Mr Moores side of the story can be read at his website www.michaelmoore.com. As usual, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

No, Eric, the truth is not somewhere in the middle on this one. Michael Moore accuses Disney of trying to "kill" his film, muzzle his first amendment rights etc etc. But the truth is he has a queue of distributors lining up to take the film, which is expected to be left entirely intact and released in the US this summer, as he had hoped. I'm sure it will be a huge success.

In what way is this censorship? Disney decides a year ago not to distribute the film, which is surely its prerogative (even if one can question the company's motives, which is a whole different issue). Moore knew of the decision a year ago, but decides to make a song and dance about it only now, just as he is about to take the film to Cannes. Okay, so Miramax was hoping up to the last minute to change Disney's mind. So what? Disney has a contractual right to say no, and it said no, loud and clear, right from the get-go.

I have more on all of this -- including Disney's less than honorable behaviour, and the escalating catfight between Disney and Miramax -- coming out in the Sunday paper (go to www.independent.co.uk starting late Saturday night).

Thanks, Amy, for the reference, and congrats to you too on the Press Award noms!

I look forward to your article and will respond.

Let's get clear on what is and isn't censorship.

There are a lot of papers (including the LA Times) that won't run my column. Is this censorship? No. Simply their prerogative. They're free to buy or not buy whatever they want.

When the state says nobody can distribute either Michael Moore's lies and distortions or Anne Coulter's -- that's censorship.

This is not an argument I wanted in on, but since I never got to be a defense attorney, here goes.

There is no clear answer as to what is and what is not censorship. Like racism, sexual harassment, bribery, and anything else involving human nature, there are shades in between the black and white. While I agree that private companies do have a right to publish as they choose, the minute the government gets involved with tax breaks (favors) or no tax breaks (penalties), censorship has begun.

We all know that hundreds of billions are given away to industries each year. This political season, the ìNascar Dadsî are seen as a powerful political force to be courted. This being known, it comes as no surprise that NASCAR is a prime beneficiary in a $170,000,000,000.00 (yes, that is $170BILLION) Senate appropriations bill introduced this morning. This is somehow known as the ìJumpstart Our Business Strength (JOBS) bill.

In this case of Disney vs. Michael Moore, Mr Moore contends that Disney will suffer the loss in billions of dollars of Florida tax breaks at the hands of Jeb Bush, governor of Florida, should Disney (through their subsidiary Miramax) release this film that will be critical of George Bush and his handling of 911. So far I have heard no real rejection of this assertion from either Disney or Florida. Even if this assertion is rejected, would you believe it? Backroom agreements are kept private for a reason.

So Disney stands to make say $25 million by distributing this film, and lose billions in tax breaks. It is a snap decision from a business perspective. Donít distribute! Disney wins, and Michael Moore will still succeed in putting his film out to be seen by the world.

But what if this wasnít a Michael Moore, but someone far less known and revered? (Yes Amy, I say revered- weíll get back to that in a minute.) Do we want the government to have any say at all over what can or should be published, pressured by taxation? Sure it isnít jail, but neither was the blacklisting that went on during the McCArthy era. (Yes I know some went to jail, but most did not- they were simply intimidated and ruined.) I see little difference in the manipulation, only the tactics employed have gotten more sophisticated.

Now, my Goddess. Why would you group Michael Moore with Ann Coulter?? Is there something here I am missing? I looked up all the websites that assert the inaccuracies of Bowling for Columbine, and I also read his response with footnote documentation here:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

I agree that he is a PT Barnum sort of journalist, but I do see his films and books as being a vanishing voice of America, and he fact checks what he writes. If you know different or would share your apparent disdain for him, please share.

Andrew -- I never knew there was so much to know about Eliot Gould! What a neat old guy! Lena