What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
59 Comments
- wannaBdug, on 03/25/2009, -5/+35Everyone is fair game when you decide you want to be in the spotlight.
- poprocksandsoda, on 03/26/2009, -6/+36Censorship should not be tolerated.
- C0lMustard, on 03/26/2009, -5/+29This was an attack ad masquerading as a movie, it was held back because it was circumventing election campaign finance laws.
There should be no issue with it being released now. - kemp34, on 03/25/2009, -6/+30The fact that they were trying to shut down this movie makes me want to see it quite a bit more.
- scooterbaga, on 03/26/2009, -1/+16"Should 1st Amendment protections apply to a documentary..."
YES.
There should be no question here. - atomicpoet, on 03/25/2009, -6/+21So is Oliver Stone directing this biopic?
- failedpimp, on 03/26/2009, -3/+12If this was written by the Wayans Bros this movie would be called White Bitch.
- ohplease, on 03/26/2009, -1/+9How many minutes of the movie does she spend running from sniper fire?
- tacotomato, on 03/26/2009, -5/+11Scariest. Movie. Ever.
- stefano2000, on 03/26/2009, -2/+7Does anyone remember when the made a porno about Sarah Palin? No one could do a thing because the 1st amendment protected it's rights. This movie is being critical, while the other movie is being lewd and lascivious. if the palin porno was allowed this move should be too.
this is coming from a person that doesn't mind hilary clinton as a politician. - binky79, on 03/26/2009, -9/+14As written/directed by the Wayans Bros.
Carmen Electra as Hillary Clinton
Snoop Dogg as Barack Obama
John Stewart as Rahm Emanuel
Leslie Nielsen as Joe Biden
Epic! - EdgarVerona, on 03/26/2009, -2/+7You've got to be kidding me. You obviously have selective Digg memory: the "teleprompter error" myth was debunked earlier in the week, it was an intentional gaffe that he made to poke fun at an accidental gaffe by another speaker earlier in the night, and then right-wing pundits grabbed just the clip of his joke and claimed it was unintentional.
But you don't want to hear that... I forgot. Here's your tinfoil hat back. - Kiloboba, on 03/26/2009, -1/+5Michael Moore is a weak pussy bitch! He wines and doesn't back up his claims which makes everyone confused and misinformed.
- sugarazor, on 03/26/2009, -0/+4While I'm not up to date all the legal issues and I may be wrong here, but it seems to me the biggest problem for this movie is the fact that it's produced by Citizens United, a non-profit organization. If they wanted to advertise this movie during a campaign, then they could no longer enjoy their tax-exempt status, as they are not a political action committee.
- GhostInAShell, on 03/26/2009, -8/+12Anything critical of the shady political being that is Hillary Clinton should be mass-released.
Also, bonus points for Bill's shady business ventures. - sugarazor, on 03/26/2009, -1/+4Free speech was not hindered in the case of this movie as no one stopped them from making it, releasing it or selling it. The issue came with advertising the movie and how that related to McCain-Feingold.
- chadsmith729, on 03/26/2009, -1/+4White Scary Bitch.
- mogebier, on 03/26/2009, -4/+7As long as the leave out the nude scenes, I think it should be released.
We don't want a world-wide sickness, do we? - zip000, on 03/26/2009, -0/+3I'm a fan of Hillary, and I'm guessing that this movie is probably a hack job, but I support the hacks' rights to make and show this movie if they want to.
The issue with this movie is a little more complicated in that it is being treated as an electioneering communication so it basically was subject to the same regulation as campaign commercials.
Considering it in that light, with some trepidation, I still support their right to release it and show it. - twoheadedboy00, on 03/26/2009, -2/+5Idiots: The suit has nothing to do with whether or not this movie can or cannot be released in the United States. Obviously it can be.
The issue is whether or not it constitutes a campaign ad, and should therefore be subject to both campaign finance laws and equal time provisions imposed by the FCC.
*****. - Stormwern, on 03/26/2009, -0/+3Let them release it, then sue them for slander. Ann Coulter, Dick Morrison and Newt Gingridge are all in the trailer, what do you suppose the odds are it's not a steaming pile of *****.
- sugarazor, on 03/26/2009, -0/+3They had every right to release it, show it and sell the DVD, no one stopped them from that, despite what the Republican echo chamber is claiming.
- stefano2000, on 03/26/2009, -2/+5i don't think michael moore would criticize Hilary clinton, a decomcrat. he's liberal if remember correctly.
- stefano2000, on 03/26/2009, -0/+2i live in canada so i can't access hulu, lame canada i know.
- sugarazor, on 03/26/2009, -0/+2This is not about the first amendment, this is about political campaign ads. The movie was not blocked, advertising the movie was blocked. The right threw McCain-Feingold at Michael Moore for advertising Fahrenheit 9/11, but since Bush was not running in any primaries or caucuses, he was free to advertise the movie until within 30 days of when Bush became an official candidate (the Republican Convention). Before that ban was triggered, Moore began advertising F9/11 without any depiction or mention of Bush in the ads.
Citizens United (the producers of this movie) would have been free to advertise this movie at any point on any broadcast, so long as their ads did not mention or depict Hillary Clinton. You might think they shot themselves in the foot by calling it "Hillary: The Movie," but getting this case to go to the Supreme Court was their goal all along. - prophet5, on 03/26/2009, -3/+5Where were these idiots when they were making movies about George W. Bush, and the President getting shot?
These hypocrites believe they are above everyone else.
They need to be humbled. - zip000, on 03/26/2009, -0/+1There are actually a lot of exceptions to the first amendment.
- zip000, on 03/26/2009, -0/+1There are actually a lot of exceptions to the first amendment.
- Denominator88, on 03/26/2009, -3/+4So, the movie W about George Bush is ok to show, yet Hillary isn't? Either they are all fair game or none of it is.
- sigmaman2, on 03/26/2009, -2/+3Whoa, I didn't even know that they were making a movie about Hillary Clinton. Great marketing move.
- shnizep, on 03/28/2009, -0/+1Reply to typical liberal rhetoric...Did he say anything about Bush?
- sugarazor, on 03/26/2009, -0/+1That's quite a stretch to make there. And W. wasn't really much of an attack on Bush, so I don't see how you could say it's an attack on McCain. The movie was way more about Bush the man than his policies, so I don't think anyone in their right mind would interpret that movie as some sort of political vehicle for the Democrats. If you wanted to draw comparisons to Bush and McCain, all you had to do was use actual facts and footage, which Obama and the DNC did in their actual political ads.
Hillary: The Movie, was not blocked. They were free to produce it, release it and sell it, they just couldn't advertise it during the campaign. And it's not even that they couldn't advertise it, they just couldn't mention Hillary Clinton by name or show depictions of her in their advertising. Michael Moore had to cut out all mentions and depictions of Bush in the advertising for Fahrenheit 9/11 one month before the Republican Convention. - schwagman, on 03/26/2009, -3/+4There were plenty of attack ads masquerading as books, cable news items, newspaper columns, cartoons, etc.
that were released during the campaign season.
Free speech was hindered in the case of this movie. That is the issue. It should have been allowed to be released whenever. No restrictions. The relevant "law" is related to McCain-Feingold and should and probably will be found unconstitutional. - JoeParanoid, on 03/26/2009, -1/+2The trouble with regulating the influence of money on our elections (which is a real problem) is that it invariably intrudes on First Amendment issues. Although the content of the Hillary movie pretended to be factual, while the Palin one obviously was satirical only, I'd rather not have a court engage in content-based analysis. For me, the determination of whether this is campaign material subject to McCain-Feingold should be based on how it was marketed: sold as a product or handed out as campaign literature. And sugarazor above makes a good point: non-profits who engage in political campaigning should lose their tax-exempt status. Otherwise, they simply become money laundering operations.
- inactive, on 03/26/2009, -0/+1How were you able to determine that he's a neo-conservative and not just a conservative?
- sugarazor, on 03/26/2009, -0/+1Well that's entirely different, that's parody. The claim about this is that it was a political ad disguised as a movie, not saying I agree that it should've been blocked, but it's not the same as a parody porno.
- jj91, on 03/26/2009, -0/+1Then we will have "Limbaugh: The Movie" and "Hannity: The Family Special" and "Coulter: The Mini Series"
- sugarazor, on 03/26/2009, -0/+1George W. Bush was not a candidate running for any office when W. was released. If you want to make that argument, use Fahrenheit 9/11, but even that's not the same as this movie.
- chadsmith729, on 03/26/2009, -1/+2True, but you do know that Michael Moore is actually Fred Savage. (http://www.hulu.com/watch/63905/family-guy-fred-sa ...
It's what I was attempting to refer to in my original comment, but failed. - Kiloboba, on 03/26/2009, -2/+2You stupid ***** stop pointing fingers at right wing left wing. It's either right or wrong when it comes to corrupt politicians. You'll never pin point the criminals if you just accuse the whole group. There are good Dems and bad, there are good Reps and bad. This country is a Democratic Republic and our duty is to see the bad people and kick them out! Choosing sides blindly is BAD!! Your not doing your job as an American!
- inactive, on 03/26/2009, -5/+5She's a public figure. So long as it isn't slanderous, then go for it.
That said if you want to attack someone you better be good with fact checking. Then again if this movie panders to the right wing it won't have to, those morons never bother with facts. - GoldenCow, on 03/28/2009, -0/+0Interestingly, both movies have exactly the same audience -- angry, horny but impotent white Republican men.
- ultraseamus, on 03/26/2009, -1/+1True, he was not a candidate, but one of the biggest ideas democrats pushed was that McCain = Bush. So, really, it was as close to an attack on McCain as you could get without technically attacking McCain. The only way I could see blocking this movie in any form, would be if the information was completely incorrect, and deceptive. But, from what I have heard and read, more people learning the truth about Hilary is somethign that her campaign should have been very afraid of.
- Vaasman, on 03/26/2009, -2/+2If W. and Fahrenheit 911 were ok, then this should be ok. There are no exceptions to the first amendment.
- oboshoe, on 03/26/2009, -1/+1I could care less.
I will not be going to see or pay for any of those, but if someone feels that they wish to make those movies, why not?
Civil rights are something that everyone should have. - inactive, on 03/27/2009, -1/+1I wasn't talking about politicians. I agree, most politicians regardless of political party are dirty as hell.
However of the two parties, one sides followers are COMPLETELY blind to their actions and follow their lead no matter how absolutely insane their actions are.
The other party is just mostly crazy. - chadsmith729, on 03/26/2009, -8/+7Hey as long as it's not written or produced by Michael Moore I'm in.
- ChristopherShwn, on 03/26/2009, -3/+2And Michael Moore checks his facts?
-
Show 51 - 61 of 61 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is