Writer William Bradley points out that this month marks the 45th anniversary of the British premiere of the James Bond classic Goldfinger. He provides one of the most interesting and insightful tributes to the film we've ever read - and there are plenty of films clips accompanying it. Click here to read

By Lee Pfeiffer

Lovers of history, politics and popular culture have long celebrated Wikipedia, the now legendary on-line encyclopedia that boldly strives to create a knowledge base of every possible person and topic - all of it written by members of the public. The fact that anyone can post or re-edit entries on the site has led to Wikipedia being celebrated as the ultimate example of freedom of the press. However, it has also posed serious problems regarding the content. During the last presidential election, for example, activists on both sides amended the entries for the candidates to reflect "facts" that were outright lies. Inaccuracies and urban myths abound in many entries, with only volunteer editors attempting to make corrections. Wikipedia has announced it will have some limited, official oversight in the form of an editorial board that will monitor key entries and limit revision and updates by members of the public. Predictably, the decision has brought outrage from free speech advocates who equate this interference as an assault on democracy itself - even though they don't address the fact that inaccurate information is worse than no information at all. For example, some months ago a posting listed Sen. Ted Kennedy as having passed away, thus setting off a media firestorm as the mainstream news outlets scrambled to verify the story. As we all know, news of his death was premature, as Mark Twain might have said. The iconic American political leader died today.

The decision by Wikipedia to bring some official oversight to their operation brings up the ever-present debate as to whether there is such a thing as too much freedom of speech. Inevitably, a small number of trouble makers generally ruin the concept for all. Take, for example, the on-going debate over health care in America. While the majority of people who are attending town hall meetings to debate the issue are intelligent and rational, the events have largely been dominated by the lunatic fringe who shout down opponents and even bring guns which they brandish with pride. There lies the crux of the problem for Wikipedia...if there are no restrictions, can someone equate their freedom of speech to the old analogy of shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater?

For more click here

Deadline Hollywood Daily's Nikki Finke reports that both Variety and The Hollywood Reporter are planning to begin charging readers for accessing their web sites. In essence, the content will be available only to subscribers. Variety tried this tactic once before and abandoned it, but the trade publication is fighting for its life in a climate in which advertising revenue has dropped dramatically. The anemic sales of its print edition cannot support the company and web-based revenues are essential to its future. Variety's arch-rival The Hollywood Reporter is said to be considering a similar tactic, including scrapping its daily print edition. As we've reported previously, the era of completely free web content may be coming to an end. Newspapers and magazines cannot long sustain putting their articles on the web gratis when they still have to pay staffers to produce the work. For more click here