In January of 2008, Hillary Clinton’s political opponents wanted to put the 90-minute film on Cable TV as a video-on demand offering, in the middle of the heated primaries. The government however, blocked the attempt looking at it as a “glorified attack ad improperly paid for in part by corporate contributions.” McCain-Feingold law was supposed to be for corporate money to stay out of politics. The moviemakers believed that the ban of their film, was “an unconstitutional restriction on free speech”, and it appears that the Supreme Court agrees.
The fact that the moviemakers wanted to have it shown on video-on-demand, was much different than if it were shown for example on CBS. People who WANTED to watch it, had to seek it out, and there really isn’t anything wrong with it. Justice Antonin Scalia stated “Isn’t the First Amendment interest greater when the government is trying to stifle not only the speaker but also the person who wants to listen?”
I agree with the Supreme Court, and the moviemakers, not only because I openly dislike Hillary Clinton, but in the sake of objectivity. Fahrenheit 9/11, Bowling for Columbine, Bush and various other films were produced with open bias and utter attacks to the conservative people. Yet once the opposite situation occurs, all of a sudden, it’s not okay. That is unconstitutional. The film industry is free game, and if a movie producer gets the funding and gets the sponsorship to be produced, they should be able to produce it, and if people don’t want to watch well then….don’t watch it! Pure rocket science folks.
Other Links:
http://www.hillarythemovie.com/press_MSNBC_2009.html
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
No comments:
Post a Comment