Res Ipsa Loquitur

it's all about the bin-jamins.

Heh

I don't see why that's not censorship.

One of the cronies in the relationship Moore exposed is exercising his considerable political/economic (oh who are we kidding, in America today they're the same thing) power to stop said exposure.

Looks like censorship to me -- and a glowing example of how much power oil money wields in this country.

Anyway, if you watched 9/11 you'd know that Moore's whole point was that Saudi money was strongly influencing political decisions in the U.S.

A phenominon of which this little act by Disney turns out to be a beautiful illustration.

Disney made a business decision to not piss off the person they were trying to borrow money from. How is that censorship?

I haven't seen F9/11 and don't plan to. I stopped watching Mikey when he was a little chubby guy on tv, running around annoying people. I thought he was stupid. My opinion hasn't changed over the years.

That's the joy of a "free market" -- suddenly, rich people don't have to worry about democracy again; they just govern by corporation, and ignore that yippy welp called representative government. It's not "censorship" -- it's the market!

Well, it's not censorship by law; but in America, censorship by law/government isn't the most dangerous kind anymore.

If you smaller-government folks get your way, and eventually this country is be run by corporations (maybe it already is -- who did the Saudis turn to to silence an unfavorable message?).

Then, effectively, a corporation deciding a message shouldn't be heard is no different than the government making the same decision. Either way, it gets done. The only reason it didn't happen to Moore is that, ironically, he's rich enouhg to be turning into a corporation himself. Luckily, that currently protects HIM -- but not most Americans -- from corporate censorship.

There is one small difference. Governmental censorship is usually unconstitutional.

So what's your answer to the big evil corporations? What's a better way to run a business?

Hey, I don't have easy answers. I just know that letting corporations run the world isn't going to be pretty. Because corporations don't have to answer to the constitution. There's no bill of rights when you're dealing with a corporation; it's you against the richest people in the world, no-holds-barred.

In my view, what Disney did showed immorality, lack of ethics, and a complete disdain for free expression and honest debate.

Not only that, they acted in response to the leader of the nation from which almost all the 9/11 bombers originated.

Pretending that somehow that's all OK because Disney happens to be able to act outside the constition ("oh, it's all about the Benjamins -- hehe! Open debate/free expression doesn't matter here!") shows me where your heart lies when it comes to true free expression and debate. It's good when it's what you want to hear.

Besides, corporations are fictional entities that only exist because the *government says they exist*. Why separate corporations and the government?

People currently use the government to create these fictional entities, and then use those government-sanctioned fictional entities to trash open debate and free speach (while shielding the principals from all liability).

There should be some accountability to constitutional principles when using such government-create liability shields, in my opinion.

Aaron,
You don't have any answers, easy or hard. You just trot out the leftest tripe of "corporations are evil".
You can have a say in a corporation's business decisions but that requires that you either invest your money in stock or invest your time in joining the team and earning a say in how things are done.
You have no more right to demand that Disney promote a business venture that they believe to be against their interest than I have a right to demand that you publish a Bush endorsment on your blog.
Maybe in Canada you are a "bright light"... but down here you're just another dumbass we like to point at and laugh at for amusement.

I have a right to accuse Disney of being anti-debate, anti-free speach, and anti-American. Or do I? Not in your freaky corporate-owned world, I don't. Because when corporations control everything there's no bill of rights to turn to.

Go ahead and enjoy your Wal-mart-ruled world as long as you can ... eventually you'll all be living in 30-year-old doublewides making $2 an hour with no retirement fund and no health insurance (and that's for those with graduate degrees; the rest don't have jobs at all). Then maybe you'll wake up, but it'll be too late. But hey, at least the rich people will be free!

Hate to burst your bubble but I've already lived in that world....though my first job paid a whopping $1.25/hr. if I remember correctly. Funny thing though, it wasn't corporate-controlled. It was run by those little 'mom 'n pop' businesses that liberals are always foaming at the mouth to protect. The dirty little secret about those types of businesses is that they stay in business by controlling consumers' access to products & keeping other businesses out of their area. In reality, they're not much different than the old 'company' stores of mining towns and sharecropper areas.

Corporations in one form or another have been around about as long as people have been doing business. It's not like they're some modern evil capitalistic invention. They're ultimately accountable to their shareholders (remember shareholders' derivative suits?), and their primary purpose is to make money for their shareholders. They are arguably more heavily regulated than any other type of business. (Graham-Leach-Bliley, Sarbanes-Oxley, SEC, HIPAA, ADA, Fair Wages & Practices Act, just to name a few) I fail to see how you think they're going to take over the world. Or why they would even want to.

Even though this post is past my deadline for closing comments, I will leave them open long enough to allow you to have the last word.

One more thing, you're correct. I most definitely do not support 'true free expression'. I don't, for example, think that you should be allowed to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. I don't think you should be allowed to make libelous or slanderous statements. I don't think you should be able to utter 'fighting words' without expecting to get smacked in the face. I don't think advertisers should be able to make false claims about their products. That's what 'true free expression' means....that anyone can say anything they like. And I definitely do not support that.

Our Constitution only protects certain kinds of speech from governmental suppression and censorship. It and the Bill of Rights do apply to corporations insofar as they prohibit discrimination. Furthermore, corporations for the most part are not allowed to control what you say off the job.

I have to say that from your comments, you don't have a very complete understanding of how corporations really work.

You're changing the subject -- these weren't fighting words being blocked, they were political speech (the most valuable kind, for most folks). Do you think what Disney did was morally corrupt in censoring political speech at the request of the leader of a foreign country, or don't you? That's the real question I'm asking.

As coroporations grow larger, and a single corporate entity controls so many facets of our lives (and you can't simply move to the next town, as you could when small businesses acted like that), corporations function more and more like government.

Currently Wal-mart determines the cost of most goods and sets wage trends. Microsoft decides what browser and computer operating system we'll use. Disney decides what's on much of our television.

This influence is national -- not just local. It's federal-level corporate governance of many areas of our lives.

And when these corporations start acting immorally, they don't have the same checks government does -- they aren't particluarly accountable to their customers (come on, is Microsoft or wal-mart really accountable to anyone but the richest shareholders anymore?).

It's nasty. It's scary. But as long as it's silencing Michael Moore, you seem happy about it. That's my only point.

Aaron, get a grip. There was nothing in that article that said or implied that Eisner did anything at the request of the Saudis.

How was Michael Moore silenced? His piece of trash was distributed world-wide. Some censorship. And frankly I don't give a rat's ass what Disney distributes or doesn't. I'm not a shareholder.

You obviously don't have a freaking clue what it's like to live in one of those small towns. You couldn't just pack up and move. Sheesh.

What this all boils down to is that you think that corporations somehow have a responsibility to promote liberal/socialist values. I think they have a legal responsibility to their shareholders to make money. They are poor vehicles for societal reform.

I think you get my point, Rita; I think you're just hopping around trying to ignore/distort/distract from it now. And you've tired me out, so I'm done.