...are at it. Video is a powerful tool — the next opium of the masses? — and two friends have already told me "YOU HAVE GOT TO SEE THIS VIDEO!!! IT PROVES EVERYTHING, HOW IT REALLY HAPPENED!!!" Yes, they were this excited about this kind of "truth." Perhaps post-modernity at its finest.
This kind of shit ranks up there with the Da Vinci code, Holocaust denial, and the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theory that F.D.R. knew about and secretly allowed the Japanese zeros to strike Hawaii so Americans would be swayed to enter the war.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Yeah, yeah, yeah -- same old, same old. It is easy to dismiss such claptrap (I take similar to that put out by the fatso guy from Hollywood) as innocuous nonsense. But propaganda can be a powerful tool in demoralizing people in time of war. That's why we have a specific clause in the Constitution guarding against people giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war: Article 3, Section 3. Of course, JJ (and otehr like-minded) will argue that that Article never, ever applies in any concrete situation, it's just an archaic thing, better go with the emanations from the penumbras of the Constitution than the written word. Oh well, what can I say...
Found it a little tough to get into. Find it a little weird that AI thinks circulating a bullshit movie is treason, though. Isn't there some nonsense in the Bill of Rights about free speech?
As you well know, free speech is not absolute -- eg, one cannot shout fire in a crowded theater, and then invoke the First Amendment. It's all a question of balance. Here is some case history, and rather thoughtful analysis.
At any rate, OK, I'll grant you that producing bullshit movies by itself does not fall under the provision of Article 3, even though it can reasonably be construed as propganda for the enemy in time of war. But how about Johnny "Taliban" Walker, caught in enemy uniform, shooting at American soldiers? From what I recall, you also gave him a pass from the Aid and Comfort clause. While at it, how about Hanoi Jane, posing in enemy unifor, at a AAA battery, used to shoot at American airmen? All covered by the First? Rather elastic amendment, heh? So what's left of the body of the Constitution, then?
Speaking of free speech, here is a little story of how generous and tolerant the bien-pensants are with people who dare challenge their shibboleths. Funny what this also says about socialized medicine: follow groupthink, or else!
The movie is long... at least long enough, when watching, to say to oneself, "this is a really long conspiracy bullshit flick." the gist (side-note: does "gist" come from the German "geist"?... if not, it should): Something about a government conspiracy that brought down the trade towers so someone could get rich. The movie is bullshit, yet our treason clause remains a bit tricky.
Hell, there's also a clause in there that says we're supposed (or allowed) to overthrow our own government should it become tyrannical. These are the simultaneous strengths and weaknesses inherent in our Constitution, and while it's a document that provides direction in its concreteness, its ability to move with the times (or, its elasticity; or its ability to be interpreted in lieu of present conditions) is rather remarkable too.
Post a Comment