Intimidation and speech: Who is trying to silence whom?

I'm sorry, but we at The Left, LLC, will either find you ourselves, or simply ignore your existence as being irrelevant to our elitist agenda . . .

I love it when so many on here ignore the question and instead attack a source or the poster of the question. I think it is a valid question to discuss. So many on here posted things claiming that those who tried to get theaters to not show F9/11 were somehow trying to censure material. But now when the shoe is on the other foot, nobody seems to want to post a thread complaining about the Kerry team wanting to keep this book off the shelves. Just seems a bit funny to me.

PREPARING to secure the Republican National Convention in New York City this week, the FBI interviewed a small number of radicals it suspected of plotting to firebomb media vehicles during the convention. The left attacked, saying the FBI was trying to intimidate protesters into staying home.

Of course, if bombs go off during the convention, the left will fault the FBI (and President Bush) for not doing its job, which the left wants to prevent it from doing.

Actually I have no problem with the FBI checking out leads about terrorist.

Meanwhile, John Kerry is trying to get bookstores to stop carrying "Unfit for Command," the best-selling book in which veterans challenge Kerry's war record. So, where is the left-wing outrage over Kerry's attack on free speech?

Is it really a best selling book? Anyway, I don't blame Kerry for wanting to get it kicked off the shelves. In my opinion Kerry should sue the lot of them for libel.

A Kerry campaign spokesman reportedly said, "?'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them."

Oh, really? What about Bill Clinton's memoir, which contradicts his sworn testimony about Monica Lewinsky? And does that standard apply to films as well? If so, shouldn't the campaign have tried to prevent theaters from running Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is filled with lies?

Clinton didn't contradict himself. If there are lies against certain people in the movie Fahrenheit 9/11 that cannot be backed up, then the movie shouldn't have been played and Micheal Moore should be sued as well for libel to whoever he lied about. From the swift boat guy's own lips, he has no evidence to back up his claims.

We don't blame Democrats for trying to talk bookstores into not carrying the book. Republicans tried to talk theaters into not running Moore's movie, too. What irks us is the self-righteousness of those who claim to take the high road while slogging through the low one.

link

Oh, really? What about Bill Clinton's memoir, which contradicts his sworn testimony about Monica Lewinsky?

And does that standard apply to films as well? If so, shouldn't the campaign have tried to prevent theaters from running Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is filled with lies?