In article ,   
   dcnews@nc.rr.com says...   
   > In article ,   
   > swmyers@hotmaeel.com says...   
   > > "Dave Christian" wrote   
   > > > > I for one am glad Disney stood up and refused to distribute a film they   
   > > felt   
   > > > > was inappropriate.  Some call it sensorship, I call it responsible   
   > > business   
   > > > > decision making.  I think in this group, you'll find yourself in the   
   > > minority   
   > > > > for thinking Disney was out of touch on this one.   
   > > >   
   > > > I disagree.   
   > > >   
   > > > What was "responsible" about keeping this movie from being released,   
   > > > aside from the fact that you don't like it?   
   > >   
   > > People would say that the choice is to not watch the movie as a nexample of   
   > > free speech. Not promoting and distributing it falls in the same category.   
   > > Michael Moore can use his own money and resources to do it, that's not   
   > > exactly censorship.   
   >   
   > I never claimed it was censorship, because it isn't.   
   >   
   > I simply asked why it is "responsible" to keep this movie from being   
   > released.   
   >   
   Disney's responsibility in the matter is to its company and shareholders.   
   If they deem any product to be out of line with the company's philosophy   
   they have the responsibility to protect their company from potential harm   
   by promoting said product.  They were not keeping it from being released,   
   they were simply not releasing it at their own expense and under their   
   own name.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)