Free speech or twisting of history?

Boston Globe ^ | 11/10/2003 | Cathy Young

[RJCogburn]

Those associated with the miniseries claim that it is not a slam but a nuanced portrayal of the former first couple. Some of the less flattering aspects of its portrayal of the former first couple -- President Reagan is depicted as often inattentive and uninformed and Nancy Reagan as controlling and overly interested in astrology -- jibe with accounts by Reagan supporters.

[ClearCase_guy]

the boycott organized by gay rights groups against Dr. Laura Schlessinger's television show as a threat to free speech. Now they are praising the action against CBS as a legitimate expression of popular anger.

There's an important difference. When news of a TV show featuring Laura Schlessinger got out, people staged a boycott. She was going to state personal opinions on the air, and these people wanted to stop that before it started. It was prior restraint.

The Reagan "documentary" contained lies (as acknowledged by the script writer) and was dealing with historical events where truth can (and has) been firmly established -- yet the script served as a hatchet job, not a rendition of historical facts.

Prior restrainst on a comentator's opinions?
Lies in a script about historical events?

The Left does its standard "moral equivalence" schtick again.

[ChewedGum]

A network has every right to make a critical biopic about Reagan or anyone else and to use a movie to push whatever political agenda it wants. That's what freedom of speech is all about -- though, ironically, it's liberals who have argued that broadcast networks, which get free access to the airwaves, have certain responsibilities to the public. One hopes that would include politically balanced programming and a reasonably accurate representation of history.

But a network should also know that when it makes a movie that is seen as attacking a popular public figure, it should be ready for a backlash. Imagine how the black community would react if a network were about to air a made-for-TV miniseries about Martin Luther King Jr. that contained made-up dialogue that made King sound like a communist sympathizer -- particularly if this movie was made by people with right-wing politics.

This was in the Globe? (Are pigs flying somewhere in Boston this morning?)

Gum

[Agnes Heep]

There's an important difference. When news of a TV show featuring Laura Schlessinger got out, people staged a boycott. She was going to state personal opinions on the air, and these people wanted to stop that before it started. It was prior restraint.

Actually, it would only have been "prior restraint" if it had been done by force, or the threat of force. The fact is that some people don't like what Dr. Laura has to say and are willing to back up their dislike by not purchasing the products of her sponsors. In such a situation, the sponsors have a right to prefer their economic self-interests to any other consideration. Dr. Laura, like CBS, has never been censored from exercising her right to free speech.

[ClearCase_guy]

Well, I do understand that it's not precisely "prior restraint" and I do recognize that no actual "censorship" has taken place. I was a little quick and a little glib about my terms (though I didn't actually mention censorship).

I further recognize that boycotts are a form of free speech, and Americans have recourse to them as a form of expression. But I think my point still stands: using a boycott to block someone from stating an opinion (some time in the future) which might be bothersome is really creating a climate in which discourse is threatened. But, using a boycott to block someone from presenting lies as truth, and thereby distorting our national history is also creating a climate in which discourse (informed discourse, anyway) is also threatened.

I think the Left is wrong in both instances.