Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (141696)	7/27/2004 8:09:00 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No one denies that there are limits on free speech. Those limits are weaker if the speech is addressed to those who are "public figures," but nonetheless there are limits. Having said that, who did Michael Moore libel? As you'll recall, your intial position defended the assertion that his film shouldn't be allowed under our "free speech" protections, and that our soldiers should be "protected" from his film. "Outright propaganda?" Would that be like the Army Colonel that staged the takedown of the Saddam statue in Baghdad so that it would appear that angry Iraqis were the ones that pulled it down? You know, the incident that Rumsfeld referred to when he said words to the effect that "no one could view that scene and not understand that what we're doing in Iraq is right?" Face it, we're inundated with right wing propaganda that you have no problem with because you believe it furthers a "just cause." Similarly, you despise the counter propaganda because it hinders a "just cause." The problem is that many of us believe that your "just cause" will lead us out of the light and into darkness. You should recognize that and stop whining about Michael Moore's propaganda film.