That's a pretty outrageous anti-first-amendment statement. Certainly Larry Flynt would not agree with you.

So you believe that only those that you agree with should be able to own a printing press and "pamphleteer" and "propagandize," i.e., you are against the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court?

Even if you get more sophisticated in your argument, and bring up the question of whether broadcast channels leasing from the public should be regulated in their political speech, the main Fox broadcast network is mostly entertainment programming, Fox News is on cable and therefore free to say what it wants. You realize you're then absolutely making the argument for the Bush administration outlawing access to Al Manar/Hezbollah TV in the U.S.? You agree with them, political propaganda must sometimes be regulated if it can be related to violent outcomes somehow?

Or you could argue another angle, that corporations should not have the same free speech rights as individuals. Well, then, Rupert Murdoch the individual "losing his citizenship" would not be the appropriate remedy there, outlawing Fox Corporation content might be, like with Al Manar now.

Your statement has just fed all the freeper slanders about liberals being wannabe censors. You gave them an excellent link.

when a Freeper can't find a quote to cherrypick, they just make stuff up or fall back on baseless blanket assertions. Sadly, you can't starve those retards by refusing to give them ammo.

Incidentally, as that itself is an assertion, it's only fair for me to offer to back it up. I check in at freerepublic fairly regularly; it shouldn't take me more than half an hour to find, oh, seventy-five examples or so. Let me know if you really feel it's necessary; if you've browsed there I hope you'll agree it isn't.

Anyway, that's probably what's behind this loss of half their popularity:

*reality* is propagandizing against the war; those movies simply explore what the reality of conflict is about when stripped of jingoism.

Nuremburg is about the greater responsibility - and culpability - that history places on the shoulders of those who should have known better.

There was a screening of "Battle of Algiers" at the Pentagon in 2003, "as a useful illustration of the problems faced in Iraq"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers#2003_Pentagon_screening

I believe Turner also owns Griffith's "Intolerance", some mighty powerful nasty propaganda and all kinds of pro-WWII propaganda done with plenty of assistance from the government like "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo."

Where you see "subtle propaganda," I see some producer searching the collection for movies that might be of interest to topics of the day and therefore draw more viewers. Watch for the next gung-ho John Wayne flick on their channel, I bet it's coming soon, putting your theory in the circular file.