violation of freedom of expression

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
violation of freedom of expression
10
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 1:22pm
Here is an article from CNN

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/05/moore.disney/index.html


I would love to see that documentary


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 1:46pm
I was wondering who would be the first to jump on this broken-down bandwagon. Nobody has violated that idiots freedom of anything. He has the right to make a movie if he wants. He did. He has the right to personally speak his mind if he wishes. He has. He has the right to express himself through pictures, movies, or writing. He has done so.

But there is no Constitutional right to have his work published, distributed, or released by someone else. Claiming 1st Amendment violations for this sort of thing is absurd, and does nothing but illustrate a widespread failure to understand what the 1st Amendment does and does not protect.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 2:15pm
Well the guy made the film so that it is seen by people. I don't think anyone is going to make a film just to make one. Its purpose is served only when viewed. If Disney doesnot allow Miramax to distribute it becasue of the governor of Florida would withdraw tax cuts then indirectly, yes the his rights have been violated by politics. So I would consider it a violation even though not direct.
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 2:28pm
<>

This is an interesting point. The freedom of speech does not apply to corporations, only the government. However, this administration is so linked with corproations, that corporations fear retaliation for adhering to the right of free speech. Will this go to the Supreme Court? I agree with you, the Bushes are using Disney to restrain speech. And this is not new, CBS withdrew the Reagan mini-series; and Nightline was dark in some markets. Political Correctness in a new light.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 3:07pm
Again, there is no right to have his work published or presented by anyone other than himself.

Freedom of expression is just that, the freedom of an individual to express his or her personal beliefs, thoughts, or feelings through speech, writing, photography, art, film, or whatever other means you can conceive of. Nobody is preventing Moore from doing that, nobody. He was free to make the film, but that's where his rights end. If he wants his film to be seen it's ultimately his responsibility to put it in the publics eye if he can't get someone to do it for him. If it was a book, it would ultimately his responsibility to publish and distribute it if nobody else was willing to do so for him. If it was a painting, it would be up to him to display it in the event no gallery chooses to display it for him. In all such cases, there is no right to have any of those actions undertaken by other parties.

There's no Constitutional rights violation here, as there is no Constitutional right to have your work published or released by anyone other than oneself.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-22-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 3:19pm
but you are forgetting that Miramax wants to distribute his film, but is not allowed. I am not debating that he won't be able to have his film viewed thru other means he may he maynot, but when his producer is probihibited to distribute the film because of political agenda, it is violation. IMO
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-12-2004
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 3:32pm
No matter how you spin it, this is still not a constitutional issue. Miramax does not have "constitutional rights;" its parent company (Disney) can override its corporate decisions, unless the corporate by-laws say something different. Even then, its up to the shareholders and board of directors to enforce the bylaws, not the U.S. judicial system. This is, plain and simple, a a business decision. Probably a bad business decision. Because, in creating a lot of press for the movie, someone else will distribute it and make a lot of money off of it. And, Disney management is already under fire with the shareholders. If they see this as a bad decision more heads will roll.

There is the issue of political pressure. If Disney fears political retaliation, in the form of lost tax breaks, that's unfortunate. But it wouldn't be the first time the tax code was used to encourage or punish; it happens all the time. Its still not a constitional issue.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Wed, 05-05-2004 - 3:56pm
I'm not forgetting that, but it's really not pertinent to the issue of his 1st Amendment right of expression. He's already made the film, "expressed" his thoughts and ideas. That's a done deal, and that's as far as his 1st Amendment rights go. He has the right to express himself, period, and he has done so.

There is no right for his work to be published or viewed in a public forum. It's up to others whether or not to publish/release his work, and that's a business issue, not a 1st Amendment issue. So while I respect your feelings and opinion on the issue, there's really no freedom of expression violation here. That right addresses the right of an individual to create for *themselves*, to express *themselves*, not to have their work published, printed, or released by *others*. That's a business issue, not a Constitutional issue.


~mark~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 05-06-2004 - 3:25pm

Op-ed: Disney's Trap.


http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2004/mft04050606.htm


Disney's (NYSE: DIS) handling of its dispute with filmmaker Michael Moore is just plain goofy.


The company has reportedly decided to block its Miramax film unit from releasing a documentary by Moore, who won an Oscar in 2002 for Bowling for Columbine. The new film, Fahrenheit 911, is said to be a controversial (surprise!) look at the September 11 attacks and the Bush family's relationship with prominent Saudis.


(Me: This relationship isn't a big secret.)


Already the accusations are flying. According to various sources, Ari Emmanuel, Moore's agent, claims that Disney CEO Michael Eisner expressed concern that the movie could threaten Disney's tax breaks for its theme park in Florida, where the president's brother, Jeb Bush, is governor. Disney, meanwhile, asserts that it told Moore a year ago that Miramax would not distribute the film, and that he is now pulling a publicity stunt by making an issue of the decision.

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 10:47am
"What did Disney expect when Moore starting making his film?" Quote: Alan, Fife

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Fri, 05-07-2004 - 1:20pm
Moore's merely grandstanding with his complaints, NOW. He and his agent were informed back in 2003 that Disney was not going to allow distribution of the film. So Moore's "outrage" over the treatment of the film is as bogus as many or most of his claims in his movies.


~mark~