Michael Moore's new film available as a free download

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by JWBear

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]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.