Fahrenheit 9/11 reaction thread

[RGA]

I saw this as a local matinee - Friday was Sold out both shows in my town and pretty full for a Sat Matinee.

I have to say whether I agree with Michael Moore aside his films are damn entertaining. This time he's not in it very much at all and basically lets the politicians let them contradict themselves. It's humourous, sad, angry and unabashadly anti - George W. Bush.

There is nothing necessarily new about most of what has presented - but the advantage of any two hour film is that Moore can get what one person said on tape in 2001 and then what the same person says now - nothing new about Politicians who say the exact opposite things but most people do forget when 2 or 3 years go by.

Some parts he does not follow up - and leaves it more inuendo than fact - but it's rarely weak inuendo and there are a lot of things that should get Americans questioning certain aspects of the film. I would be surprised quite frankly if even die-hard Republicans would not find much in here to at the very least raise an eyebrow at a number of things. Moore managed to get some pretty interesting documents and interviews with cabinet members.

It is a much tighter film than Bowling for Columbine which fudged numbers here and there to make Moore's arguments stronger - but in fact ended up being detrimental to his arguemnt. There is less of his usual in your face style(some is used comically)

He uses almost no numbers this time which got him in trouble in BFC so it's less likely they can be used against him at later dates - again if you get it from the horses mouths themselves you can't be accused of fudging numbers - So I think Moore is far more reigned in here - and because he is and his film is tight it's not surprising certain entities tried to get it stopped - especially certain documents that he attained before the white house blacked out certain sections - CNN got that copy and fed to the people Moore got the uncensored version that we now get in this movie.

Making Bush look silly isn't tough nor is it a real strength in the movie as we all know he is a terrible communicator - but some things you just have to chuckle at.

One weakness is when he talks about the coalition of the willing - he needs to be careful not to weaken his position with omission. Not including the entirety of the facts is a lie of omission and if there is an issue this is it. I can give him a bit of a break because it would be tough on this film-maker's resources to be able to dig in OTHER countries records and that undertaking would be gigantic. He is saved too by the fact that Bush himself was never overly open about it himself.

This is one of the best movies for a movies sake I've seen in a long time - I don't buy all the arguements - some however are undeniable and the film does what you want from an entertainment - Can upset you in one scene and make you laugh out loud a few minutes later. It is one of the few that I've been to that have had people clap at the end. You anti-Moore people just go and have a laugh. I'm probably more left being from Canada but I still enjoy a good joke from Dennis Miller.

[jeskibuff]

It is a much tighter film than Bowling for Columbine which fudged numbers here and there to make Moore's arguments stronger - but in fact ended up being detrimental to his arguemnt. There is less of his usual in your face style(some is used comically)

He uses almost no numbers this time which got him in trouble in BFC so it's less likely they can be used against him at later dates - again if you get it from the horses mouths themselves you can't be accused of fudging numbers

Oh yeah? From someone who saw it Friday night...
LIE #1

The Saudi Royal Family has $850 Billion of their own money invested in the US alone, an amount roughly equal to 10% of all business investment in the US.

FACT: King Fahd is only worth approx. $30 Billion, or less than 1/20th what is claimed in the movie. Oh, and only a small portion of that is invested in the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/374776.stm

So I think Moore is far more reigned in here - and because he is and his film is tight it's not surprising certain entities tried to get it stopped

Trying to get it stopped because it tells the truth? That can't be true. Mooron has been caught in too many lies to consider any of his work to be of any worth. Trying to stop propaganda? That may be true, as propaganda is truly a danger to people who love their freedom and want to maintain it, so it is worthwhile to identify and counteract propaganda whenever possible.

[RGA]

Actually Michael Moore did not say that - he responded to a congressman or senator who he was intervieweing who said something along those lines. That is a very different thing.

I was watching CNN and they had people on saying that Moore is claiming that Saudi's control the US - that is not said in the movie - It is inferred that because Saudi's invested 1.4 billion into Bush Sr. company as opposed to the $400,000 he gets paid as president that there is a conflict of interest - and there is. Moore implies more to this of course being on the far left - but if you don't thinkmoney and power cprrupt just because you happen to be a republican and an American than you surprise me. Money and power are the name of the game to most corporate types - and if a few people happen to die oh well.

[Woochifer]

LIE #1

The Saudi Royal Family has $850 Billion of their own money invested in the US alone, an amount roughly equal to 10% of all business investment in the US.

FACT: King Fahd is only worth approx. $30 Billion, or less than 1/20th what is claimed in the movie. Oh, and only a small portion of that is invested in the US.

In 2002, the value of Saudi investments in the U.S. was estimated at $750 billion. And the Saudi royal family has about 9,000 total members, so your "fact" about King Fahd is not the whole story either.

http://www.lebanonwire.com/0208/02082002TGR.asp

Trying to get it stopped because it tells the truth? That can't be true. Mooron has been caught in too many lies to consider any of his work to be of any worth. Trying to stop propaganda? That may be true, as propaganda is truly a danger to people who love their freedom and want to maintain it, so it is worthwhile to identify and counteract propaganda whenever possible.

You seem to talk about this Mooron guy an awful lot, no one I'm aware of goes by that name. If he's such a liar, then why do you keep bringing him up? I've never heard of him, so what's to counteract?

If you hate propaganda, then you must not like Bill O'Reilly very much either. Every time I've ever tuned into his show, the facts go fast and loose. Similar to how documentary film director Michael Moore takes creative license to make a point, but at least Moore is entertaining and has a sense of humor. O'Reilly was sort of funny when he hosted Inside Edition (or am I thinking of Maury Povich?), but lately he just seems like a bitter grumpy guy. He needs to laugh more. People who laugh more live longer, someone should tell him that.

You should try watching Michael Moore's movies sometime, but just be aware that you should do your own fact-checking after watching his films. Some of those fact checking sites that claim to "correct" what he presents are in need of fact checkers of their own.

[Bryan]

Interesting contrasting viewpoint of Farenheit 9/11.

Note: I haven't seen the film.

[Woochifer]

Plan to see it next weekend. Most of the reaction I've seen thus far seems to point out that Moore's not presenting anything new, just connecting a lot of dots that haven't been connected in one sitting. Most of the major points that I've read about is verified by at least one other source, so it's not like he's making stuff up and taking poetic license with the sequencing like he did a lot of in "Roger & Me". The information's been out there for a long time, but not necessarily widely reported by U.S. media. Moore's just rounding it all together into one spot and forming an argument around it.

The "fact checking" seems to focus on Moore's points about the Saudi family, which relied a lot on the Craig Unger book. However, the "corrections" about the post-9/11 flights by members of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family turn out to be false (most notably in the Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff, who went on Bill O'Reilly's show last week to reiterate this point), as the Tampa airport now confirms that flights with Saudi nationals on board did occur while the national airspace was still closed to commercial flights.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Ta...ies_flig.shtml

Considering how fervent the right wing propaganda against this film has been this week, obviously it's having the intended effect of stirring debate and getting a lot of previously underreported issues out into the open.

[piece-it pete]

I haven't seen it but the commercial I saw tells the story:

After the attacks on 9-11, the Sauds were flown out of the country by the gov't. Why is GWB up to this conspiricy/coverup?

What absolute crap. Of course, the ACTUAL MOVIE will be different (yeah, right).

Pete

May I refer to an earlier post:

[RGA]

Plan to see it next weekend. Most of the reaction I've seen thus far seems to point out that Moore's not presenting anything new, just connecting a lot of dots that haven't been connected in one sitting. Most of the major points that I've read about is verified by at least one other source, so it's not like he's making stuff up and taking poetic license with the sequencing like he did a lot of in "Roger & Me". The information's been out there for a long time, but not necessarily widely reported by U.S. media. Moore's just rounding it all together into one spot and forming an argument around it.

The "fact checking" seems to focus on Moore's points about the Saudi family, which relied a lot on the Craig Unger book. However, the "corrections" about the post-9/11 flights by members of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden family turn out to be false (most notably in the Newsweek piece by Michael Isikoff, who went on Bill O'Reilly's show last week to reiterate this point), as the Tampa airport now confirms that flights with Saudi nationals on board did occur while the national airspace was still closed to commercial flights.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Ta...ies_flig.shtml

Considering how fervent the right wing propaganda against this film has been this week, obviously it's having the intended effect of stirring debate and getting a lot of previously underreported issues out into the open.

You'll notice in the new one Moore stays away from a lot of numbers compared with Bowling fo Columbine. For this movie he claims to have hired a team of fact checkers and a lawyer to go every point he makes in the film - and will fight every claim by the right about his "false facts."

I'm also glad you beat me to it - the Saudi Royal family is very large.

Microsoft is worth more than Bill Gates is worth for example.

It is typical to discredit an entire movie off of a few points. But man if one did that with the Bible look out. The same thing happened with JFK - people attack it on a micro level - but what aboth the macro level. I have the newer DVD and Stone admits that since the movie came out some of the films facts which were guessed at are wrong - but as he points out what about the other 50 they don't question.

The main point Moore seems to make is that this is not about some moral good - that this was an agenda and that agenda was about making money for the cream of society - and there is a strong case here. I don't know why that would surprise anyone - money and power have throughout history been placed above human life.

[Resident Loser]

...together well chosen snippets and do a hatchet-job on any person, place or thing...and his rep precedes him, eh!

...Haven't seen the movie, nor do I intend to...however, I did see MM on the teevee and quite contrary to his avowed reluctance to appear, he certainly is all over!

IMO, he is just an opinionated, egocentric, windbag...just another "celebrity" like Howard Stern who thinks they are America's knights in shinning armor who will "educate" the rabble and masses as to the evils of Dubya...maybe they should get real jobs, then they wouldn't have so much time on their hands...

jimHJJ(..."meet the new boss, same as the old boss..."...)

[piece-it pete]

Jim,

I'm not so certain they'd hold up well in real jobs, BS only goes so far in business. Maybe they could sell used cars.

What gets me about this whole hoopla is this: people don't even CONSIDER the source anymore. Historians, detectives, businessmen & prosecutors all know that to judge the info received you've got to look at the source, and their motivation.

Pete

PS Sadly, we probably will be fooled again.

[Chris]

I'm not so certain they'd hold up well in real jobs, BS only goes so far in business.

Then how the hell do politicians stay employed?

[piece-it pete]

Then how the hell do politicians stay employed?

lol!!

Did you not state earlier that you had not seen the film? If that is the case, I see very little merit in your argument against MM. You can complain all you like but until you see THIS film, I don't think that you have any right whatsoever to critique it or it's creator.

His reputation precedes him. He don't quote numbers in this one 'cause he got bruised badly when he did. He is also a blatant racist, but since it's in the accepted liberal PC way he don't get hunted or hated for it, rather encouraged!

I will see it, when it comes on TV, undoubtably a couple of days before the election, but I won't give him a red cent.

As far as terrorists & freedom here go, no need to worry (yet). I'll be more worried when the hate speech laws (regulating freedom of speech) start to pass. As Reagan said, we're still the only country where a citizen can challange city hall - and win. We are also heavily armed.

We will continue to hunt down and kill terrorists.

Pete

[Woochifer]

According to David Letterman, Dubya didn't like Fahrenheit 9/11 either. Here's why...


Top Ten George W. Bush Complaints About "Fahrenheit 9/11"

10. That actor who played the president was totally unconvincing.

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election.

8. Too many of them fancy college-boy words

7. If Michael Moore had waited a few months, he could have included the part where I get him deported.

6. Didn't have one of them hilarious monkeys who smoke cigarettes and gives people the finger.

5. Of all Michael Moore's accusations, only 97% are true.

4. Not sure - I passed out after a piece of popcorn lodged in my windpipe.

3. Where the hell was Spiderman?

2. Couldn't hear most of the movie over Cheney's foul mouth.

1. I thought this was supposed to be about dodgeball!

[piece-it pete]

9. It oversimplified the way I stole the election.

LMAO!!!

Pete

[RGA]

It's funny last time I checked being a writer, director and producer were all real occupations - Micheal Moore is all three of those things. The fact you don't agree with his politics or like anything about him does not mean one can LIE that his films do not have technical merits or that he is not a gifted filmmaker for film "ART" sake - that most movie makers would give their right nut to possess his ability.

Michael Moore's 9-11 is different than the last one which had problems factually - nothing wrong with making a totally biased film and skew it to your own point of view - since in the first dozen lines of the new film he states that it is the way he sees and doesn't pretend otherwise.

He doesn't have to say much when he simply lets the major players put their own foot in their mouth. The average person - who the film is intended for - does not remember what Rice or Powell said in early 2001 about Iraq compared with what they say later when deciding to go to war. Not everyone watches 12 hours a day worth of news. Moore is simply putting up both statements before and after and you can see for yourself.

If the right can seriously state thet Bush is totally altruistic a human being as you can find and that there is no fact whatsoever in what Moore is saying or implying - then you have deep blinders on about the way power corrupts. It is irrelevant - the best thing the film will do is create debate - get people to THINK about issues - to investigate the points Moore makes is the best thing for a society. Democracy and fascism are on a line closely drawn and when a society doesn't pay attention to its own democracy it can lead to the latter.

Fahrenheit 9-11 is a film from a concerned citizen - concerned more about the apathy of her population than this president directly - even though Moore doesn't really know it. When half your population doesn't vote like they don't here - then perhaps something needs to get people a kick in the pants. Moore may be viewed as a visionary or rabble rouser - either way if he gets people to CARE about what is going on in society again the result is worth that.

[Resident Loser]

...What do any of these artsy-fartsy types actually contribute to in society...your response seems to indicate that you, just like MM and all they rest of his "celebrity" ilk, think the masses NEED some divine guidance...like what clothing to wear, how to style their hair, what car to drive, coffee to drink...that is the problem! They should stick to the frippery du jour!

Because the sheep see, read or hear someone of "note", they are swayed by it...so be it.
All the liberal thespians and such(who use much of the same tactics that Ronald Regan was skewered for) p!$$ and moan about the Right simply because they see it as some bulwark against freedom...their freedom to do and say anything they please.

Instead of toolin' around in fancy clothes(MM excepted) and cars they should all get real jobs...the kind where you have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow...go to places you would never volunteer to go, put yourself in harms way, try to teach the ignorant(who get their take on life from the media-types), that sort of thing...not kiss-@$$ and play nicey-nice at some swanky restaurant with the money-man for your latest piece of sh....pardon me, art.

If he wants to play propagandist for the whatever-he-claims-to-represent, again, so be it...but I ask the same question as I have done many times in the past...what would Clinton or Gore or any of them done under the same(9/11) circumstance? What will Kerry do if elected? If he has a plan and true altruistic motivations, let him help the country now, not wait 'til he gets the job.

One more thing, Spain blinked because of terrorists...IMHO, if Dubya is defeated it will seem as though we did too, what sort of signal will that send. And puh-leease, don't give me any of that "democracy in action" cr@p...those types( Al Quieda et al) see it as a sign of weakness, pure and simple and will make the most of it.

jimHJJ(...mark my words...)

[Keith from Canada]

...What do any of these artsy-fartsy types actually contribute to in society...your response seems to indicate that you, just like MM and all they rest of his "celebrity" ilk, think the masses NEED some divine guidance...like what clothing to wear, how to style their hair, what car to drive, coffee to drink...that is the problem! They should stick to the frippery du jour!

Because the sheep see, read or hear someone of "note", they are swayed by it...so be it.
All the liberal thespians and such(who use much of the same tactics that Ronald Regan was skewered for) p!$$ and moan about the Right simply because they see it as some bulwark against freedom...their freedom to do and say anything they please.

Instead of toolin' around in fancy clothes(MM excepted) and cars they should all get real jobs...the kind where you have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow...go to places you would never volunteer to go, put yourself in harms way, try to teach the ignorant(who get their take on life from the media-types), that sort of thing...not kiss-@$$ and play nicey-nice at some swanky restaurant with the money-man for your latest piece of sh....pardon me, art.

If he wants to play propagandist for the whatever-he-claims-to-represent, again, so be it...but I ask the same question as I have done many times in the past...what would Clinton or Gore or any of them done under the same(9/11) circumstance? What will Kerry do if elected? If he has a plan and true altruistic motivations, let him help the country now, not wait 'til he gets the job.

One more thing, Spain blinked because of terrorists...IMHO, if Dubya is defeated it will seem as though we did too, what sort of signal will that send. And puh-leease, don't give me any of that "democracy in action" cr@p...those types( Al Quieda et al) see it as a sign of weakness, pure and simple and will make the most of it.

jimHJJ(...mark my words...)

Did you not state earlier that you had not seen the film? If that is the case, I see very little merit in your argument against MM. You can complain all you like but until you see THIS film, I don't think that you have any right whatsoever to critique it or it's creator.

If "democracy in action" is a weakness then I think we all have much bigger problems than MM. If the US cannot exercise democratic freedoms, then the terrorists have already won.

[Keith from Canada]

In response to your Pre P.S. ...

"What do any of these artsy-fartsy types actually contribute to in society...your response seems to indicate that you, just like MM and all they rest of his "celebrity" ilk, think the masses NEED some divine guidance...like what clothing to wear, how to style their hair, what car to drive, coffee to drink...that is the problem! They should stick to the frippery du jour!"

-- All I can say is that if Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the folks over at a place like Townhall get to have a say, then so should MM. I have spent some time reading the 'arguments' that the right-wing 'commentators' make on a daily basis and hey, if they can spout jibberish and make blatant straw-men arguments, then MM can take the time to make a movie. There is considerably more 'fact' in MM than in the majority of articles that I've read from the right. Like they often say over at Townhall, if you don't like the arguments, then don't listen.

"Because the sheep see, read or hear someone of "note", they are swayed by it...so be it.
All the liberal thespians and such(who use much of the same tactics that Ronald Regan was skewered for) p!$$ and moan about the Right simply because they see it as some bulwark against freedom...their freedom to do and say anything they please."

-- Yeah, I'm amazed how many times the 'sheep' fall for the argument that lower taxes and less social programs will improve your lives argument. People are sheep and they are manipulated by a number of arguments. Generally speaking, the more simplistic the argument, the easier it is to sway them. This is a tactic used by both the left and the right because it is effective. I don't think you'd want to argue that the right isn't guilty of trying to manipulate the 'sheep' for their own gain would you?

"Instead of toolin' around in fancy clothes(MM excepted) and cars they should all get real jobs...the kind where you have to earn your keep by the sweat of your brow...go to places you would never volunteer to go, put yourself in harms way, try to teach the ignorant(who get their take on life from the media-types), that sort of thing...not kiss-@$$ and play nicey-nice at some swanky restaurant with the money-man for your latest piece of sh....pardon me, art."

-- Not sure I follow your argument here. Are you saying that people who support a non-Republican system don't work? Last I heard, there were a number of anti-Bush supporters even in the military. And if you're referring to Moore himself, I find it difficult to take stock in that argument. The Right is supported by some of the richest people in America who certainly wouldn't put themselves in harms way.

"If he wants to play propagandist for the whatever-he-claims-to-represent, again, so be it...but I ask the same question as I have done many times in the past...what would Clinton or Gore or any of them done under the same(9/11) circumstance? What will Kerry do if elected? If he has a plan and true altruistic motivations, let him help the country now, not wait 'til he gets the job."

-- I think Moore has made it abundantly clear what he represents. What would others have done after 9/11 is hypothetical and lacks any merit for debate. The fact is that Bush has done what he has done and should be accountable for every decision. People like Moore are calling him on those decisions and G.W. should be able to defend them. In regards to what Kerry will do, I think that it's vital that people ask him that very question. I think everyone is in agreement on that point.

"One more thing, Spain blinked because of terrorists...IMHO, if Dubya is defeated it will seem as though we did too, what sort of signal will that send. And puh-leease, don't give me any of that "democracy in action" cr@p...those types( Al Quieda et al) see it as a sign of weakness, pure and simple and will make the most of it."

-- Yes, Spain 'blinked', there is no denying that. Despite the arguments of the right, I don't think there are very many on the left that are hoping the US doesn't succeed in Iraq. I find it quite appauling that the commentators on the right tell people that MM and others cheer when they hear that American soldiers are killed. That is perhaps the most disgusting 'straw-man' argument that I have ever heard. Nothing would please people more than for the US to 'win' using their current course of action. The people on the left are simply arguing that this current course will make things worse in the long run, not better. I personally like what Moore said in an interview...he said that the difference between the left and the right in the US is that immediately after 9/11, the only question the right asked was "who?". The people on the left added another question of equal or greater importance..."why?".

[Chris]

I knew this one would be coming... I'll have to see the flick before I can comment. I'm sure I'll have fun reading the responses here though

[karl k]

I saw this as a local matinee - Friday was Sold out both shows in my town and pretty full for a Sat Matinee.

I have to say whether I agree with Michael Moore aside his films are damn entertaining. This time he's not in it very much at all and basically lets the politicians let them contradict themselves. It's humourous, sad, angry and unabashadly anti - George W. Bush.

There is nothing necessarily new about most of what has presented - but the advantage of any two hour film is that Moore can get what one person said on tape in 2001 and then what the same person says now - nothing new about Politicians who say the exact opposite things but most people do forget when 2 or 3 years go by.

Some parts he does not follow up - and leaves it more inuendo than fact - but it's rarely weak inuendo and there are a lot of things that should get Americans questioning certain aspects of the film. I would be surprised quite frankly if even die-hard Republicans would not find much in here to at the very least raise an eyebrow at a number of things. Moore managed to get some pretty interesting documents and interviews with cabinet members.

It is a much tighter film than Bowling for Columbine which fudged numbers here and there to make Moore's arguments stronger - but in fact ended up being detrimental to his arguemnt. There is less of his usual in your face style(some is used comically)

He uses almost no numbers this time which got him in trouble in BFC so it's less likely they can be used against him at later dates - again if you get it from the horses mouths themselves you can't be accused of fudging numbers - So I think Moore is far more reigned in here - and because he is and his film is tight it's not surprising certain entities tried to get it stopped - especially certain documents that he attained before the white house blacked out certain sections - CNN got that copy and fed to the people Moore got the uncensored version that we now get in this movie.

Making Bush look silly isn't tough nor is it a real strength in the movie as we all know he is a terrible communicator - but some things you just have to chuckle at.

One weakness is when he talks about the coalition of the willing - he needs to be careful not to weaken his position with omission. Not including the entirety of the facts is a lie of omission and if there is an issue this is it. I can give him a bit of a break because it would be tough on this film-maker's resources to be able to dig in OTHER countries records and that undertaking would be gigantic. He is saved too by the fact that Bush himself was never overly open about it himself.

This is one of the best movies for a movies sake I've seen in a long time - I don't buy all the arguements - some however are undeniable and the film does what you want from an entertainment - Can upset you in one scene and make you laugh out loud a few minutes later. It is one of the few that I've been to that have had people clap at the end. You anti-Moore people just go and have a laugh. I'm probably more left being from Canada but I still enjoy a good joke from Dennis Miller.

because I wanted to see if something would happen. Simply put, I was looking for the moment that someone would be opinionated enough to "ban" the film (that would inevitably be a big hit at the box office) from being viewed by the public. I got wind of such action on my vacation this weekend.

http://www.madville.com/link.php?id=72652&t=16

I recall the same thing happening to "The last temptation of Christ" back in the late 80's or early 90's by Multimedia Cablevision Inc. I think it's a shame that someone has to be the lookout for the moral and ethic welfare of myself and others instead of allowing me and others the right/priveledge of making up my own mind about such things.

How much longer will we be able to experience fiction/non fiction in whatever form before someone out there decides they know what's best for me and institutes total control over what myself and others will experience?

Censorship like this is always targeted at preventing people from asking questions and forming their own opinion. Here's something I ran across in a search for the previous link. It is an interesting read from "A" Michael Moore.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/070504F.shtml

I haven't seen the movie and therefore have no opinion on it's content except for that I should have the oppurtunity to view it and decide for myself whether and to what degree it is factual or not.

[piece-it pete]

Karl,

That's not censorship, that's a private business and we have the same right to tell him what he can and can't play as he has to tell us what we can and can't watch!

I read that MM article, too. He makes it sound like we're living in the stone age, when actually we're living in a golden age. I wonder if he's actually picked up a history book and seen the misery that is the norm for us.

I will now go fly my flag as a weapon against those who question Americas' course, and as a muzzle to stuff in peoples' mouths.

Pete

[karl k]

Karl,

That's not censorship, that's a private business and we have the same right to tell him what he can and can't play as he has to tell us what we can and can't watch!

Pete

All your doing is justifying the act with your statement. I'm sure he isn't being told what to show in his theaters and if he is, then that's wrong as well. IMHO

While I can appreciate the man has an opinion, and the means to do something about it, to me, it's more a case of "should he". I recall a song... American Pie... that was censored by one of the radio stations here in Kansas(if you can believe that) where the part at the end, "the father, son and the holy ghost" was omitted from play because of religious overtones. Truly wrecked the song IMO and should not have happened. It wouldn't matter to me what the subject or content is, if it is available, and targeted at adults, it should be made available to all and let the mass's decide whether to see it or not.(on an individual basis of course)

I would also say that I disagree with the reasons cited for the removal of this movie... so much so that I would almost consider calling him a lier and a hypocrite.

Here's to freedom... in what ever form I can get.