| Join NCAC Now | |
EXPRESS YOURSELF! |
in support of free expression The information presented here by the National
Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC) may be freely redistributed in its entirety,
provided that readers are informed that the information was obtained from
NCAC's World Wide Web site and that credit is given to the appropriate source
of whatever information is used. Permission is expressly granted for the information
obtained to be made available for file transfer from installations offering
unrestricted anonymous file transfer on the Internet. Information found here
may not be sold for profit or incorporated in commercial documents without
the written permission from the National Coalition Against Censorship.
©Copyright 2005 NCAC free speech first amendment censorship |
Do Senate Democrats' calls for ABC to cancel or edit its docudramaThe Path to 9/11 constitute censorship? The network has responded to criticism from Democrats, including some elected representatives and former Clinton administration officials, by editing disputed scenes in the film, and by adding a disclaimer that what was originally billed as "based on the 9/11 Commission Report" is more accurately a "docudrama" with significant embellishments. Even so, the five-hour film, which concludes tonight (interrupted only by a 20-minute address from the President), is meeting with outrage from those who argue it diverges from the Commission's report in a clear pattern of partisan bias, whose aim is to promote Republicans in the 2006 midterm elections. Democrats protest that the film exaggerates (or invents) scenes that illustrate Clinton-era failings that may have led to 9/11, and that things like provacy and judicial oversight hinder the hunt for terrorists. Republicans, meanwhile, are promoting the film, while accusing Democrats of censorship.
Is It Censorship? The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events. Some have called this argument a veiled threat to revoke the network's broadcast license. More likely, however, these protests (and accusations from former members of the Clinton cabinet, who claim their statements or actions are misrepresented), are well within their own First Amendment rights, speaking as citizens. If there is a threat implicit in these words, it is more likely one of private litigation (for defamation, perhaps) than one of initiating government action to punish or silence one's critics (the textbook definition of censorship). After all, since the Democrats are the minority in Congress, they don't even necessarily wield the clout to undertake such actions. This is What Democracy Sounds Like
News and Commentary
|
Action Alerts ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|