Oh... wait... that was that "Innocence of Muslims" movie about Muhammad that some sleazy guy made. Is he still in jail? This Kim Jong-un movie is a different matter. Free speech! Free speech! How dare the North Koreans object to "the fiery, slow-motion assassination of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, to the tune of Katy Perry's 'Firework'"!
“We will make it less gory," the [director Seth Rogen responded to Sony Pictures' Amy Pascal who had some concerns]. "There are currently four burn marks on his face. We will take out three of them, leaving only one. We reduce the flaming hair by 50%." In October, Rogen sent Pascal a follow-up message with the subject line "Kim Face Fix," noting that "the entire secondary wave of head chunks" had been removed. A special-effects technician later weighed in with an update: "the goop from the head pop is darker, specifically to make it less flesh-like and more surreal."I'm all for free speech, myself. Even for corporations like Citizens United and Sony. But why is this movie deserving of high-level government support when "Innocence of Muslims" was treated like the garbage that — on an artistic/expressive level — it actually was? Let's have some consistency! Do we love free speech and stand up to foreign bullies or don't we? Pick one!
Posts
57 comments:
they are consistent
money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money, money and money
The Innocence of Muslims video was a totally different situation. That time Hillary was creating the narrative.
This time she is only responding to an existing story over which she has no control.
I'm sure she would love to throw some people in jail over this movie too. Sadly, ts just not in the cards this time around. But don't despair. There will be other movies.
Hollywood is worked up about money, the left is worked up about money, Hillary Clinton is worked up about money. Our money! They're attacking our money! Liberals are now outraged.
Because Clinton needed to change the subject from her complete lack of moral fiber, utter lack of management skill, and a clueless adherence to the idea that Al Quaeda was dead. She was also directly responsible for turning Libya into a broken state and had to change the narrative right before an election.
She is a completely amoral power lusting witch. I can't say anything about changing the target of the movie.
Being a liberal is much more complicated than my STEM oriented mind can handle. It is difficult enough to keep compatible propositions straight, much less contradictory propositions.
Althouse: "But why is this movie deserving of high-level government support when "Innocence of Muslims" was treated like the garbage that — on an artistic/expressive level — it actually was?"
Correction, "Innocence of Muslims" was not treated like "artistic garbage" by our high-level gov't officials. It was the sole lie offered up by the obama administration to explain away the attack and murder of our Ambassador and 3 American security personnel.
Double plus good: "The future must not belong to those who would slander the prophet of islam."
In this case, the slandering is of a communist leader, and we have already seen how "flexible" obama can be when responding to the needs of communist/socialist totalitarians.
Althouse: "Let's have some consistency! Do we love free speech and stand up to foreign bullies or don't we?"
When you vote for "teh obama", you are not allowed the "option" later to demand that obama behave in a way that he never, ever, in any circumstance, demonstrated the ability or willingness to prior to his election.
If North Korea was a Muslim nation, or Kim Jong-un a Muslim, would Hillary or Barry have Rogen and Franco or Pascal and Rudin arrested? Would the movie ever have been greenlit?
In her favor, it would be fun to have a POTUS we could call "Old Crosseyes."
Remember Obama's beauty "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam"?
I'm all for free speech, myself. Even for corporations like Citizens United and Sony.
Citizens United is a corporation?
Citizens United is a corporation?
A non-profit corporation. That was the legal issue in the case, I think, although it's been a long time since I read it. Can you censor the speech from a corporation?
To us — to me personally — this movie is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose — to denigrate a revered world leader and to provoke rage..."
This makes sense when you realize that Clinton has more in common with, and more empathy for, corrupt world leaders than the average American.
As for the hypocrisy, what else is new?
The New York Times is a publicly-traded corporation, so I never understood the liberal hostility to the case.
There is a reason why civil rights businesses and union corporations supported Citizens United. Neither sovereign nor foreign interests were addressed. Not even the disparate impact of redistributive change through welfare payments and bureaucratic leverage. They did fear an unprincipled John Doe investigation would invite reciprocation. Well, perhaps not in Wisconsin.
There is a reason why there is unequal treatment of the videos, and it's not because of a subjective artistic/expressive perception. In fact, the effort to paint North Korea in a Benghazi light, raises the question of ulterior motives. The narrative published by the administration and affiliated press changes fast and furious. I wonder what's up their sleeve.
Hah, oh Ann, this click bait is adorable. You know the reason why. Obama was running for re-election and his team needed to create a distraction for why our ambassador was left to die in a terrorist attack. Now that he is safely re-elected they can rev up their moral outrage at any target they feel like. Why not North Korea?
garage mahal said...
"Citizens United is a corporation?"
I believe it was a non-profit corporation that brought a lawsuit against the government for abridging the right of free political speech.
"In the case, the conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA")."
Pretty clear cut. Not even the libs on the court could come up with a coherent argument for stopping speach. But obviously progressives don't like criticism which is why they are angry about it.
If Congress can censor corporations they can censor
The New York Times
The Washington Post
CBS
ABC
NBC
Fox
CNN
Google
Amazon
Yahoo
the internet
the newspapers
the television
the radio
Valerie Jarrett does not care about the NORKs and there is no election.
The difference in this case is there's not an upcoming election and a Benghazi-type episode to cover up that could possibly unseat Dear Leader. Now Dear Leader is Mr Tough Guy (or at least he tells us he will be at some future time of his choosing... but only after consulting with the UN and all our weenie European friends)
She is a completely amoral power lusting witch--You misspelled bitch.
"But why is this movie deserving of high-level government support ..."
I don't see any high-level government support. Do you mean the fact that they haven't been arrested? I guess that is a better deal than the last guy got.
Of course, Hillary is no longer part of the government, but I don't think she has offered any support either.
Hillary does not care one whit about any of the movies (unless it's about her.)
What she does care is about keeping her name in the news. So she will harp on this to show she is, is whatever she is.
Citizens United is a corporation?
Gee, I wonder what part of the Supreme Court ruling that affirmed corporations have 1st Amendment rights that went over Garage's head?
Let's have some consistency!
From lefties? That's illogical. If you prize consistency, you're a conservative, by definition. That's what "conservative" means, you know. Cherishing tradition, consistency, orderliness. If you're a lefty it means you prefer experimentation, changing your mind, adapting to new conditions, not being a prisoner of the past -- either what actually happened or what you said about it.
The Muslim video was a panicky response to the Benghazi attack and a foolish attempt to divert attention from the State Department's (and Hillary!'s) role in bringing it about.
She is not involved in the Sony thing.
You know what's hilarious?
Not that garage doesn't know that Citizens United was a corporation, but the fact that it seems no one else knows that the suit was brought by Hillary Clinton to keep a movie about her from being released, and won.
Appealed to the Supreme Court-
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Apparently Muslims are even more prone to violence than South Korea. SK just hacks Sony when they make a movie about murdering their leader.
Muslims will blow up an embassy when a video shows up on You tube critical of their religion.
The HRC theme song has been chosen. I had a telephone call with the soon-to-be-announced campaign to "Take Back the White House".
It was fun. The guys from 08 campaign came up with Nancy Sinatra's These boots are Made for Walkin', https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww.
because Muslims are more likely to attack us than Norks are.
"Citizens United is a corporation?"
No. It's a dessert topping
Why? 2012 election. Duh
Hillary accidentally recycled her Benghazi speech. It was all an accident and should not be held against her.
I am slightly nauseated thinking about holding anything against her.
That's mighty white of you to include "even" this movie of being worthy of 1st amendment protection toots.
Ack. Garage mahal, obviously "Citizens United" is a corporation. WTF did you think the case was about? They had a movie critical of Hillary Clinton, and they wanted to air it (or rather, advertise airing it) within 60 days of an election in which HRC was a candidate. Hence all the hoo-ha.
How dare you demand consistency between Sony/Seth Rogan and that nameless video maker with his crappy video about the revered Mohammad!
Surely GM heard his Dear Leader rail against SCOTUS and how corporations aren't people after the Citizens United case in Dear Leader's SOTU address a number of years back?
I thought GM saw every televised speech Dear Leader has ever given. I am disappointed.
Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist.
Of course, Althouse, motivated by her creamy hippie-chick center, voted for Obama and his protofascist libtard cronies.
Why not?
Sylvia Plath knew.
Every woman adores a fascist.
That's why women still vote liberal.
"Surely GM heard his Dear Leader rail against SCOTUS and how corporations aren't people after the Citizens United case in Dear Leader's SOTU address a number of years back?"
Oh, garage knows Citizen United is bad, he just doesn't know what it is.
Like many liberals, Garage Mahal is certain that Citizens United, the John Doe investigation, and 'hands up, don't shoot' are all inter-related.
Same shit, different day.
I hope she got more than "30-pieces of silver"!
@jr565: You said south Korea when you meant north. No big deal -- nothing like garage not knowing that Citizens United was a corporation. But the fact that South Korea is a free and prosperous country, while North Korea is a fascist hell hole represents one of the great victories won by the blood and sacrifice of American and allied warriors during the Cold War. Let's never forget that.
Ah, yes, I remember how Hollywood anguished over "Death of a President..." Oh, wait...
Hillary is toast after her saying that stupid shit.
She's done, politically.
What a stupid bitch.
The plus side is that, at long last, there is finally extant a Communist regime that the good people of Hollywood dislike more than the Pinochet regime.......It's possible that the inner circle of the Dear Leader aren't the least bit cynical about him and that they really believe in his beauty and wisdom uncritically and fanatically. In which case, Sony has committed a sacrilege on the level of making fun of Michelle's fat ass. Hollywood should only cast Nazis and white corporate types as villains. It's just too risky to mess around with the other bad guys in the world.
Liberals only defend the right of speech by people they like.
Hillary, caught with the Prophet Mohammed's jizz on her pant suit.
The irony!
The Producer of Innocence of Muslims has been released from prison for his parole violation. Obscene that a Secretary of State would promise to go after someone for how they exercised their free speech rights.
Regards — Cliff
A dry, barren cavern of a human being...
SGT Ted,
Knowing what you know about politics and Democrats in the USA, do you seriously believe she is done?
Having taken out the secondary wave of head chunks and darkened the splatter so it was less resembling of real brain matter, they have already compromised their artistic integrity so I no longer want to see this film which clearly won't be the masterpiece of KIM JONG-UN GORE we all crave.
So to answer Althouse's question, let's be consistent and send BOTH the Muhammad guy and Sony hack Rogen to prison.
She can call it disgusting all she wants, but in this country we have freedom of press and freedom of expression.
A naive law professor or just somebody pretending to be stuck on stupid.
Same words she parroted before Nakoula Basseley Nakoula was arrested at home, at night, for making a video.
By the way, anyone know how to get a copy of "Path to 9/11" anywhere in this world. Could be the first video in history to be banned from any second screening, private or otherwise.
Why? Ask ABC or Hilary. But, hey- what difference at this point does it make?
I guess Hillary draws the distinction where a film arguably insults a religion. However, isn't the worship of the Kims sort of a form of religion in North Korea? Why should that be different?
Fact is, neither film needs to be defended on its substance, but the principle of free speech and free expression applies to the offensive and crappy, not just great art. The fact that Hillary couldn't grasp this when it comes to the anti-Mohammed movie just demonstrates that the Clintons never understoodd or cared about civil liberties.
Woe be upon us if this family gets back into power.
did she promise the "get the film maker responsible" too?
Who gives a shit if it's disgusting and reprehensible?
There are a number of comedians who I think are disgusting and reprehensible, and while I find them distasteful, I don't call for their censorship
The Godfather makes a good point. For many years, people thought of the Korean War as a tie at best, not a victory, just another unsatisfactory war without a parade. We can see now in hindsight that it was a great victory, both in the larger struggle against international revolutionary Communism, and in the smaller struggle to create a free and prosperous Korea.
"Let's have some consistency! Do we love free speech and stand up to foreign bullies or don't we? Pick one!" Your argument is that since the government did something really stupid several years ago, they should do it again now. That they are locked into that position forever and ever.
Kim Jong-un is a "a revered world leader"? The man is a vile, insane dictator. There isn't enough denigration in the universe for him.
Post a Comment