It's part of our history. Should there be a list of things that are covered by free speech?

I think you are looking at it from a liberal point of view and making it a scare tactic.

Of course people should be allowed to use the footage. And it doesn't make me "tremble with fear" when they do. However, I picked "other" because I don't think Republicans are exactly realistic about our security needs.

Of course they should be allowed to use it. Just like I'm allowed to think it's tasteless and tacky as hell.

"Should it be off limits" isn't a matter of legal principle, no need to invoke the first amendment. It's whether we consider it a taboo.

Saying anything is off-limits is a form of forbidding it. That is censorship. This by all means invokes the first amendment. This isn't a partisan thing torg.

Then nothing is off-limits? Refusing to show caskets at Dover is a form of censorship.
This was using the tragedy of 9/11 for a campaign pitch - it was a dishonorable thing to do.

They should be allowed to use it. By why stop there? Why not just show a girl being raped in front of her parents with the caption: "This is what will happen if Obama Bin Laden is elected." I mean, as long as we're being tasteless, let's put the peddle to the metal!

The war on terror is a major platform of the Republican party. I think showing the most memorable act of terrorism in recent history is relevant, and not inappropriate.

Pedal. Sorry. Right? Pedal? I think that's right.

Then we're just working with different definitions of "off-limits." I think digging up dirt on a candidate's child should be off-limits. I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think people should do it.

I don't think it's partisan either. Sorry if I somehow implied otherwise.

Rac, that's crude.

Crude? It's free speech, b*tches!

It's still crude. Unnecessarily so.

Hmm. Sugar Inc. thinks the word "b*tch" is off-limits. That is censorship! I'm invoking the first amendment!

This is crude:

"slow-motion footage of a plane striking the WTC, the towers' collapses, and images of a burning Pentagon, while a narrator conjured up memories of bodies falling from buildings"
"The narrator of the video furthers that point saying, "and for too long we've looked the other way. But the enemy is wrong. This is a war America will win. We'll have a president who knows how."

Right, in all seriousness, I think jokes about rape should be off-limits. Not illegal, just taboo, frowned upon, not made part of a big political convention.

It's not crude, Mich. You disagree with it. I don't see how watching 3,000 people die in a horrible attack have anything to do with McCain's leadership abilities. Say what you want, but it's a shameless scare tactic built on the bones of American bodies. Short and simple.

Actually - I'm a little torn. I know the imagery was used quite a bit to elect BUSH for a second term in 2004.

But I don't know how you get around it on Sept 11. It's a part of our history and I don't think it should be ignored by either party. That would be disrespectful.

I think the constant use of it, beyond Sept 11, would be disrespectful - just to entice fear (again) a win votes. JMHO

man. i'll take health care and the economy any old day over the war on terror as a major platform for a political party.

I feel too close to this, so I shall recluse myself from further commenting on this subject.

I meant no offense. Please try and understand.

RAC is right, by the way. i don't think his example was any less crude than the footage. personally, i cant even watch that footage anymore. it makes me feel sick. it was horrific and i lived through it once - i literally can never forget - why do i have to see it at a political convention??? TACK-YYYY

The question is, "Should Graphic 9/11 Footage Be Off-Limits in Partisan Context?"

Yea, it's a cheap tacky gimmick to use that as some campaign commercial. But McCain excels in cheap tricks.

How many musicians songs have been used without permission, to promote McCain, so far this campaign? Heart just sent them a cease and desist letter for using Barracuda, Jackson Browne is suing the party for stealing Running on Empty for a tv ad, John Mellencamp told them to stop using Little Pink Houses, Van Halen told them to cease using their music. In all cases, artists report that permission was never requested, nor would it have been granted. This has been going on for months and they are still STEALING whatever music they feel like.

If they can't understand basic copyright law, how can they run a country?

no rac - don't go. speak truth to power.

How's that crude? Like I mentioned before, the war on terror is a major Republican platform. I don't think it's tasteless to remind people of the horrors terrorism causes in order to reignite their passion for fighting it.

Like I said before, I don't agree with their methods of fighting terrorism, but talking about 9-11 shouldn't be taboo.

hahha, ginger. i love that. why can't he just use music made by people who support his campaign? like... uhh... toby keith?

its not taboo to talk about 9-11. it's taboo to invoke it like some threat and hang it over people's heads.

I'm with calling it a scare tactic. Say what you will about if its right or wrong to use it but in a lot of people it will somehow come to mean that the only way to win against terrorism is with McCain. I think that scare tactics are sinking low, just like the muckraking is. What should count for votes is policy, but politics can't seem to work with just that.

Michelin, you're twisting the question. Talking about 9/11 is one thing. Showing GRAPHIC footage as a campaign commercial is another.

Most networks stopped showing the images years ago, as a policy, because it was so graphic and upsetting to people. With the exception of shows where people are forewarned that graphic images are about to be shown.

This is one area that I think is just going to boil down to personal taste and sensibilities. You could make a parallel argument for playing a tape of someone being beaten or tortured. "I don't think it's tasteless to remind people of the horrors of [murder, beatings, torture, child abuse, pick your horror] in order to reignite their passion for fighting it."

I don't think talking about 9/11 should be taboo, but I think the video was unnecessary and does exploit the tragedy for political gain. But that's just me. Maybe it made other people stand up and cheer. We're all different.

Talking about 911 - no that should not be taboo -- but showing the footage over and over and over again will personally turn people off -- the crucial people who are still in the middle.

No one says talking about 9/11 should be taboo - using it to scare people in order to drum up votes is shameful. Supposing Obama countered with similar 9/11 footage, combined with footage from Iraq, and talked about all the intelligence "mistakes" that have cost American lives - a sane foreign policy is a Democrat platform.

I don't think anybody should forget that horric event in history, but why relive it to boost for votes and to use it in a condesending and desperate attempt to get votes from people that just want their loved ones home, say no to 4 more years of the war in iraq

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Democrats play a rather long video about Hurricane Katrina and it's devastation at their convention? That was a pretty horrific event for a lot of people. Shouldn't that also be taboo by your standards?

yesteryear, I noticed.

As for music, I bet if they asked really nice, the Dixie Chicks would write them a brand new song, just for the convention/campaign.

I watched most of the DNC, and I don't recall seeing that, but I didn't watch all of it.

But yeah, if they played lots of horrible footage from Katrina and had narrator say "We'll have a president who won't let it happen again" or something, I'd be just as put off.

There's a difference - Katrina didn't come about because of Terrorist -- that was a natural disaster -- and it's the slow response to the aftermath that people are so rilled up about.

Well, not to be a brat, but it was under Bush's administration that the Katrina victims didn't get what they needed as quickly as they needed it. While both are horrific, the two are kinda different.

Maybe I mean to be a brat just a little.

i can see your point, michelin... but its still not a fair comparison. katrina was horrible and definitely changed everything for a lot of people in the south... but 9/11, it's changed things for every single person in this country, not to mention changing how we are perceived abroad.

Torg, they played a long video about it. I think it was Jimmy Carter's. I don't remember what the voice over said, but the implication was that a Democrat in the Whitehouse would have done more.

Dream, How does that make it different? The footage is less graphic just because the cause of the suffering was different?

YY -- just said it.

dreamsugar i think we were typing that at the same time

Katrina was a natural disaster mother nature nothing that could have been prevented under bush administration, I'm just so over republicans being in office

My point is just that some of you guys are upset that the RNC used graphic footage of a national tragedy to gain support for their side, but the DNC ALSO used graphic footage of a national tragedy to gain support for their side. I think if one is taboo, the other should also be taboo.

And YY, I don't find myself to be any more argumentative than most other people on this site. I'm just here to have a good discussion, and it's too bad if that bothers you.

This is the link to the Carter Katrina video from the DNC

http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/50159-democratic-national-convention-katri...

As someone who was in DC when the planes hit the pentagon, I think it's completely inappropriate. It's not something I have to or need to be reminded of because believe me it's always there. The towers no longer stand and thousands lost their lives.

And if terrorism is something we need to be reminded of then then why is The Oklahoma City bombing barely mentioned why didn't they include pictures of Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building blown to bits, especially since the people responsible were fellow US citizens taking American lives.

michelin actually your original point was that it was OK:
"I think showing the most memorable act of terrorism in recent history is relevant, and not inappropriate."

you're FAVOR of showing graphic footage of people jumping from buildings to their death, something that literally scared the CRAP out of every single person in america (still scares many of them to this day)... to garner political support and votes!!

should say you're IN favor

*in favor

azulsky: nice point about oklahoma city, etc.

My original point was that I think it's okay, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of it. I just don't find it quite as abhorrent as the rest of you do.