Since I call conservatives hypocrites for not defending Howard Stern in the name of free speech, it's only fair that I defend an evil, America-hating, leftist asshole for the same reason. Free speech is a right and a principle, and applies to all. There's no such thing as selective free speech. Either your life is your own or it is granted to you by permission by the people with the guns. The content of your speech does not determine whether it should or shouldn't be "free".
So let's get to the asshole: Michael Moore. According to this morning's New York Times article, Disney Forbidding Distribution of Film That Criticizes Bush:
"Mr. Moore's agent, Ari Emanuel, said Michael D. Eisner, Disney's chief executive, asked him last spring to pull out of the deal with Miramax. Mr. Emanuel said Mr. Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor."
My point here is not to pretend to know more than the New York Times and to argue for the truth of the article. My only evidence is what I read in the article. My point is that the article is plausible. That's the scary thing.
In the same way that Clear Channel kicked off Howard Stern, because they were chicken-shit about what might happen to them after the big, evil tit made its appearance, it is likewise possible that Disney took the safe route. I don't trust Michael Moore, and by extension I don't trust his "agent", so it's well within the realm of possibility that this Ari Emanuel guy is full of shit. Nevertheless, the story is plausible.
Amusingly, even in a situation where Moore might be in the right, he still gets it wrong:
"Should this be happening in a free and open society where the monied interests essentially call the shots regarding the information that the public is allowed to see?'"
It's not the "monied interests" that are to blame. Media companies have the right (and in this case, it's likely in the contract) to distribute whatever the fuck information they want to distribute. I don't give a shit whether the public is "allowed" to see it or not. And it ain't "information", some sort of vacuous form of knowledge that just floats around. Moore's dogshit exists on film, and that film is seen in theaters, both owned by somebody and promoted by somebody.
However, when the "monied interests" need to base their decisions on potential tax rape, or the lack thereof, it is an instance of de facto censorship. The bad guy here is the mammoth-sized government we have, and the fact that politicians have the power to screw whom they want to screw. Yes, it might be an issue of Clear Channel or Disney being spineless, but the larger issue is that there even exists a reason for them to cave in. It's not just Bush, and it's not just subjects that conservatives find objectionable. Take a look at the subjects the NEA chooses to endorse, and by extension, the subjects they choose to repress, and you'll see that this isn't just about the Republicans. It's about government's belief that ideas should be regulated, and that private property is no longer a right and can be confiscated when the ideas aren't the "right" ones.
The moral of the story? Take heed, conservatives. Leftist assholes are people, too.
Postscript
I'm sick of hearing from anti-war assholes. 99 times out of 100, they have nothing but complaints and are completely evasive of why we're fighting a war on terrorism. From now on, I'm not devoting any attention to anyone who's anti-war unless they advocate violence against terrorists. These leftists need to prove that they're more than skeptical, naysaying assholes and actually acknowledge the existence of terrorists and what to do about them.
