Fifty-six Deceits in Fahrenheit 911

Independence Institute ^ | 7/1/2004 | David Kopel

[jeepman]

I would suggest some people really check the facts. I see alot of people think that the fact that he sat in the classroom for another 7 mins is not a big deal.

However, what Moore also doesn't tell WTF was Bush doing at a public event that had been posted in newspapers and other public outlets when we are being attacked by terrorists. He should have immidiately left and moved to an 'undisclosed' location. He should NOT have held the meeting.. period. They knew the first plane was hijacked before it even hit the tower. The govt KNEW it was a terrorist attack.. Bush KNEW it was a terrorist attack.. Why would Bush still attend a PUBLIC news conference when his life could have been in danger. And what kind of 'expertise' does the principal of the Elementary school have in Nation Security? I'm glad Bush helped a bunch of school kids get through the day.. screw the rest of the country. What kind of situation would we be in now if he had been killed? (probably a better one).

[FranklinsTower]

Bookmark bump

[Shermy]

"You fill in many facts, and excuses."

I'm interested to learn what you think are the excuses, ie, something less than factual or direct.

"Yes Moore bent the truth for his documentary, but so do politicians including Bush."

All politicians do, but such observation should not deflect direct consideration of what Moore says, or what any politician says alone.

"How this film is interpreted depends heavily on an individuals political views." If your a Bush supporter, of course your reaction is going to be to defend. If your not, then you are more likely to agree with some of Moores viewpoints."

For many. I specifically am criticizing the facts of the movie. I liked Roger & Me for the most part.

"But all in all, it is just a film that expresses our right to freedom of speech, correct?"

No. That's Moore's (and others) deflection from argument. IOW, his political skill to sidestep factual argument with a claim to a higher authority - the US Constitution. He has no more or no less right to "free speech" than any poster here. When savvy ones like Moore does not want to argue the substance of his propositions, they often invoke their right to "free speech." But no one is challenging that right. As a rhetorical trick Moore turns away critical consideration of his arguments with the intended bonus sympathy effect of portraying oneself as a victim.

So no, Micahel Moore has no claim to free speech to more special than anyone elses. His speech doesn't validate "our" rights any more than anyone else's speech. His invocation of "free speech" is a shield from criticism, not a true representation of that right under a real or hypothetical threat of censorship.