Home, Archive, Stuff, Random thoughts, London, My Rigs, Pictures, Dreams, Links, About, Contact, Search
 

spikegifted - Random thoughts

 

Disney is trying to stop release of Michael Moore film.

May 5, 2004

[Originally posted by dual_celeron]

Corporate censorship at it's best.

Linky.

Disney Has Blocked the Distribution of My New Film... by Michael Moore

Friends,

I would have hoped by now that I would be able to put my work out to the public without having to experience the profound censorship obstacles I often seem to encounter.

Yesterday I was told that Disney, the studio that owns Miramax, has officially decided to prohibit our producer, Miramax, from distributing my new film, "Fahrenheit 9/11." The reason? According to today's (May 5) New York Times, it might "endanger" millions of dollars of tax breaks Disney receives from the state of Florida because the film will "anger" the Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush. The story is on page one of the Times and you can read it here (Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush).

The whole story behind this (and other attempts) to kill our movie will be told in more detail as the days and weeks go on. For nearly a year, this struggle has been a lesson in just how difficult it is in this country to create a piece of art that might upset those in charge (well, OK, sorry -- it WILL upset them...big time. Did I mention it's a comedy?). All I can say is, thank God for Harvey Weinstein and Miramax who have stood by me during the entire production of this movie.

There is much more to tell, but right now I am in the lab working on the print to take to the Cannes Film Festival next week (we have been chosen as one of the 18 films in competition). I will tell you this: Some people may be afraid of this movie because of what it will show. But there's nothing they can do about it now because it's done, it's awesome, and if I have anything to say about it, you'll see it this summer -- because, after all, it is a free country.

Yours,

Michael Moore

---

May 5, 2004

This goes right the way to the current interpretation of the US constitution: Are the freedom of speech and the freedom of believe more important or is the protecting freedom and liberty which guarantee the 'freedoms' more important?

IMHO, it's a 'chicken & egg' situation. There has to be balance and if you ask 100 different people, you're going to get 101 different answers as to where that balance is...

---

May 6, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palestine? where is that? Looked on an atlis and could not find that country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are giving them thier country back. Or did yall forget?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what map you've been looking at, but Palestine as a political entity has been in existence for a long time.

In response to your comment that "we are going to give them their country back", there are a couple of points I just you to clarify:

1) When will that happen?
2) In what shape will the country be in when the 'hand off' takes place?

---

May 9, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So apparently you think a NRA meeting and a military parade are the same thing?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In both cases, they're demonstration of 'loyalty' to a certain course... and in both cases, they're demonstrating the people's ability to determine their own 'destiny' - 'We've the guns/weapons, so if you choose to come and mess with us, we'll shoot back at you.' Or better yet: 'Look at the hardware... I dare you to come and mess with me!'

Look, I don't know who's fooling who (or try to), but having a gun in your pocket doesn't mean you're more 'powerful'. The 'respect' (or more accurately 'fear') given to the 'gun-holder' is not directed at the 'holder' but the 'gun'. If you think that 'respect' can be dictated by the barrel of the gun, may be you should've lived back in the days of the gunslingers.

---

May 9, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe they should move to the places where they still exist...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May be I'm just stupid or something, but IMHO, the need to carry a gun to demonstrate how much of a 'bad a$$' the gun-carrier is/can be has long gone. We have long been lectured by experts that we're living in the 'information age' and yet there're people out there who think owning a 'piece' 'empower' them in such a way that they need to hold a rally - just to convince themselves that they're 'doing the right thing'...

---

May 9, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I find interesting is back in the day (1776 time or so)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think I need to say anymore other than:

"Welcome to the 21st century..."

---

May 11, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not loaded, you can't. At least here. And some models / calibers you can't even own (because things get stolen, etc., so guns that are considered exceptionally dangerous have to be kept in secure places).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God darn it!! Just ban the whole lot of them! A gun is a gun, I don't care if it's a monkey or a cop carrying it. There's no need to go technical here - anything that is capable of firing a projectile is potentially be harmful or lethal. Ban them!

Some has claimed in the past: "It's not guns that kill people, but people who have gun." I'd like to turn the point around and claim: "Without guns, what are those people going to kill with?"

---

May 13, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Swords, arrows, axes, big sticks, pointy sticks, rocks, bare hands... and those are just the obvious things. I could probably fill a book with a list of things found in most people's homes that can be used to kill.

I know some say it is easier to kill with a gun.... personally I think the descision to kill would be harder than the actual act but what do I know, I've never killed anyone

As far as banning them because they're dangerous.... well... they tried to ban marajuana too. They put quite a bit of effort over the years trying to keep it out of kid's hands. Now, tell me how many can honestly say even if they don't know where to get some reefer that they don't know someone who would? Why would guns be different? 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, I admit, before guns, there were swords and what not. However, won't you agree that guns, especially automatics and semi-automatics, are easy tools to use - much easier than say bows and arrows and swords as weapons. It is the ease of killing, and the amount of damage it can cause, that makes guns such dangerous weapons.

I completely disagree with your implied link between marijuana (or other hallucinogenic but 'non-addictive' drugs) with guns. You smoke dope, you get high, you chill or whatever... You might choose to drive a car when you're stoned or jump off a cliff, I don't know... It might be dangerous and you might unintentionally (since you'd be 'under substance influence') do something stupid like rap your car around a tree or something. More often than not, you get lucky and nothing really bad happens. However, you point a gun at someone and squeeze that trigger, more often than not, you're do some serious damage...

---

May 13, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What I find interesting is back in the day (1776 time or so) the average person was expected to have firepower equivilant to that of the military.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ahh, yes, the 21st century, where governments actively protect the rights of those they govern, where countries play nice, and no one would ever think of hampering my freedoms. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't even try to give me that slippery, 'moving goal post', bull that you try on others!

When I re-read your two statements, IMHO, they're completely contradictory, implicitly or otherwise.

Back in 1776, the people of the day probably were up against bandits and highway robbers or whatever or they even were revolutionaries. They needed guns to either protect themselves or go chasing after the 'Red Coats'. That's fair enough. You got to protect yourself, your love ones and your properties. That's your basic rights. Go and smoke those bandits and royalists!

Fast forward to 2004, the US is the only remaining 'super power' (or 'hyper power' or whatever) and you are saying that your government is actively protecting the rights of those who elected them (thank you). And yet, you feel the need to own and carry your own firearms?

There's something wrong there, isn't it? If your government is doing so much to protect you and your rights, why do you need to own and carry firearms? Obviously, as your government is doing a good job, there's not need for you to own and carry your firearms. Or are you telling us that the government is not doing a good job to secure the environment you live in and your rights? So much so that you feel the need to own and carry firearms to protect yourself and your properties? Is it because the government you've elected is not adequately protecting you?

---

May 15, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Myself and others usually choose not to reply to their ridiculous "but you've got the police to protect your sorry ass" or my favorite, "maybe you should vote in a better government that protects you better".....ladeda

My favorite reply for the anti's and euro folks is "keep your phone charged...you know...in case someone breaks in your house...so you can tell them to stop, then call the police. 10 minutes later, when the police arrive, they'll find you dead, your wife raped, and your tv gone".

Helpless victims (easy criminal targets) are born every day, and if the sheep want to continue being sheep, that's fine with me since criminals target the weak. However, don't piss on my rights to kill the wolf if he ever comes looking to MY FAMILY for a meal. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To some extent, it's not about guns, but ownership of guns.

If you want to drive a car, you technically need to gain a license by passing a test before you're legally allow to drive a car. If you want to fly a plane of any size, you definitely need to gain a license. Cars and planes by themselves are not dangerous, yet they require the users to gain their respective licenses, through a demonstration of some degree of competence in handling the vehicles in question.

My point is: guns, in their normal mode of usage, are dangerous. Why else would you want to use a tool that hurls metallic projectiles at high speeds at something, be it dead or alive? Why do you think there some counties with by-laws, like Clark County, NV (North Las Vegas), prohibiting concealed weapons without a permit? It is because guns, when carried by people, are dangerous to all those around them, including themselves. Yet, just about anyone can walk into the local hardware store a pick up just about any firearms and ammo...

How many Columbine does the country need to convince you?

---

May 16, 2004

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you have any objection to the existence of regulations determining who has access to plastic explosives, for example? Or who can fly helicopters, and where?

If you don't, then I agree that sanity has left the building. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is a very good point you've made there.

However, for most gun-owning Americans, regulation is only applicable to activities that are outside their rights. For example, there are, in theory, no laws against expressing one's opinion. (I said "in theory" because it all depends on the politics of the time: any kind of 'sympathy' towards 'communists' during the McCarthy era would have land you in hot water; if you expressed doubts about invading Iraq in 2002, 2003, you'd be considered 'unpatriotic', etc.) Of course, there are areas where there are, correctly, rules, regulations and laws prohibiting the leaks of information that is regarding 'national security'. (Again there are times when the definition of 'national security' is stretched and bent, but less not go into those now.)

Similarly, as there're no laws 'regulating' the freedom of expression, of speech, of press or of peaceful assembly (1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights), there are no laws effectively regulating the citizens' right to bear arms (2nd Amendment).

The situation is that the citizens' rights to bear arms is part of the constitution. To make gun laws effective, there is a need to take away the citizens' right to bear arms! This, in turn, means there is a need to change the constitution. That will never happen as long as there are gun-friendly lobby groups - representing gun owners, gun makers, gun sellers, etc. Knowing how US politics works, where most politicians are in the pockets of 'interest groups', ordinary citizens will never get the platform that they have the rights to have - to voice their concern and to right their wrongs. Moreover, even if we discount all the lobbying from 'special interest groups', libertarians will never allow the constitution to be amended in such a way that a 'fundamental right' of the citizen is taken away - they would argue that if this can happen once, it will happen again and gradually, all rights of the citizens will be taken away...

No, if there is ever a gun regulation being tabled, it will require a whole-hearted support of the entire nation. Unless some kind of major catastrophe takes place, I cannot see there ever be sufficient shock to the mindset of the people to align them for such a cause. If the experience of Columbine couldn't unit opinion, I very much doubt anything will.

---

May 17, 2004

My personal experience with my American friends, and there are a number of them, both living in the US as well as outside, suggests to me that many Americans don't actually think like you do. Some of them actually are not pro-gun and a lot of them think invading Iraq is a bad idea. Just because the circle of your friends happens to think like you do doesn't mean that 'everyone' think like you. And nor should they. After all, you're living in a democracy.

Additionally, foreigners have just as much right to 'tell' the US what to do and what not to do - after all, the US has been 'telling' what all other nations what to do for decades. I'm not trying to suggest whether it is a good thing or not. These are facts. You may not want to face the facts, but they are there for all to see. It may appear to you that countries should adopt the thinking of the US, but you should never forget that the US is one of over 200 members in a family of nations, some bigger and some smaller. Not everyone want to live on a diet of junk food, soda pop, CNN and HBO. As the leading democracy, you should know that.


Link to 2CPU.com Forum