It's not a big deal.
Now, I'm not here to defend the veracity or quality of this thing; that's impossible because I haven't seen it. I have only second- and third-hand recaps. That said, all those who are busy debunking it and protesting loudly are people I respect, and they have their hearts in the right place. I'm sure this "movie" would make Goebbels proud. I am willing to stipulate that it is a thuggish right-wing hatchet job, unfair, inaccurate, and, worst of all, disrespectful to the memory of the many who died that day. OK? OK.
But it doesn't really matter. Here's why.
- Not that many people are going to watch it. Far, far more people are going to watch Eli and Peyton Manning tonight, and even the lame games on ESPN tomorrow night will outrate this thing.
- Those who will watch it are a lost cause already. This is a classic exercise in preaching to the choir. Some of the 30% hardcore wingnut base will watch it (those who aren't watching football), but they've already anointed Chimpoleon king for life in their hearts, and have been using Clinton bumwipe for 10 years. And I've seen a lot of earnest handwringing about how the stupid/ignorant out there who don't read books or newspapers will watch it, and be swayed to the GOP. Putting the shameful elitism of that sentiment aside for a moment, does anyone really think the dimwit crowd hasn't already been buffaloed by these yahoos? How can this make it worse, in real terms, at the polls?
- It's bad. According to TV critics nationally, it's an amateurish pile of dung, and anyone who isn't drunk on kool-aid is likely to tune out after 30 minutes and not come back. Look, the presence of a talentless hack like Patricia Heaton is all you need to know. I can smell it from here. Conservatives have never been successful in the arts; try to name two. The most critical quality of an artist is empathy, some kind of understanding of the human condition. It follows trivially that Conservatives lack empathy and therefore cannot create good art. QED.
- I believe ABC/Disney does have First Amendment protection here. Pete asked who the first wingnut would be to bring this up; I guess I'm a wingnut now. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I don't see where the First Amendment means you have to tell the truth. They can do this. Now, we can respond by boycotting Disney and all their properties (I've been looking for a good reason to quit watching "Lost"), and those who have standing can sue for defamation. From what I'm reading, Clinton and Albright might do exactly that. But I don't see where this violates the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" test. Tacky, stupid, evil, bad? Yes. Illegal? Not in my America, thanks. The solution to bad free speech must ALWAYS be more free speech, not less. I'm kind of a hardliner on this one.
Normally, I'd just keep my yapper shut and move on, but I'm worried about all the energy being spent on this when the most important midterm election since the Depression is only 9 weeks away. People are taking their eye off the ball. This is going to be completely forgotten in 5 days.
One last thought on this is that this is nowhere near the worst abuse by a TV network in recent memory. I call to your attention the evening of the 2000 election, when Jack Welch, CEO of GE (the parent of NBC) and an outright bitch of Chimpoleon, called the news desk and demanded that they call Florida for Bush, shifting the momentum to Bush and the burden of proof to Al Gore. How'd that work out for us? Read Henry Waxman's op-ed in the LA Times on the matter.
I humbly submit that that single act was infinitely more damaging to the long term health of our Republic than the airing of a badly made, revisionist made-for-TV movie.
9 comments:
Good points, but I don't quite agree on #4. There is a difference between saying what you want, and saying things that you know are untrue about others in a way that could harm them in some way. As someone pointed out when Tucker Carlson made the same point (sorry) - would it be okay to make a movie called "Tucker Carlson beats his wife" and have an actor portray such actions?
I can think of three reasons you can't make a movie portraying factual people doing certain fictional things: Libel, Slander and Defemation. If it falls under any of those three it is not civilly permitted, but who said they were trying to be civil?
A fourth issue is criminal propagandizing. NJ Governor Corzine (R) should be tried under the anti-propaganda laws as he was a consultant/contributor to the ABC project.
Unfortunately there is precident here as the Bush administration, Dept. of Education and our Drug Czar have all been found in violation anti-propaganda laws by the GAO.
Now get back to your "marching in step" lessons.
My point was that if ABC pulled it as a result of whatever pressure they felt, that would be a business decision (unless the government) got involved, and not a free speech issue. I certainly DO NOT believe that there should be any state action to stop it. One can broadcast lies and one can broadcast crap.
That is of course, as you point out, subject to the possibility of civil liability for defamation.
The elements are:
1) untrue
2) statements of fact
3) causing damage to reputation and
4) in the case of public figures, made with malice. Malice means you knew or recklessly disregarded the truth of your statements.
Let them air it and take the beating they deserve for it.
Don't get me wrong, I'd like them to air it, unaltered. It may just lead to criminal/civil actions. It will get bowled over by Manning v. Manning on Sunday and two Monday night games AND the Chimp in Chief addressing the masses to confirm he is doing "god's" work by killing "others".
It's going to be the biggest campaign ad flop of the 21 century.
If I was a shareholder I'd file with the SEC.
Pete's last sentence is precisely my point. I have seen various attempts at arguing that the 1st amendment does not apply here, and that is rubbish.
That means, simply, that airing this thing is 100% legal.
Now, that doesn't mean that the aggrieved parties can't sue ABC's little mouse balls off. And I think that is exactly how this should be handled. To docmagoo's point, yes: it would be totally OK for someone to make and air a movie called "Tucker Carlson Beats His Wife" from the point of view of the 1st amendment and criminal law. Civil law is, of course, another matter entirely.
Note: I realize that the TV airwaves are FCC regulated, and in fact there is something of a gray area there about what can/cannot be aired under their regulations, which are notably more restrictive than the 1st amendment. I don't know squadoosh about FCC rules, and make no argument either way with respect to that.
I realize I sound like a Libertarian here by advocating that it be handled in civil court. Sue me. :-)
Seriously, my only point is that there is nothing criminally illegal here. But "legal" does not mean "unactionable."
And, PS to I'm Not Ned: Corzine is a Dem...
Sorry Schmidlap, all apologies. I blame the beer...
I was actually meaning to refer to FORMER NJ Governor Thomas Kean(R), who served on the 9/11 commission and consultant for the ABC show.
I need to either drink less, or more...
Schmidlap, you make good points - I guess I wasn't making a distinction between legal (the first amendment allows you to lie your ass off) and whether you'd lose in a civil court because you knowlingly did all that stuff Pete mentioned above. I think that's because many people, still posessing the brain they were born with, would prevent themselves from saying certain things on TV because they knew it to be wrong. The neocons are not really people, anyhow, so it's all moot.
The Supreme Court specifically addressed the 1st Amendment issue in the landmark defamation case of New York Times v. Sullivan. The court realized an inherent tension between the constitutional guarantee of free speech and the common-law tort of defamation. They struck a pretty fair balance by crafting the “malice” requirement for public officials (now expanded to “public figures” by subsequent decisions. No such restriction applies to us ordinary folk (although legendary blogger Schmidlap is approaching “public figure” status). We don’t have to show any mental state by the speaker, just an untrue damaging statement of fact.
Ned: as with free speech, so it goes with free beer: the answer to free beer must ALWAYS be more free beer.
Post a Comment