case for concern.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The point is that they stopped the documentary for its political implications (and for the long term effects this might have for their profits) and this is -imho- a case for concern.

'IMHO' is the crucial phrase. Because in IMHO, it isn't a cause for concern in the slightest . Just like if Disney refused to support a documentary which they felt glorified Communists or Nazis wouldn't cause any concern for me.

[Kropotkin]

Comparing Moore's bias to that of nazis is just childish. It's taught in the 101-course of lame debating techniques.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Actually it isn't a childish comparision. It's a question of consistency. Why would it cause concern that Disney refused to support Moore because of politics but it wouldn't cause concern that Disney refused to support a film which it felt praised Nazis or Communists. Wouldn't that be because of politics as well?

[mrmitchell]

Yes, Disney wants to keep their reputation family-friendly, which is why they own Miramax in the first place?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Just like if Disney refused to support a documentary which they felt glorified Communists or Nazis wouldn't cause any concern for me.

And what about capitalists?

[Sava]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Yes, Disney wants to keep their reputation family-friendly, which is why they own Miramax in the first place?

good point

[Imran Siddiqui]

And what about capitalists?

What about them? Put them in that quote if you want. The end answer is still the same.

[Kropotkin]

Imran: Consistency or not, It concerns the width of the political debate in a democratic society*. I claim (yes, my humble opinion) that a society where a company feels that they cannot affort (in a broader sence of the word) to distribute a documentary that's critical of the current administration's foreign policy is a poor society from a democratic point of view. Yes, many democratic societies puts a limit on what they accept in the public debate, some even outlaws the expression of some opinions (like violent antisemitism). So perhaps you can call that for inconsistency, but it's still a childish argument. Michael Moore's opinions are clearly within reasonable limits in a open society. And yes, perhaps Disney has every legal right to stop a production if they want to but I think it's a shame that they would want to.


* and spare me the "USA is a republic, not a democracy"-speech as it's not relevant for this issue.

[Imran Siddiqui]

a society where a company feels that they cannot affort (in a broader sence of the word) to distribute a documentary that's critical of the current administration's foreign policy is a poor society from a democratic point of view.

Michael Moore's opinions are clearly within reasonable limits in a open society.

I find it interesting that you find the distancing of Disney from Moore to be a poor society from a democratic POV (let's not even get into the fact that Disney refused to touch 'The Passion' with 50 foot pole), but then you want to set 'reasonable limits' in an open society. I think it is a poor society from a democratic POV which wants to set 'reasonable limits', which is code word for blocking some forms of political speech which the society is uncomfortable with. Free speech is the cornerstone to a 'good' society in a democratic POV. Silencing one group while saying that PRIVATE entities should not be able to distance themselves from another is very worrying in a democratic POV, IMO.