It may settle the question of whether the government can regulate a politically charged film as a campaign ad.


No. they can't.

Next question.

So, Citizens United wanted to stop Fahrenheit 9/11 ads, but wanted to play Hillary ads?

Those are some fine principles there, guys.

Weaver95: It may settle the question of whether the government can regulate a politically charged film as a campaign ad.


No. they can't.

Next question.

the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

way to steal the Yahoo! headline there, Subby!

/whatever gets you the greenlight!

So what. The Supreme Court is just a regular court with tomatoes and sour cream anyway.

burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

Weaver95: burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

no.

burndtdan: Weaver95: burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

no.

Read up on it some time. it's a good example of the law of unintended consequences.

Weaver95: Read up on it some time. it's a good example of the law of unintended consequences.

Can you give us less information about this ruling? Thanks.

cousin-merle: Weaver95: Read up on it some time. it's a good example of the law of unintended consequences.

Can you give us less information about this ruling? Thanks.

some things you have to learn for yourself, otherwise it won't have any meaning.

Weaver95: some things you have to learn for yourself, otherwise it won't have any meaning.

That's what every good professor I ever had told me.

I wonder how the media would respond if Obama: The Motion Picture comes out in the fall of 2012.

Weaver95: some things you have to learn for yourself, otherwise it won't have any meaning.

I don't really care; I just think it makes you look like an ass when you do this.

Weaver95: some things you have to learn for yourself, otherwise it won't have any meaning.

basemetal: That's what every good professor I ever had told me.

So they told you that in the first 5 seconds of class, then spent the rest of the semester drinking?

/damn tenure

Weaver95: burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

FYI, I believe Weaver is talking about the Interstate Commerce Clause.

ICC was a bit vague as to what he meant. If I'm wrong feel free to correct/flame

/carry on

Weaver95: burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

So what does the International Cricket Council have to do with this?

Citizens United appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that "Hillary: The Movie" should not be considered a political ad. The group says there is nothing in the movie urging people to vote against Clinton. The group says the film is more of a documentary comparable to critical television news programs such as "Frontline," "Nova" and "60 Minutes."

I'm sensing bullshiat on this comment.

The issue here isn't the free speech right to produce it, but having to reveal who backed the movie.

I could see this getting tricky if an amateur YouTube video critical of a politician were to suddenly blow up and become widely circulated, and suddenly a video made up of AP photos and grainy clips ripped from other YouTube videos becomes a federal case.

I'm not sure we need such disclosure laws, if we have a media that could properly vet any claims and seek out the original authors themselves. Misappropriation, innuendo, lies and innuendo have always and will always be part of elections and regulating more speech that only legitimate commentators will follow won't get rid of it.

spartywrx: Weaver95: burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

FYI, I believe Weaver is talking about the Interstate Commerce Clause.

ICC was a bit vague as to what he meant. If I'm wrong feel free to correct/flame

/carry on

That makes more sense. I read ICC as International Criminal Court and was really confused. For one, that Weaver would have any respect for it.

But no ruling dealing with interstate commerce should have any impact on this case. It's strictly a McCain-Feingold issue.

eqtworld: I thought this was settled. Yup, confirmed.

Hillary is 44 (new window)

"The reckless, incompetent, inexperienced, unqualified, and treacherous Barack Obama continues to play reckless games with the American economy."

They really can't be serious, can they?

RemyDuron: eqtworld: I thought this was settled. Yup, confirmed.

Hillary is 44 (new window)

"The reckless, incompetent, inexperienced, unqualified, and treacherous Barack Obama continues to play reckless games with the American economy."

They really can't be serious, can they?

I love how clever the "Admin" character seems to think he/she is.

My favorite oft-repeated quote that doesn't really make much sense:


Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

Awesome.

RemyDuron: They really can't be serious, can they?

Old, bitter, menopausal women are quite serious about this.

bartink: RemyDuron: They really can't be serious, can they?

Old, bitter, menopausal women are quite serious about this.

Not to mention, ironically bigoted, self-hating gay guys.

/seriously

Ed Willy: The group says the film is more of a documentary comparable to critical television news programs such as "Frontline," "Nova" and "60 Minutes."

I'm sensing bullshiat on this comment.

The issue here isn't the free speech right to produce it, but having to reveal who backed the movie.

You will note that both Frontline and Nova are quite open as to who backs the programs financially. On the other hand, 60 Minutes is advertisement sponsored, again, pretty much openly labeling who is paying for the material.

So, what have these people got to hide? They can't openly admit where the money to make the film came from? Was this film paid for (even in part) by a Republican organization - because that would be an intentional skirting of campaign finance laws, wouldn't it?

Ed Willy: I could see this getting tricky if an amateur YouTube video critical of a politician were to suddenly blow up and become widely circulated, and suddenly a video made up of AP photos and grainy clips ripped from other YouTube videos becomes a federal case.

Not unless it was an astroturf attempt at deliberately circumventing the campign finance laws, in which case the bastards should burn. (Please note - it makes no difference to me which side of the political spectrum did this, if they do attempt to get around these laws they are tampering with our election process. And wouldn't we all like to think that everyone would be as incensed if there was a serious attempt to hijack an election?

Ed Willy: I'm not sure we need such disclosure laws, if we have a media that could properly vet any claims and seek out the original authors themselves. Misappropriation, innuendo, lies and innuendo have always and will always be part of elections and regulating more speech that only legitimate commentators will follow won't get rid of it.

I'm more of the feeling that if you are making a political commentary I would prefer to know who paid for it. I don't care if it is Michael Moore or the American Nazi Party. If you want to play in politics, you have to disclose where the money came from.

If we don't mandate this, it will only be a matter of time before some less scrupulous assholes start flooding our time with thinly disguised political advertisements that allow one candidate to have more time than the rest. If that happens, we will be vulnerable to the candidate who has the most money - and that is definitely where we don't want to go.

Even I am hoping it's not a porn

/sorry, that's one ugly biatch.

Aexia: Weaver95: burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

So what does the International Cricket Council have to do with this?

No, the International Coaching Community.

Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies.

Buwhahuh?

eqtworld: I thought this was settled. Yup, confirmed.

Hillary is 44 (new window)

Wow, still?!?


/POLL'S CLOSED

fiscal liberals are still idiots.

I don't understand why they aren't willing to publicize the financial backers of the film.

soakitincider: fiscal liberals are still idiots.

Posting off topic non-sequiturs of partisan rhetoric doesn't exactly make you a candidate for the 'not an idiot' category.

If it's a piece of work with the sole purpose of being critical of a public figure / politician and is being aired with the explicit or implied purpose of influencing a candidacy / election and it's voters, then it absolutely should be regulated by campaign finance laws.

Oliver Stone's "W" displayed and viewed in a conventional time and place as an artistic though critical biopic of the president is NOT and should not be regulated by campaign finance laws.

Oliver Stone's "W" displayed and viewed right before, after or during the presidential debates of George W. Bush and Al Gore or in prime time during the height of coverage of Bush vs. Gore *IS* political campaigning whether intentional or not and at the very least needs to have the air time sponsorship funding sources declared.

/yes I know "W" didn't come out till right before Bush left office...I was making an analogy.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" which is tangentially critical of George. W. Bush being advertised during the height of his campaign season would be a very tough call but I would err on the side of safety and ask Moore to declare funding. (wasn't advertised at that time so it's a moot point)

"Hillary : The Movie" which is a ridiculous and direct hack job on Hillary Clinton with the sole purpose of maligning her and her politics, being run in full during the height of her campaigning with a very direct intention of influencing voters is absolutely, positively a no brainer and their financial backers should be declared.

Verrai: spartywrx: Weaver95: burndtdan: the question isn't whether they can stop someone from making the film, the question is whether it falls under campaign finance laws that would force them to report where the money came from.

Remember where the ICC ruling ended up taking us?

FYI, I believe Weaver is talking about the Interstate Commerce Clause.

ICC was a bit vague as to what he meant. If I'm wrong feel free to correct/flame

/carry on

That makes more sense. I read ICC as International Criminal Court and was really confused. For one, that Weaver would have any respect for it.

But no ruling dealing with interstate commerce should have any impact on this case. It's strictly a McCain-Feingold issue.

Right, and the issue here is not whether the film can be made, but whether the ads for the film can be run during the campaign season and (maybe) whether the film constutes a political ad vs. a documentary...

smeegle: I don't understand why they aren't willing to publicize the financial backers of the film.

Well, if in fact they have a constitutional right to hide that information, then I certainly have no problem with them asserting that right on principle alone. Of course, it may well be that they have no such right.

No. they can't.

Next question.

Completely incorrect. They can, and do, regulate political attack ads. Why do you think each and every political attack ad identifies who paid for it?

The case before the court is if a 90 minute long attack movie qualifies as an attack ad or not.

Dick Morris, a former adviser to President Bill Clinton who is now a critic of the Clintons, saying the senator is "the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist."

O RLY? What about self-professed socialists, such as Bernie Sanders? Or what about the guy who ran for president on the Socialist Party ticket?

Oh, wait. That's right. Dick Morris is a shiatbrained partisan whore. I almost forgot.

The entire time Bush (43) was in office there were television shows and movies slamming Bush such as Comedy Central's "Little Bush", all the Michael Moore movies and countless harsh bashings on just about every sitcom, news and/or fake news program. The movie "W" was advertised and pumped up with all kinds of inferences to the credibility of Oliver Stone's respected career causing the movie to be anticipated to be a scathing look at the real evil person "W" really was. It turned out to be something different than that. Meanwhile, all that underlying support and massive media bashing constantly washed over Bush the entire 8 years he was in office working hard to keep us safe, which he did.

Then the democrats came with their Hedge Fund manipulation crashing the markets and killing the banks and financial industry and ultimately, the entire world economic systems, just so they could take power. Now the democrats have chosen to release the Gitmo prisoners onto our streets, reduce our armed forces, reduce military spending, cut back on intelligence and try to "make friends" with those who are designing nukes right now to kill us. I guess what I am trying to say is, all that Bush bashing was OK with you, but sadly, we'll see who was doing the right things soon enough.

Weaver95: cousin-merle: Weaver95: Read up on it some time. it's a good example of the law of unintended consequences.

Can you give us less information about this ruling? Thanks.



some things you have to learn for yourself, otherwise it won't have any meaning.

Weaver either post a link or drop the point.

Thanks.

LEAVE SADDAM ALONE!!!

modestlivinglegend: the entire 8 years he was in office working hard to keep us safe, which he did.


Funny, I recall the New York skyline getting a makeover sometime in 2001.

Hillary's Gate: The Inside Story, rated NC-17

RandomExcess
Hillary's Gate: The Inside Story, rated NC-17

jesus, you let them watch that there won't BE a Supreme Court.

Will there be nude scenes?

/dnrtfa
//at this point, is there really anyone left who thinks that laws about ethics in government mean anything anymore?
///I want to believe.

Mugato: modestlivinglegend: the entire 8 years he was in office working hard to keep us safe, which he did.


Funny, I recall the New York skyline getting a makeover sometime in 2001.

He kept us safe, except when he didn't.

whidbey: Weaver95: cousin-merle: Weaver95: Read up on it some time. it's a good example of the law of unintended consequences.

Can you give us less information about this ruling? Thanks.



some things you have to learn for yourself, otherwise it won't have any meaning.

Weaver either post a link or drop the point.

Thanks.

I believe I already did.

modestlivinglegend: The entire time Bush (43) was in office there were television shows and movies slamming Bush such as Comedy Central's "Little Bush", all the Michael Moore movies and countless harsh bashings on just about every sitcom, news and/or fake news program. The movie "W" was advertised and pumped up with all kinds of inferences to the credibility of Oliver Stone's respected career causing the movie to be anticipated to be a scathing look at the real evil person "W" really was. It turned out to be something different than that. Meanwhile, all that underlying support and massive media bashing constantly washed over Bush the entire 8 years he was in office working hard to keep us safe, which he did.

Then the democrats came with their Hedge Fund manipulation crashing the markets and killing the banks and financial industry and ultimately, the entire world economic systems, just so they could take power. Now the democrats have chosen to release the Gitmo prisoners onto our streets, reduce our armed forces, reduce military spending, cut back on intelligence and try to "make friends" with those who are designing nukes right now to kill us. I guess what I am trying to say is, all that Bush bashing was OK with you, but sadly, we'll see who was doing the right things soon enough.

You need to cut way back in the cough syrup.
Otherwise you might have had an awesome troll.

Weaver95: I believe I already did.

I'm not seeing it, and asking us to Google it is somewhat dishonest.

If you want to include the information in a discussion, you should post said information, not make us guess.

Yes, I know it goes against your modus operandus. I'm criticizing it.

Find it hard to believe that it's taken until now for there to be lawsuits over what constitutes a campaign ad. *shrug* Actually, there probably have already been previous cases; just feeling too lazy to look them up right now.

whidbey --
With very high probability, Weaver95 is referring to the increasingly expansive view of the ICC based on cases such as Wickard v. Filburn (regarding a farmer's noncommercial, intrastate production vs. federal quota) to allowing the ICC to justify such things as federal regulation of personal non-commercial cultivation of marijuana (as per Gonzales v. Raich) and the like. ICC was even claimed as justification for the 'Gun Free School Zones' act, if memory serve -- the reading being that transitivity essentially gives the federal government the ability to directly regulate practically any activity even if non-commercial and purely intrastate if it might conceivably affect interstate commerce even as an unintended, minor side effect.

BMulligan: Well, if in fact they have a constitutional right to hide that information, then I certainly have no problem with them asserting that right on principle alone. Of course, it may well be that they have no such right.

It will be interesting to see if the SCOTUS does rule that "independent" film, TV, YouTube, etc. producers do have this right. If they do, what's to stop any of the Fark Troll Brigade^(TM) from soliciting money to make an "independent" movie (whatever) and profiting?

Korovyov: whidbey --
With very high probability, Weaver95 is referring to the increasingly expansive view of the ICC based on cases such as Wickard v. Filburn (regarding a farmer's noncommercial, intrastate production vs. federal quota) to allowing the ICC to justify such things as federal regulation of personal non-commercial cultivation of marijuana (as per Gonzales v. Raich) and the like. ICC was even claimed as justification for the 'Gun Free School Zones' act, if memory serve -- the reading being that transitivity essentially gives the federal government the ability to directly regulate practically any activity even if non-commercial and purely intrastate if it might conceivably affect interstate commerce even as an unintended, minor side effect.

I have no doubts that this is what Weaver is referring to and it is a nightmare.The answer (in my opinion) is to fix the law(s) so as to allow what needs to be regulated permission to do so while reigning in the excesses.

Now, what Whidbey is highlighting is that Weaver tends to come into a thread, drop a comment (like he did in this case) and expect everyone else to know what he's talking about. While many of us do (mostly) the very idea that every Farker understands everything that Weaver does borders on insane and that it might be nice for some of us slower (bowling champions) if Weaver did a little more than hint.

How about a link? Man, it's tough playing in a professional league when your agent meant to send you to the Special Olympics.

Random Reality Check: How about a link? Man, it's tough playing in a professional league when your agent meant to send you to the Special Olympics.

I'm harkening back to high school debate, contemplating how, at a tournament, "read up on it sometime" would go over in front of a judge.

And yes, I realize this isn't a debate tournament...:P

Still, some of the best posters here at Fark impress me because of their willing ability to back up arguments with hard facts.

Asking someone to Google something would be acceptable if we were off-topic.

Refusing to back up opinions with facts is laziness, and I say forfeits an argument. I can't be asked to be someone's secretary either. I want to know. Now. Otherwise, I don't care.

/slight rant