June 24, 2004

CFR VS. FREE SPEECH (via John Thacker):

‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban?: Ads for Moore’s movie could be stopped on July 30 (Alexander Bolton, 6/24/04, The Hill)

Michael Moore may be prevented from advertising his controversial new movie, “Fahrenheit 9/11,” on television or radio after July 30 if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) today accepts the legal advice of its general counsel.

At the same time, a Republican-allied 527 soft-money group is preparing to file a complaint against Moore’s film with the FEC for violating campaign-finance law.

In a draft advisory opinion placed on the FEC’s agenda for today’s meeting, the agency’s general counsel states that political documentary filmmakers may not air television or radio ads referring to federal candidates within 30 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election.

The opinion is generated under the new McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law...


On the GOP side, do the ads for The Lord of the Rings and The Passion have to stop?

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 24, 2004 10:05 PM
Comments

Which federal candidates do those films reference?

Posted by: djs at June 24, 2004 10:13 PM

Agree with djs - Moore's film is essentially a 90 minutes+ anti-Bush ad. LOTR and The Passion happend to push themes that Bush (and most of the GOP) do.

Posted by: AWW at June 24, 2004 11:04 PM

They wanted the law, they got it. Toyota.

Posted by: Robert Schwartz at June 24, 2004 11:58 PM

Umm, neither Aragorn nor Jesus Christ are running for office.

It's quite a stretch to say that promulgating shared values constitutes political support: The FTC would then have power over the content of sermons. I'll burn the building down and string the bastards up when that happens.

Posted by: Ptah at June 25, 2004 8:23 AM

Umm, neither Aragorn nor Jesus Christ are running for office.

It's quite a stretch to say that promulgating shared values constitutes political support: The FTC would then have power over the content of sermons. I'll burn the building down and string the bastards up when that happens.

Posted by: Ptah at June 25, 2004 8:23 AM

I hope someone is looking at the film for liable and defamation of character.

Posted by: Genecis at June 25, 2004 10:42 AM

Isn't Ray Bradbury calling for a change in the movie's title as well? He thinks (rightly so) that Moore ripped off his book title for his own personal gain.

Posted by: Bartman at June 25, 2004 10:53 AM

And what about Harry Potter? I mean, Dementors, Democrats, c'mon.

Posted by: Bob Hawkins at June 25, 2004 11:56 AM

Moore obviously griffed Bradbury's title. But what is the legal standing of Bradbury's action? I honestly don't know whether he has an actual case. Do we have a lwayer in the house?

Posted by: Chris Durnell at June 25, 2004 1:16 PM

What I'd like to know is how did Moore get permission to use all those news clips and outtakes. If I tried to use that material for profit, I'd be inundated with lawyers waving "cease and desist" orders for my copyright violations long before I got to the screening stage. Are those new organizations really that willing to license their material, especially the stuff (like the makeup outtakes) that was never meant to be shown pubically?

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at June 25, 2004 2:02 PM
« INCOMING: | Main | DON'T WORRY JOHN, I'VE GOT YOUR BACK...: »