JFK Grave-Robbing and Other Free Speech
In the brouhaha over a forthcoming movie by a conservative filmmaker, we are once again on the dark side of free speech, which the Supreme Court visited last month in its decision that validated “Hillary: the Movie,” an election-year smear of Mrs. Clinton
A dramatization of John F. Kennedy’s flaws for the History Channel is evoking high emotion even before it has been filmed as defenders of the Kennedy faith denounce the script as “political character assassination…sexist titillation and pandering…cheap soap opera of the worst kind.”
The sad part of all this is what it reflects about our age of rampant nastiness, in which there is a market for yet another retelling of what has been done over and over again in decades of documentaries and dramas.
JFK’s legend will certainly survive one more hatchet job, but another disturbing symptom of 21st century discourse is the attempt to censor it with a preemptive attack video and website that urges viewers to “Tell the History Channel I refuse to watch right-wing character assassination masquerading as ‘history.’”
With all respect to Robert Greenwald, an estimable First Amendment defender, it’s hard not to see this as attempted censorship. Denouncing the proposed film is one thing, pressuring the medium that is planning to show it is another.
In an era when Limbaughs, Olbermanns, Mahers and Becks pour hot sauce over political food for thought to stimulate the appetite of an enraged public, the last thing we need is a rancid rehash of the distant past.
As a journalist who covered and admired JFK, I won’t be watching this new movie, but neither will I be signing any petitions to stop it.
MORE.
12 Responses to “JFK Grave-Robbing and Other Free Speech”
Some people are so full of hatred. The man's been dead nearly 50 years. He was imperfect, as are the rest of us. When can they let it go? For the sake of his only living child, let it go. What is wrong with people?
I assume everyone here was similarly offended by the Reagan movie a few years ago, and the attept to stop it.
It is not technically censorship on either side, as was pointed out. But it is intolerance.
It kind of reminds me of a conversation I was having the other day, about whether the political correctness that has infected humor contributes to today's polarization. The question was that when we stop being willing to laugh at ourselves, and others, does it make us more intolerant of others rather than less? Does it make people more likely to take offense?
With all respect to Robert Greenwald, an estimable First Amendment defender, it’s hard not to see this as attempted censorship. Denouncing the proposed film is one thing, pressuring the medium that is planning to show it is another.
I agree, Robert. I'm very close to absolutist on the First Amendment (for human beings, that is). The best response to this form of hate speech, as with hate speech in general, is more speech.
I think the American public can handle a more true to life version of JFK. Enough time has passed we don't need to believe in the fairy tale of Camelot.
Wow, we might have near universal accord on this one. Hard to believe I'm agreeing with Stein on something, but hats off to him for nailing this one.
But if I might offer food for thought. This movie will almost certainly not be produced and distributed by a human but by a corporation. No one individual could possibly make a movie like this alone. Does that not mean that the corporation ought to have the First Amendment right to produce and distribute in this case? Does anyone want to make the case that it should not be produced without government approval because corporations have no free speech rights when it comes to what will doubtless be a politically relevant film?
No one is talking about censorship here. What I object to is picking over the bones of a thing that's been picked over too many times already. The principals are all dead, and so are most of their contemporaries. No one exists to refute first hand erroneous information, slander and hatefulness.
This film is being advertised as a “gotcha” by a known right wing hate group. What in the world are we going to learn 50 years after the man's death, that is edifying?
Ah, but edification is not what's on the makers minds–hate is. No one is saying they can't make the film. But I am saying it is pure partisan hatefulness that is the agenda. I have no doubt it will be a ratings flop. Most people simply aren't interested in this sort of thing, no matter the viewpoint.
Fix the hisrorical facts and make them accurate and I'll probably be satisfied. There is no excuse for improper history like the bit on exit polls and the incorrect dates about the peace corp. As far as artistic license, have to allow a certain amount as long as it doesn't give false facts that are known to be otherwise.
I wouldn't worry too much though, as the Boston globe reports:
I doubt such a liberal democrat will go too far off the right fringe.
The Washigton post covers this as well
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar…
The basic problem here is that there is nothing that I can do if I don't like the movie other than write a nasty letter to the History Chanel which will be sent to the circular file…
Now if I could drop them from my cable line-up, I could really express my opinion of their show…
i have wondered for years (was in high school when jfk and a police officer and lee harvey oswald were murdered) about several things that dont make 'common sense' about so called 'camelot.'
I think given bay of pigs fiasco, mafia prosecutions, cold war, and two brothers rfk and jfk who were set obscene examples for personal male conduct by their father Joe who thought he was above the law because he was loaded…
given all that and that some of the peeps on the Warren Commission were not known as brilliant thinkers by a long shot… I'd like to see other points of view other than the usual ones. Leonidas, I agree, that factual errors ought be noted. And, it seems that the imperfections shannonlee speaks of, the ones we all carry, that is true too.
And… I sense that when you are doing opaque things for a group of pals, vs actually serving the public truthfully, that … ah geesh, yeah, well, same same same? I wish, not. But common sense says…
Yes, a truly free market would be nice.
Okay, rather than a Media Czar perhaps Obama should name, and many people would no doubt approve, of a History Czar. Again, it can be Oliver Stone or Ken Burns. (Zinn is no longer available.)
You can not watch.
Actually, you can, just depends on how strongly you feel about it.