More on Moore: Censorship or not?

There's been a ton of chatter all over the net in the past 24 hours about the Disney's decision to not release the latest Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 911. One of the more interesting topics is whether or not this can be considered censorship. There have been strong arguments on both sides the fence, and though Filmbrain is inclined to think it is a form of censorship, he does find some of the counter-arguments compelling.

However, there was an interesting development yesterday in that Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) has asked the Senate Commerce Committee to hold hearings to address "a disturbing pattern of politically based corporate censorship of the news media and the entertainment industry." As evidence, he cited CBS's decision to not air The Reagans, as well as Sinclair Broadcasting's refusal to air Nightline when Ted Koppel read the names of the soldiers killed in Iraq.

Filmbrain applauds Lautenberg for his (most likely futile) efforts. Though there's no doubt that Fahrenheit 911 will find a distributor, it seems pretty evident that what Disney did was indeed a form of censorship. According to Lautenberg, Disney's move to block Miramax is "a fundamental question of free speech in our society."

In the interest of fairness, it appears that Disney has said all along that they would not release the film. However, this does not change the issue or question at hand. Are the accusations about Disney and Jeb Bush true? Disney denies it, but it seems highly probable. Tax break incentives are not, from what little Filmbrain knows about such matters, illegal per se. If Jeb, acting on behalf of his brother, has in any way threatened to remove those incentives -- that's an entirely different story.

Filmbrain is also not satisfied with Disney's official response by company spokeswoman Zenia Mucha: "it was not appropriate for Disney, a family entertainment company, to be the distributor of a politically charged movie in an election year." Hmmm...but what about The Alamo? Does that not count as politically charged?

[Filmbrain also promises that this will be the last 'politically charged' post. He's been very busy with the Tribeca Film Festival this week, and has loads of news and reviews to share with the half-dozen people that read this blog.]

Comments

[Brian]

Filmbrain ... "are these tax breaks legal?" Probably, since the government is allowing them. They happened under Democratic control of the state just as they have under Republican control of the state. Corporate kickbacks are a long standing tradition on both the state and federal level for all kinds of companies. It's all quasi-legal.

And it's just the tip of the iceberg. Disney World is its own township ... or, should I say, "unincorporated district" (the "Reedy Creek Improvement District".) That means it has its own government, it's own police force, it's own fire department, etc. all owned by Disney. There was a case back in 1998 where a high school student died in a car accident on Disney property while being pursued by Disney police: the parents sued Disney to try to get the "police report" and the courts decided that even though Disney has all the powers of a police force in the Reedy Creek Improvement District, they aren't bound by "sunshine laws" and didn't have to release that report.

If Jeb is voted out of office, Disney will still get tax breaks ("economic incentives") even under a Democratic governor.

I'd be on the side of saying that isn't a censorship issue ... it's a promotional one by Michael Moore (and a bloody brilliant one at that.)

[Filmbrain]

But the Disney decision, like the CBS decision and the Sinclair decision is a bit of an alarming trend.

Moore will get another distributor. But what of the small filmmaker/writer/whatever that doesn't?

How many incidents like this will it take for people to get concerned? I'm glad Lautenberg is already.

And what's more, all of the incidents have been about the right (or Christian right) silencing the left (or critics of the right). I still say the left should employ the tactics of the right.

[scotty]

Aw, Filmbrain. . .I like your politically charged posts. But it's your blog, baby--we just comment.

Back to the censorship charge: I question your use of it only because it's a very loaded term that is often bandied about when people or companies are simply making decisions other people don't like. Disney is perfectly within its rights to decide to not release the film, and if they have a legal arrangement by which they can prevent anyone else from releasing it, that's also not censorship. It's a business decision, made on the basis of a business relationship that Michael Moore and his lawyers entered into knowingly and willingly.

Now, if your allegations of a Disney-Jeb Bush connection were true, and Bush used a legal tax issue with the company as leverage, or as a threat to convince them not to release the film against their will, then, yes, THAT would be censorship. But there's no evidence that this is the case. I think Disney's just freaked out, hobbled by their Michael Eisner troubles, and don't want to cause a big stir with a controversial film in a highly charged political atmosphere.

In any case, how was the festival? Is the Mary-Kate and Ashley flick Oscar-bound?

[Maven]

The recent Disney controversy highlights the threat to speech by big media companies. More at Cinemocracy: http://cinemocracy.blogs.com/cinemocracy/2004/05/gagged_and_boun.html

[Essrog]

Hey! I have to echo that sentiment about liking the politically-charged posts. Film doesn't exist in a vacuum and it is absurd to avoid discussing politics when it comes to a movie like "Fahrenheit 911" or a guy like Moore (likem or hatem). You might as well try to discuss "Passion of the Christ" without mentioning religion.

Anyway - I agree with your post - Disney's statement about the appropriateness of distributing "politically-charged" material in an election year is complete bunk. Give me a break. As far as "appropriateness" goes, the primary concern of Disneycorp should be profit; ergo, they should be snapping up Moore's movie.