Correct me if I am wrong. I heard that the Morse family who have complete control over the Villages newspaper, radio station and television station are not allowing the Michael Moore movie 'Sicko' to be shown at the villages movie theatres. If true, this is censorship in violation of the right to free speech. Does anyone know about this?

I think you're wrong. 1.) Moore's film has been completed without hinderance and has been released without hinderance, 2) The Villages has not censored his work product by not showing the film in its theaters, 3) Freedom of speech violation does not apply (see item 1).

If Moore was not prevented from either making and releasing his film and if his film was not altered by those showing it, his freedoms were not violated. Example: It is not censorship if a publisher declines an author's offer of a book manuscript. Moore and/or his producers must sell his product to theaters and theaters are not obligated to buy. Moore's primary motive is to sell controversial films with hope of making a profit. Advancing his political agenda comes in a distant second in my opinion.

Could it be that the decision by The Villages to not show this film is related to anticipated ticket sales? Oh...and one more thing......how can you be sure of the political leanings of the Morse family?

This is a very common misunderstanding of censorship. Only the government can censor. If they kept Moore from filming, distributing, etc that is censorship. If Moore wants me to show the movie in my theater and I refuse, that is NOT censorship. That is me exercising my right to show what I want in my theater. I have the right to stand on public property and state my opinion (as long as I obey the law and don't cause a public nuisance). You have every right to refuse to listen to me. You also have every right to tell me I can't stand on your property and make a speech.

Originally Posted by JohnZ

I think you're wrong. 1.) Moore's film has been completed without hinderance and has been released without hinderance, 2) The Villages has not censored his work product by not showing the film in its theaters, 3) Freedom of speech violation does not apply (see item 1).

If Moore was not prevented from either making and releasing his film and if his film was not altered by those showing it, his freedoms were not violated. Example: It is not censorship if a publisher declines an author's offer of a book manuscript. Moore and/or his producers must sell his product to theaters and theaters are not obligated to buy. Moore's primary motive is to sell controversial films with hope of making a profit. Advancing his political agenda comes in a distant second in my opinion.

Could it be that the decision by The Villages to not show this film is related to anticipated ticket sales? Oh...and one more thing......how can you be sure of the political leanings of the Morse family?

They show movies at the Villages theaters that are not going to get any kind of crowd. I believe that local theaters NOT JUST THOSE IN TV have to take some movies to get copies of the films that will probably get a bigger crowd. There have been some movies shown at the Villages like the Hills Have Eyes 1 & 2 which rumor has it often played to empty or nearly empty auditoriums.

Sicko is just probably a movie that is not hinged on some other movie's arrival in a theater at the Villages. Doubt if it would get much of a crowd in the Villages. Could be wrong but this does not seem like an area with a large Michael Moore fan base. In other words, this has more to do with the politics in the movie distribution industry rather than anything to do with the Morse family.

Well said Taltarzac. Hit the nail on the head.

:edit:Anyone checked to see what the subject of the movie is? Moore's proposal that the U.S. adopt his health care proposal. Which is universal health care. Similar to England and Canada. Ask a "Bloke" if he appreciates having to wait months to see a doctor and more months for a recommended operation. My sister-in-law in England had to wait to get to see a doctor (because she did not have private insurance like we do here) and by the time she got examined, she had the final stages of pancreatic cancer. Died within two weeks of going into the hospital for treatment. Are we to become a country of socialized medicine? Cuba shows wonderful results but 60 Minutes shot that idea down. Grow up Americans. We have the best. Granted, you have to work for a living and arrange for your health care. And, if you become incapable of doing that, Medicade steps in. Michael Moore is making money trying to convince the bleeding hearts that we are not doing it correctly in this country. Why doesn't he use some of his film-making profits to open a free clinic somewhere. So, the Villages decides to not show the movie here, we would not be living here in TV if we needed someone else to pay our medical bills.
:edit:

I agree : I'll see SICKO right after I read IF I DID IT by OJ

Originally Posted by JohnZ

Well said Taltarzac. Hit the nail on the head.

Thanks, JohnZ.

If I spent a dime from my entertainment budget to see a Michael Moore film, I would hope that my spouse would have me taken away for a mental health evaluation.

There is no First Amendment violation by a commercial endeavor refusing to promote another commercial endeavor's product or service. A Moore film (or anyone else's) does not qualify as a "public service announcement" or anything like it, as long as royalties or charges are involved.

I really don't believe it is a censorship issue. I had a conversation a few years ago with the manager of The Rialto (pre-Sumter Landing)about a film that I was hoping to see appear in The Villages. I was informed that the Theater Owner and management do not have control over what is shown. He explained that some films do not make it to all theaters because the distributor exercises control over this and if you are not a large chain of theaters, you sometimes don't get some films when they are released.

If folks really wish to see Sicko, they may wish to consider going to one of the chain owned theaters in Leesburg or Ocala, or wait until it comes out on DVD, which probably will happen fairly soon.

About care in the UK: We visited family in the UK this summer. The cousin we stayed has had a quadtriple bypass. He was very pleased with his care. Our cousins like their system for health care. We often hear otherwise, and we too, were surprised to hear from and live with real people who like their system.

The year we had such a shortage of flu shorts, we happened to be coming through Victoria Station. They were offering flu shorts in a little clinic there.

i dont know why anyone would not want to have all the facts - then make there own decision - let me see it and then i will decide - i really dont like being told this is not good for me- by someone who has my best intrest at heart --- --

Originally Posted by Hancle704

I really don't believe it is a censorship issue. I had a conversation a few years ago with the manager of The Rialto (pre-Sumter Landing)about a film that I was hoping to see appear in The Villages. I was informed that the Theater Owner and management do not have control over what is shown. He explained that some films do not make it to all theaters because the distributor exercises control over this and if you are not a large chain of theaters, you sometimes don't get some films when they are released.

If folks really wish to see Sicko, they may wish to consider going to one of the chain owned theaters in Leesburg or Ocala, or wait until it comes out on DVD, which probably will happen fairly soon.

I think I heard another manager-- this one at Sumter Landing-- give the same spiel. I have wondered why the two Village movie theaters, for instance, did not get 3:10 to Yuma while showing Shoot 'M Up? Does not make a whole lot of sense. Think it comes down to bargaining power as you suggest which big chains like AMC and Regal have.

Personally, I do not care that much for Michael Moore's kind of "documentarian" journalism if that is what you would call it. Liked An Inconvenient Truth a lot more in style and loved Planet Earth. Moore's stuff seems to be a lot like the tabloid journalism of the grocery stores or just a cut above.

I try to see most movies that are controversial. If one doesn't see it, how can one judge it? Because I see something doesn't mean I agree with it.

Originally Posted by Avista

I try to see most movies that are controversial. If one doesn't see it, how can one judge it? Because I see something doesn't mean I agree with it.

True. Avista. I did get around to watching Moore's other films. Do not know what the wine tastes like without actually tasting it. I would not call Moore's films a finely aged wine more like a Two Buck Chuck.

Heard a lot about Borat also and eventually got around to seeing that even though Borat did not make it to the Villages theaters either I do not believe. Same with the Aristocrats-- that documentary by Penn and Teller about the world's filthiest joke. The Aristrocrats would have been a little too controversial for the Villages. But, the Rialto did have the Jackass 2 movie which was a big surprise along with Wolf Creek another stunner.