I hate to harp on this because it involves the election, and
I'm sure everyone is sick of the election.

We've seen two very different philosophies in play on this issue recently. With the release of the anti-Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11," Republicans ranted and raved and called the film a sack of lies and filmmaker Michael Moore a commie propagandist, sure. But they never even hinted that his right to produce it — or Americans' right to see it — should be proscribed.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm..._collin14.html

So, now some Republican leaning TV network shows an anti-Kerry film and
the Democrats want it taken off the air. The reason; it constitutes an illegal
contribution to the Bush campaign.

More politically salient, the Democrats' actions this week have undercut large parts of their own campaign-finance arguments, including those they had upheld by a divided Supreme Court. To those who objected to the stringent reforms on First Amendment grounds, the party was vehement that money could be regulated because "money is not political speech" and so not worthy of protection.

So tell us, senators, if "Stolen Honor" is not political speech, what exactly is it?
Now in this Orwellian world, who will decide when biased news coverage is no longer
just the free press at work, but worthy of censorship? I have ranted before about the
McCain-Feingold law that lies at the root of this mischief.