Banning Books

[wyomingtim]

I saw this today....

"The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'..."

So, now the libs are wanting to ban certain books that are critical of them. Hmmmmm, this is starting to sound really familiar. I believe I read about something similar to this in a history class I took. If I remember correctly, it also involved fire, and more books.

Does this mean that if we speak out personally against the libs that we are going to be "banned"?

Now, Elkgunner, Ithaca, et al, you guys have got to admit, that if this is true, and that they are basically trying to silence their critics by banning a book, that it is taking it a bit too far. Setting aside your dislike, disapproval or hatred of Pres Bush, I want your honest opinion on whether you would support banning the book.

 

[Nemont]

Did the Bush campaign demand that that Michael Moore's show be banned? Don't think so. Michael Eisner didn't want to have anything to do with it but the GOP didn't have anything to do with that.

This book must be hitting a nerve with the Kerry campaign. I still think that Pres. Bush should distance himself but let these guys continue to hammer Kerry for what they know about him.

Nemont

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tim,

Did Kerry call for "banning" the book, or did they tell the Publisher that the book was full of lies, and suggest that publishing a book full of lies would be stupid (ie....Libel suits). That happens all the time with books about people. Look at Lance Armstrong (on Dubya's Commissions) and the book LA Confidential.

Nemont,
"Allegedly", Jeb Bush went to Eisner and suggested that tax breaks in Florida would not be renewed/extended for Disney properties. Eisner then claimed a "business" decision, and a desire not to be partisan. Although, his radio stations broadcast Rush, Hannity, et.al....

My guess is the Kerry campaign knows the book is false, knows they would win lawsuits, but would also know the resolution of all such issues would be AFTER the election cycle.

 

[Nemont]

My guess is the Kerry campaign knows the book is false, knows they would win lawsuits, but would also know the resolution of all such issues would be AFTER the election cycle

Wouldn't a court immediately issue an injunction due to libel if there was something patently false and harming the candidate? That would be fairly easy to obtain if Kerry had proof that there were lies in the book.

Sort of like Michael Moore's movie. Parts of it were blatantly made up and untrue but people wanted to see anyway, I didn't see any leftist with moral outrage over that. Same thing with the book except, I suspect, there is not "proof" these guys are lying. More then likely if Kerry had acted honorably upon his return and protested the war and not his comrades none of this would have been an issue.
Have you read the book yet? I haven't as I cannot find a copy even on the net.

Nemont

 

[wyomingtim]

OK, elkgunner, I said "if this is true" as I have not been able to do more research into it. In my opinion though, pressuring someone not to publish something is pretty close to censoring something. THat is different than holding someone accountable for their words. Also, you failed to answer my question....IF this is true, and that they are basically trying to silence their critics by "banning" (censoring) a book, that it is taking it a bit too far, what is your opinion of doing so?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tim,

Good points by you, and we should likely just look at Dubya's calls in 1999 about the hatchett job on him in Fortunate Son.... It appeared the Dubya staff had no problem with calling for a ban....

In light of the relentless media coverage of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth [sic] and their thinly sourced, consistently contradicted-by-official-documents attacks on Senator John Kerry (D-MA) -- most notably in the new book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry -- it's worth revisiting how the media covered another controversial book with a controversial author.

In 1999, St. Martin's Press published a book by author James H. Hatfield called Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President. The book, which contained allegations that then-candidate George W. Bush had used cocaine in the 1970s, received barely any media coverage -- until Hatfield's own past came into question, at which point Hatfield, not the allegations in his book, became the media's primary discussion topic during the story's short life.

Fortunate Son, like Unfit for Command, contained false and unverifiable claims about a presidential candidate. Fortunate Son's author, like Unfit for Command's co-authors John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, had serious credibility problems.

While the media virtually ignored Fortunate Son (other than to condemn the book and its author), the Bush campaign was quick to threaten legal action, and many in the media suggested the press had a responsibility to either ignore the book altogether or to debunk its claims. When St. Martin's eventually suspended publication and recalled the book, the Bush campaign lauded the decision as "the right thing to do."

 

[JoseCuervo]

And Tim,

Here is a little of the "hate" from the co-Author, Corsi....

http://mediamatters.org/items/200408060010

 

[wyomingtim]

Can you answer my question? That is all I want.

As far as "hate" from Corsi, he can express his opinion. I personally feel that Islam in the arab countries is a perverted form of the religion in a way. Those that do not turn over or turn in or prevent the terrorosts form killing innocent people, persecuting non-Muslim people, and generally calling for an end to non-Muslim people as a whole are part of an evil sect of that religion. Women are treated as second class scum in those countries as well. Heck, camels have more rights than women in some of those places.

Besides, what did that link have to do with "banning" books or my question to you and Ithaca, et al.

The media was not concerned about the other books allegations at all, they concentrated on the author. The media today is not only attacking the author and all those in the group, they are attacking the allegation in the book. It seems that everyone that is usually against any Republican candidate, and will stop at no means to discredit one, are the ones trying to stop these guys from saying anything negative about Kerry. (or is it Kerrey, he is confused about it).

Please answer my question....IF this is true, and that they are basically trying to silence their critics by "banning" (censoring) a book, that it is taking it a bit too far, what is your opinion of doing so?

all it takes is a simple answer. stop coming up and presenting other things. I am not in a debate over the truth of this. I was just wanting your answers. I for one am against banning any book. If someone wants to buy it, so be it. Everyone should know by this time though that if you do anything in the public light you open yourself up to lawsuits.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tim,

Yeppers, I am against banning books. When the Moral Majority and the likes want to ban Huckelberry Finn and the likes, I am against it.

I am a bit suspicious of books by small publishers or by books published close to an election time, that don't have time to be edited or "due diligence".

I think Dubya set the example with Fortunate Son. Do you think Dubya was correct on that book?

What do you think of Jeb and his attempts to silence Farenheit 9/11?

 

[AprilW]

EG,

From what I have read, the latest group that wanted to ban Huckleberry Finn is the NAACP...I am surprised to hear they are considered "Moral Majority".

April

 

[Calif. Hunter]

I don't think that due diligence is required before a book can be published, anymore than it can be required before an ad or movie is run or an editorial is printed.

 

[Muledeer4me]

("I am a bit suspicious of books by small publishers or by books published close to an election time, that don't have time to be edited or "due diligence".")


("In the real world, any reputable publisher would require a fact checking of a book, and certainly one on a presidential candidate, 3 months before the election.")


But in Michael Moore's case none of that mattered to you?

We are to silence and condem The Veterians yet we should ALL GO SEE MICHAEL MOORE'S MOVIE and read his books?


"Not sure what world you live in, but you might want to come back to the real world....."

God help us when we have people that think Michael Moore is the "real world) and more credable then the Vet. Veterian's ,(the one's that did not come back badmouthing there brother's and hooking up with the likes of Jane Fonda.)

 

[JoseCuervo]

Michael Moore's movie was "fact checked" forwards, backwards, and side ways. Look at all the people who tried to find errors in it, and failed. The best the one website came up with was "deceits" or intentions to mis-lead.

If Moore's movie was libelous or slanderous, where are the lawsuits????

But to answer your question, I think you were asking, as your writing is not clear, yes, I was suspect on Moore's movie, and I did not believe all the charges in the movie. What is the big deal with that, as aren't most people smart enough to sort through information???

And I am not sure why you think somebody wants to silence "The Veterians" as they perform a valuable service taking care of sick dogs and cats and other animals.....

But MD, tell us, do you think Dubya should have silenced Fortunate Son????

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

In the real world, any reputable publisher would require a fact checking of a book, and certainly one on a presidential candidate, 3 months before the election.

Not sure what world you live in, but you might want to come back to the real world.....

 

[Calif. Hunter]

Michael Moore's movies have been demonstrated time and again to take statements out of context and combine them with statements made on totally different occasions to fabricate an entirely different meaning, to make claims that cannot be backed up and so on. Numerous events and ties tha Moore claims to exist or to have happened are bogus. Even if the Swift Boats vets are doing the same, why are they to be condemned while Moore is deified?

Quite often, lawsuits are not filed in the real world simply because nothing will be gained by it and/or a person simply doesn't want to dignify the other party's assertions by more than a denial.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Cali,

Why do you "deify" the swifites, and condem Moore???

Moore's movie at least has the basis of fact and truth, if then manipulated. The Swifties don't even seem to have any basis of truth, as they each keep getting exposed as frauds.

And O'Neil is obviously somebody who is trying to get even with an old score with Kerry when Kerry whipped him in the debate in the 70's.

Cali,
Tell us what you think about Corsi? Are you Catholic? What do you think about Corsi's comments about Catholics???

Cali,
What do you think about Dubya's actions on Fortunate Son???

 

[Calif. Hunter]

None of these people have been "exposed as a fraud" conclusively. All anyone on either side has done is come up with someone else who agrees with their own point of view. You have a couple groups of people calling each other liars. It will come down to your own personal choice as to who to believe.

I certainly cannot claim to know what someone's motivations are.

 

[JoseCuervo]

You are right Cali, not "conclusively", but certainly enough for "beyond a reasonable doubt". It is just kind of funny to watch the Swifties getting discredited, one by one. That is part of the problem when Rove and the Texas GOP don't do their homework before finding Vets to manipulate and drag in front of slick advertising producers.

And sorry you haven't developed enough insight into people to udnerstand people's motivations. It sure makes it easier to deal with people if you can understand and know what motivates them. Certainly managing people or negotiations are easier if you know their motivations. I guess it was a long time ago that you got them SAT scores....

 

[Calif. Hunter]

And OJ did not kill Nicole.

You are right - I admit that I cannot determine the motivations of someone I have never met.

 

[JoseCuervo]

At least we agree on something.....