Michael Moore's new film available as a free download

[bewitched]

Slacker Uprising (http://slackeruprising.com/)


A 100-minute look at Mr. Moore’s tour of college campuses during the fall of 2004. Cameras followed him to 62 cities as he urged young people to vote for John Kerry. The resulting footage sat on the shelf for a few years before Mr. Moore spliced together a version of the film, then titled “Captain Mike Across America,” and showed it at the Toronto International Film Festival a year ago.

After the festival screening Mr. Moore returned to the editing room to give the film “more heft and substance,” he said. It includes exchanges with Mr. Moore’s detractors and their attempts to interrupt his tour, raising free-speech issues and creating some comedic moments.



My apologies if this was already posted elsewhere.

[scaeagles]

Do detractors really have free speech issues? Could be....I'm just curious. If this is the case, then you would agree that any collegiate crowd that shouts down Anne Coulter or David Horowitz (sp?) have free speech issues.

Here's my take - those who shout down when the object of the protest is in an organized forum - as in were invited to speak - have those issues. Those who "detract" from someone in an informal setting, such as when walking around a campus soliciting votes do not.

[Strangler Lewis]

Admins: can we delete the last post, please?

[bewitched]

scaeagles, if you are asking the question as it pertains to this film I cannot comment, nor am I able to agree or disagree with your conclusion. The link just went up his morning and I haven't had a chance to actually watch the movie yet.

After watching the movie I will happily debate these points and more. :)

[scaeagles]

I'm just wondering in general.

If someone is shouting out from the street corner and I start saying the person shouting is an idiot or shouting a different message, am I interfering with his free speech? I don't think so.

I do, however, think that while it is not any free speech violation to do the same during a forum designed to allow an individual to speak, it is somewhat tasteless and that it is not a violation of the protestor's rights to have them removed.

[€uroMeinke]

I believe shouting people down is just another form of censorship, if that's what you're asking. I think the best way to combat a message you don't like is to present a better opposing message, not to prevent the other message from getting out, as it concedes the point that they have a better message than you can provide.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Do detractors really have free speech issues? That's a creative way of reading that sentence:

It includes exchanges with Mr. Moore’s detractors and their attempts to interrupt his tour, raising free-speech issues

"Raising issues" does not imply that anyone "has issues". It means that the events brought the subject up and inspired a conversation. What is wrong with that?

[Moonliner]

Free Speech, Censorship..... Government or Individuals?

[scaeagles]

"Raising issues" does not imply that anyone "has issues". It means that the events brought the subject up and inspired a conversation. What is wrong with that?

I read this as Moore having problems with his "detractors" and implying that they were interfering with his free speech....not that free speech became an issue of debate.

[Gemini Cricket]

Slacker Uprising (http://slackeruprising.com/)
Thanks, bewitched. :)
I'm downloading it now from an iTunes link that Moore's site provided.
I'm curious.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I read this as Moore having problems with his "detractors" and implying that they were interfering with his free speech....not that free speech became an issue of debate.
Yes, I see that's how you read it. Too bad it's not what was written.

[JWBear]

Pardon me... But doesn't the First Amendment only guarantee that government can’t limit free speech?

[bewitched]

I'm just wondering in general.

If someone is shouting out from the street corner and I start saying the person shouting is an idiot or shouting a different message, am I interfering with his free speech? I don't think so.

I do, however, think that while it is not any free speech violation to do the same during a forum designed to allow an individual to speak, it is somewhat tasteless and that it is not a violation of the protestor's rights to have them removed.


I'm going to give the short answer since I am going to try and take a little nappypoo (having been up all night unable to sleep)....



With some caveats, I do not disagree with your statement. Generally speaking, that is.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Pardon me... But doesn't the First Amendment only guarantee that government can’t limit free speech?
Correct, there is nothing technically illegal about shouting someone down in public forum.

That doesn't mean it's not rude, infantile, counterproductive, and in the spirit of censorship.

"Legal" is not that same as "right".

[scaeagles]

Yes, I see that's how you read it. Too bad it's not what was written.


My interpretation is not in the least unreasonable, and in fact makes sense.

It includes exchanges with Mr. Moore’s detractors and their attempts to interrupt his tour, raising free-speech issues and creating some comedic moments.

Clearly the sentence structure implies that free speech issues and comedic moments were a result of detractors trying to interrupt his tour.

The attempts to interrupt the tour raised the free speech issues and created the comedic moments.

I fail to see why this is not what the sentence says.

[flippyshark]

So, at some point, is anyone going to watch and discuss the movie, rather than endlessly debate the syntax of the original post?

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm going to watch it tonight.

[JWBear]

Correct, there is nothing technically illegal about shouting someone down in public forum.

That doesn't mean it's not rude, infantile, counterproductive, and in the spirit of censorship.

"Legal" is not that same as "right".

Agreed. But it's not denying them their right to free speach, either.

[bewitched]

So, at some point, is anyone going to watch and discuss the movie, rather than endlessly debate the syntax of the original post?


It's a good thing I only posted a blurb. ;)

[Ghoulish Delight]

I fail to see why this is not what the sentence says.
Because your post changed the semantic context from "it raises issues" to "they have issues." You presented a counter argument to something the original quote simply did not say.

It may very well be the likely case that your spin is indeed the film's position, but you haven's seen the film, I haven't seen the film, no one here has seen the film. So with whom are you disagreeing when you say, "Do detractors really have free speech issues?" No one on the board said they do, the quote posted doesn't say they do. The film MIGHT say they do, but arguing against a position then you're arguing against a position that hasn't even been presented to the people your talking to, that you haven't even yourself seen.