Slashdot Log In
George W. Bush Vs. Parody Site
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Nov 29, 1999 06:56 AM
from the what-you-can-and-cannot-say dept.
from the what-you-can-and-cannot-say dept.
Bob Kopp writes "According to an article in Monday's Washington Post, Texas governor and presidential candidate George W. Bush is attempting to shut down a campaign parody site. " Read the full article - it's not an open and shut matter. Some noteworthy other links as well - An Al Gore Parody, as well as some choice quotes from Pat Buchanan.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
George W. Bush Vs. Parody Site
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 138 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
Sticky Situation (Score:4)
I can see why the FEC is interested.
Zontar The Mindless,
Is it satire, or is it political? (Score:5)
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly
But read the article, and see why Bush is trying to shut it down:
Just to play devil's advocate, I have to agree (in theory, but not in principal) with those statements. I'd been to gwbush.com before, and saw it as much more of a political statement site than a humor or satire site. I feel the political nature of Exley's site definately falls within the second of GWB's points. And I'm not even going to start the flamewar over whether copywrights on websites are moral or no.
But, to stop playing devil's advocate, I'm pretty much entirely anti-government and anti-government-intervention. I personally think it's pretty "weak" that GWB would try to shut down any site. But, I can't argue with the two points that his lawyers are making... at least there's a somewhat valid reason, and they powers-that-be are not just shutting down the site for no good reason [slashdot.org].
---------
Question: How do I leverage the power of the internet?
who cares if he stole the picture (Score:3)
Bush Hypocrisy? (Score:3)
The irony here is that George W. is the same guy who allegedly came up with the Willie Horton ad used against his father's opponent in 1988 -- and then released said ad against Dukakis via a political organization not officially affiliated with the Bush/Quayle campaign.
Bush probably has a good legal case for shutting down this site, or having some of its content altered. But given his past history, he doesn't have much of a moral case.
The Kulturwehrmacht [onelist.com]
Disclaimer? (Score:4)
Fact: Political Parody has been around since before the first amendment.
Fact: If Al Gore had been around we would have had an internet before the first amendment as well.
I can see Bush's problems with this site but I think it would be prudent to at least first ask for a Disclaimer at the top of the page or maybe a splash screen stating that the site is politically motivated but is a parody of George Bush Jr.
The site is pushing on a subject that I hold very dear to heart. The drug war and extensive imprisonment. Having an uncle myself that got ten years for dealing when he had never dealt before. He was trying to make money to support his smack habit that he had gotten back into after almost a year off. Read the get seriously pages on the site. Some snippets for your perusal:
Some More:
And Finally:
Just as the first amendment gives us the right to free speech it does not give us the right to misrepresent ourselves. Lord knows there are some morons out there who think that site is Bush's and is gospel truth. I think it would be prudent to openly say that the site is not related to The real campaign but to destroy it completely hell no. The guys motives are admirable at least.
Anyway I am running out of things to say so I will get off my soapbox.
This post had attempts to be funny and informative. When both pluses get put together I will have a negative moderation score. 1+1=-2
Re:Old news (Score:3)
His quote "There ought to be limits to freedom" is very scary indeed. What would he do if he actually had the power to limit freedoms ??
There already *are* limits to freedom, as there should be. "Your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose", as the saying goes...
The GPL is a good example of something that limits freedom. In fact, RMS argues that it provides the *greatest* freedom by limiting the freedom of those who create derivative works. So the limitations the GPL puts on one person's freedom actually *protect* someone (possibly everyone) else's freedom.
Let's not go overboard here. There's no reason to scream "Tyranny!" and riot because someone said something that's self-evidently true, even if it is unpalatable...
Guess again (Score:3)
Where do you get this stuff? (Score:3)
Essentially everything you say about copyright here is just plain wrong.
Charging for the infringing use is not relevant.
Scanning library books would violate the copyrights of the books' authors.
"His words become public" has no meaning. Being a politician does *not* cause forfeiture of other rights. Besides, it's the pictures.
hawk, who thinks slashdot needs a -1 counterpart for "informative," perhaps "just plain wrong."
Re:Is it satire, or is it political? (Score:3)
Really, this is what this whole fight seems to boil down to -- which idiot holds that beloved moral high ground.
Truth is, there ain't no such place. Yes, if the owner of material has asked for something not to be used, the site has NO grounds for using it. Likewise, in a country that touts free speech, fair usage and fair comment are not only legal but protected by law.
Personally, if this ever goes to court, I hope the judge finds BOTH sides in contempt of reality, fines them $1 each and sentances them to 3 months in a recovery program. I'd have more sympathy for either side if there was any sign that they'd quit messing around and conceeded that the other side isn't hell-spawn, out to destroy Life, the Universe and Everything.
This is irrelevant to the accusations by Bush. (Score:3)
Bush and his campaign forced this over the spending limit by deliberately and fecklessly bringing national media attention to his page. Then to top it off they tried to scare him away with legal and regulatory harrassment.
Since he has to go through all the legal and financial rigamarole entailed, he has the choice of folding up or fighting back. What would you do if you were in his position?
Well I guess we know where Bush stands (Score:3)
Public Figure (Score:3)
Yes.
As a public figure, we can say whatever we like about him, as long as it's not a lie and it's not malicious. Allegations are fine. As long as we have no evidence that the allegations are *untrue*, and we bear no malice other than not wanting him to represent us in government. then we can assert these allegations without being in violation of the law.
This applies to journalism. As the web has made us all journalists, it applies to all of us.
If this were not true and proven in law many times, the National Enquirer, et. al. could not and would not remain in business.
Add to this the aspect that it is satirical, and there is a double legal whammy that should stand in court if this country is still free and following the law laid down over many years.
However, since G. W. seems to believe there should be limits to our freedoms and he wants to be the one to place them, maybe we are not as free as we would like to believe.
Especially when he has successfully supressed so much anti-G. W. Bush sentiment already.
1. Campaign staff buy up all adverse domain names in one of the worse squatting incidents.
2. Somehow, congress put off the cyber-squatting law. I don't know the particulars, but if a former republican president were to urge current republican members of congress to put this on hold, especially if it would help elect a republican president, they would probably listen.
3. He successfully supressed a book that was uncomplimentary by calling into question the character of the author and convincing the publisher to recall and destroy 700,000 copies of what would have been a best selling book simply because of the advance publicity.
4. He arrogantly assumes a lead in the polls and "skips" public debate events with other republican candidates.
This is to say nothing of the allegations in the aforesaid book, of earlier events in his life which parallel these types of current events.
The allegation is that used cocaine, then pulled political strings to get a light sentence and and have his record illegally purged.
And on and on and on...
Microsoft tried to claim they were not a monopoly by pointing to individual components of their practices that they claimed were not monopolistic. When it fact it was their "*pattern* of behavior" that proves their monopolistic practice.
Looking at G. W. Bush and his documented behaviors and statements, *I* observe a pattern just like that of M/$. While he may win on individual battles, I sure hope he loses this war. This is not an individual I want leading my country.
Say what you like about Bill Clinton... he may have gotten blown by an intern and lied about it, but he didn't try to take away *my* rights, and he didn't put business above environmental concerns.
Russ
Taken them, thanks (Score:3)
I have studied some history.
Of course slavery was an issue; what is wrong is the idea that it was the only issue, or even the primary issue. As Lincoln put it, the war was to "preseve the Union." I truly doubt most of the Northern volunteers in 1860 had the abolition of slavery on their minds. And a number of Southerners had their personal doubts about slavery, but chose to fight for the South anyhow. It was only mid-war, when the Thaddeus Stephens and the "Radical Republicans" made their case, that the focus changed, and it became certain that a Northern victory would result in the abolition of slavery.
As for Hitler and the Nazis, you are thanking God for the wrong reasons. People like Hitler have risen to power in the last few decades; the USA has either supported or opposed such dictators as convenient. While some of German atrocities were understood in the late '30s (such as the annexation of Poland), the full extent of the evil of the Holocaust was not known to the American public until well after the war was over. As for FDR having a "moral" obligation to oppose Hitler; perhaps, but those same morals didn't stop him from being buddies with "Uncle Joe" Stalin, as bloody-handed a dictator as Adolf ever was.
Please note that I didn't say that I thought we should not have entered the war on the side of Britain; what I said was that it's an issue worth debating. I haven't read Pat's book, so I don't know the details of his argument. But I'm concerned that he's being demonized for simply daring to question whether that was the right policy to have followed mid-century. Sheesh -- Slashdotters will lionize Dr. Singer for suggesting that we kill handicapped kids [slashdot.org], because it "makes people think," but we dare not tolerate discussion of US interventionism!