Free speech not the point- to Victor

Submitted by Jerry Hurtubise (United States), Dec 18, 2002 at 09:54

Commentator Victor misses Mr. Pipes's point, and, apparently, his own. Victor initially concedes the argument by Pipes that the uncritical presentation--indeed, the persuasive presentation--of the "documentary" is not likely to have been used in examining Christianity, Judaism, or other mainstream religions in the past, and that U.S. taxes should certainly not be used in this manner.

But, then, he declares that the exclusion of this style as an artistic choice available to filmmakers would be in violation of the spirit of the first Amendment of the constitution.

Back up, Vic. See point number one. Pipes has not suggested, in my reading of his opinion, that filmmakers be stripped of any choice of style or opinion in any way. He merely suggests that PBS, with $350 million of our money, has predictably and characteristically used it to fund what he thinks is an effectively anti-American piece.

He parallel point is that PBS has not done the same thing with other religious works in the past, leaving us only to wonder why. This is why so many conservatives believe that PBS is an example of U.S. taxes being used against a huge segment of the American public as a propaganda tool.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".