The PT911 Trap

There's an aspect of the PT911 business that I haven't seen much discussed:  Why did they release advance copies in a way that would pretty much guarantee that the content of the movie would be widely publicized in advance of its showing?  Was it just to generate controversey and buzz, or were there other motives as well?  

I'm going to offer the hypothesis that the advance copies were intended to create a political trap by exploiting the paradox of liberal values.

Through the advance screeings, the makers of PT911 insured that President Clinton and certain other members of his administration would learn of the scenes that portrayed them falsely.  If they said nothing, their silence could be represented as consent, not only politically, but perhaps also legally.  Thus is became necessary for them to object.  Would they object alone or would others object with them?  The plan was to make negative use of whichever happened.  If there was not much objection, then that becomes "evidence" that the movie is telling the truth and that Democrats are spineless.  If there was a lot of objection, then the left would be accused of being unfair because they are protesting something they haven't even seen, and hypocritical because they are trying to "censor" something they don't agree with.

To avoid this trap, we need to be very loud and clear about the following:  First, our objections and protests have not been based on unsubstantiated rumor.  Advanced copies were distributed and have been widely reported on.  Second, to ask in advance that falsehoods be corrected is not censorship.  The movie can either be presented as fiction (aka 9/11 as "entertainment"), or it can be presented as factually correct.  If the makers wish to present it as fiction, they should not claim that it is the "true official story" or that it is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission.  If they wish to present the movie as factually correct, then they should not include scenes showing events that never happened.  When a public broadcasting station represents fiction as fact, it harms the public interest and violates the terms of its license agreement.  To point this out also is not censorship.

At a more general level, we need to recognize that the underlying structure of this trap something we have seen before and will see again.  It attempts to destroy the values of civil society by turning them back upon themselves, and it's used by authoritarians who neither understand nor respect those values.  Unless we ourselves understand and respect the core values of civil society, we will fall into such traps.  So keep these things in mind:  Freedom does not convey a right to harm others.  Defending intolerance does not promote tolerance.  When there's no level playing field, there's no free market.  A government cannot claim to have the consent of the governed if the people have been lied to.

There is no paradox.  It is only your mind that bends.