The ONLY remedy to bad speech in the U.S. is more speech. You are advocating less speech. That's plainly un-American. I'm not sure that Stolen Honor is political speech. The critics of the show appear to know otherwise. That argument works against them, since political speech is accorded the highest form of protection under the Constitution. One example: a bonafide candidate for federal office can produce a violent and pornographic 5-minute spot, and the only way a station can refuse to air it (even non-commercial stations) is if the payment check is no good. They can air it at any time of the day or week, and the spot can't be preceded by advisories, except one that says "the preceding/following is/was a paid political announcement." Internally and externally inconsistent arguments. This is a sign of desperation. We know, already, of the problem with African-American voters over the gay marriage kerfuffle. If the relative political parties were reversed, so would your position. It's called a priori "reasoning." Or worse. I am entirely consistent on this kind of matter, and have been for more than 3 decades. I was for airing "NYPD Blue" and "Cop Rock." I was for "Married ... with Children" (but seldom to never watched it; it was too coarse for me at the time.) I was in favor of Fahrenheit/911 (even though I have never seen and will never see a Michael Moore film) being released and distributed, and since free speech cannot be compelled, I was in favor of Disney declining to distribute the fake documentary. One may judge -- in a personal sense -- a book by it's cover, but only elites think they have the right to use this facial analysis of the patina of a work to say that others cannot read, sell, or present the material. This is even worse that judging a book by it's cover. It's judging whether someone else should be able to read a book by what extremists say about the cover, or what rumorists have told them about the cover. Show me that the material in Stolen Honor is indecent or profane and I'll say that it shouldn't be aired on broadcast television. There ain't a chance that will happen. With all the fuss, maybe I should travel to Sacramento on the air date to watch ... John Willkie -----Original Message----- From: opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:opendtv-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Brian Park Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:44 AM To: opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [opendtv] Re: News: Dems Walk A Dangerous Path With Anti-Kerry-Film Complaint Here is what Stolen Honor is about. From today's washingtonmonthly.com bp SWIFT BOAT LIES....Like most bloggers, I have my beefs with the mainstream media. But you know what? They produce an awful lot of damn fine original reporting. Case in point. In August the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth charged that John Kerry had lied about the events that led to his Silver Star. In order to figure out if the SBVT account was true, Nightline sent a crew to Vietnam, where they visited the hamlets of Tran Thoi and Nha Vi and interviewed the local villagers to get their recollections of what really happened 35 years ago. You can read the resulting story yourself, but it's summarized pretty easily: Kerry was right and SBVT honcho John O'Neill wasn't. But there was also this: Back in Tran Thoi, villager Nguyen Van Khoai said that about six months ago he was visited by an American who described himself as a Swift boat veteran and told him another American from the Swift boats was running for president of the United States. Nguyen said the man was accompanied by a cameraman. "They say he didn't do anything to deserve the medal," Nguyen said. "The other day, they came and asked me the questions and I said that the recognition for the medal is up to the U.S.A." He said that, after they met, the Swift Boat veteran and the cameraman turned around and went back down the river. Nightline has not been able to identify the men. Unbelievable. The SBVT folks, hoping to dig up dirt on Kerry, interviewed these villagers six months ago and have known the truth all along. It wasn't just a case of differing recollections in the heat of the battle. They knew the truth. But they went ahead and told their lies anyway. What a revolting bunch of men. What a disgusting, repellent, sleazy operation. And now Sinclair Broadcasting is about to air their movie. Even worse, we still have three weeks to go. I wonder how much lower the Bush team and their surrogates can sink in that time? And I wonder what decent Republicans are going to do about it after Bush drags them down to defeat in November? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Birkmaier" <craig@xxxxxxxxx> To: "OpenDTV Mail List" <opendtv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 6:15 AM Subject: [opendtv] News: Dems Walk A Dangerous Path With Anti-Kerry-Film Complaint > Via Shoptalk > > Dems Walk A Dangerous Path With Anti-Kerry-Film Complaint > Collin Levey > Seattle Times editorial columnist > > The late Chief Justice Warren Burger once remarked that "free speech > carries with it some freedom to listen." And, he might have added, > the freedom not to. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can UNSUBSCRIBE from the OpenDTV list in two ways: - Using the UNSUBSCRIBE command in your user configuration settings at FreeLists.org - By sending a message to: opendtv-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with the word unsubscribe in the subject line.