You didn't even see the coming, did you? Bah!

"Crushing of dissent" these days appears to mean "we won't sell your product."

When it doesn't just mean someone said you're a jerk.

Wow, if I had only known how much exposure and noteriety could be gained by claiming censoreship, perhaps I could have gotten some of my works out there. And all this time I just thought they weren't good enough or didn't warrant an audience's attention.
How silly and mislead was I?

Why am I surprised that a guy who doesn't understand or appreciate capitalism (despite it having made him wealthy) doesn't understand or appreciate the definition of censorship?

I take it back. This is a publicity stunt to get it distributed. It sounds so much better when you can wail "the man, he's keepin me down"!

Hey Dave,

Michael Moore may not understand a lot of things, but one thing he most definitely understands is capitalism.

I'm just saying.

That's why I took it back Ara.

"the coming" = "this coming"
I'm going to put a coffee IV bottle next to my desk so I remember to sip first, snipe later.

To pick the nit. When you have a contract with multinational media conglomerate who reneges on its distribution obligations due to political content of a film, that company IS engaging in censorship,

cen-sor n.
1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

This is not direct government suppression of free speech. There is a middle-man who may or may not legitimately be concerned that his dealings with Jeb Bush's Florida would be -- affected by releasing the film. If anything this gives Eisner political cover. But he shouldn't have had to worry about it to begin with.

The fed's get lots of things without direct edicts to states or individuals. That's how we end up with nationwide speed and DUI standards on a state-by-state basis. Influence and pressure work as well as executive orders if the result is the same. Haliburton engaged in pentagon approved censorship when it fired Tami Silicio.

The Bush administration is not directly engaging in censorship, but Eisner is certainly currying favor with this action which will certainly meet with Jeb's approval if not POTUS.

As for Weinstein losing cash... (BTW wasn't he George Mitchell in The Incredible Mr. Limpit?) If Disney is for real on this, and it's not just a publicity stunt, then Miramax should be reimbursed by Disney for any expenses incurred by Disney's breach of contract (ie. the cost of another distribution deal).

Unfortunately, since Miramax is now a Disney subsidiary, one way or another it will lower Weinsein's bottom line no matter which company picks up distribution cost if "outsourced." Don't forget, these guys already blew it by passing up Passion of the Christ and The Lord of the Rings.

Claiming that this film would be detrimental to Disney's image is too speculative to prove by clear and convincing evidence. It can't be measured except anecdotally or unless there is true government reprisal for this film. In which case I doubt that anyone but those that vomit when Moore's name is mentioned would condone such censorship. That is a whole new problem. (Until Patriot Act 3 goes through that is.)

Here's the thing. Miramaz KNEW a year ago that Disney would not distribute the film. Disney told them a year ago. This is a publicity stunt.

Claiming that this film would be detrimental to Disney's image is too speculative to prove by clear and convincing evidence.

Consumer reprisal can be ugly. Boycotts and such get widely publicized. Disney doesn't want the appearnce of any political partisanship. Everyone goes to Disney or watches their films. They want to remain neutral.

Consumer reprisal can be ugly
But you cannot quantify it, So you cannot offset damages in any meaningful way.

And the fact that Disney was wrong a year ago doesn't make them right now. This film is time-sensitive, narrowing Moore and Miramax's options. Disney didn't have too keep putting cash into its production, which (through Miramax) it still is doing for promotion. But voicing concerns is different that an positive act (or ommision in this case). This is actionable. and it's BS. and you know it.

Mark, puh-LEEEZE

Eisner, a man whose future at Disney is not exactly so bright ya gotta wear shades, and his management team, are accountable to the shareholders.

He has aptly demonstrated his willingness to rile conservatives to make a buck.

They decided a year ago this was a bust (that I happen to agree is irrelevant. Personally I think Eisner is enough of a whore to roll the bones and see, but then I haven't read their contract). They made a profit decision. That's it.

Moore is crying because it sounds better to scream "abuse" than it does to whine "they are bored with me".

Everything is "actionable" counselor. You know that all too well. Doesn't mean it's right, or wrong - right and wrong don't even factor in. If the "contract" has been breached (and neither of is have read it, or have a clue what remedies exist in what clauses), it'll get solved through negotiation or litigation.

Your affections are clouding your judgement Mark. You are a bright guy who knows better.

The more things change the more they stay the same.

"Everythings changing. People are taking comedians seriously and their politicians as a joke"
---Will Rogers

You were joking? Your "this is BS" post is a joke?

Well hell, and here I thought I had a sense of humor and all.

I have always been bored with Michael Moore. The media is soooo slow. Glad to see they finally caught up.

Rosemary, does Moore make the whiner of the week category?

Sorry, hit the wrong button. "Whiner of the week" could be a new category under "Minion." :)

Yet Disney lets Ron "The Hedgehog" Jeremy yuk it up at Disneyworld and they're happy about it? Funny world.

This comment is what's the central BS about the whole matter :

"Eisner expressed particular concern that it would endanger tax breaks Disney receives for its theme park, hotels and other ventures in Florida, where Mr. Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor."

I mean how damned inured are we to expecting this to a plausible statement in public about how the government operates. I personally find it scandalous that it taken for granted that if you cross the Bushies they will find a way to take revenge. Doesn't that bother any of you? I thought that sort of thing went out with Huey Long and Daley of Chicago...at least in public.

sorry foogy from over work... shudda been :

"I mean how damned inured are we that this could be a plausible statement..."

Eisner expressed that concerned to an anonymouse source.

Eisner has denied this, of course. I'm not buying it. I don't believe that Jeb would screw over a large business that his state relies on because of a Michael Moore film.

Eisner expressed that concern to an anonymous mouse...

I crack myself up sometimes.