Hollywood Liberals Hate Free Speech

ChronWatch.com ^ | April 16, 2003 | Kevin Willmann

[Mr.Atos]

What is it exactly that you 'don't get' about what is being said here? Robbins and Sarandon, for instance, have been conducting a direct and sustained attack on my ability to be heard. I value my voice in the nation... I cherish it in fact. But we do live in a representative Republic where our values are interpreted, disseminated, and codified into law by elected officials acting in our behalf. The media information culture is still dominated by visual and print media. These are the primary sources by which elected officials guage public opinion and weigh it against their own values relative to the values of the constituent population. (Here I suggest that you re-read my post regarding elected and unelected representation). When Robbins and others like him... others in 'Hollywood' or in the music industry or media use their hyperaccess to the public air ways to speak over me, influence others with their unquestioned conjecture and lies, denegrate my views, misrepresent my ethics, attack my elected officials, question the legitimacy of Constitutionally legitimate President, attack that Constitution's key amendments and my rights as outline therein (The 2nd Amendment), call for media boycotts of the administration, challenge the motives of this sovereign nation, subordinate the sovereignty of this nation to tyrannical UN thug-states, attempt to silence talk radio by manipulating labor unions and challenging sponsors...

... well Mr. miniature, I have a bit of a problem with that.

[Pharlap]

Actually, I do not agree with the distinction you are advancing between Schlessinger and Garofalo. Schlessinger has an "apolitical" advice show that upset a definable class of the public: gays and lesbians. Garofalo is scheduled to have an "apolitical" TV show and her very public views expressed in various media have upset a definable class of the public: those who support the Bush policy on Iraq. Also, you have not addressed the Limbaugh example, the Thomas example, the speech codes on campuses and the preventing of conservatives from speaking at universities and colleges. I understand you're point of view, but what Garofalo and others are now experiencing is as old as our nation itself. We have survived so far, and I believe will continue to survive for the foreseeable future.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[Vision Thing]

But at the same time I feel deeply icky about organized attempts to stifle the voices of people who disagree with me. (My emphsis added.)

Feelings, nothing more than feelings. The fuel that underlies every lefty cause.

You should 'organize' some people against those who orgainize boycotts. Perhaps you should temporarily suspend your desire for miniature government and ask your congresscritter to propose a law against boycott organizers. Anything to help alleviate your icky feelings.

[NetSurfer]

Sickening, isn't it? He graduated the year before I set foot on campus, thank goodness.

I'll send a little note in with NO check, next time. The whole school is full of libs (as it was when I was there), so I'm sure it won't make any difference, except to make me feel better. LOL.

[Vision Thing]

Pictured here, Tim Robbins uttered the following:

"I find your lack of faith disturbing."

[sorroworechoes]

wow there's a mouthful. Of course you can understand a boycott by the Extreme LEFT - you ARE one of them.
And just for the record, just so you know, The Extreme Religious LEFT is not opposed to war. They like to make believe that they are opposed to war. They're good at make-believe. Or I should say they're good at lying to themselves. But they didn't oppose the war Saddam carried out against his own people. They didn't CARE that Iraqis were being tortured and killed by Saddam.
And they themselves -consisting of Robbins, Sarandon, Hitlery and the other "I Never Met A Child I Didn't Want To Dismember" demo(n)crats - WAGE WAR almost 24/7 against innocent helpless children.
To use your own words, "It's WAR for pete's sake. Surely there should be as much debate and national soul searching as possible."
But there hasn't been has there. We've just had to live with the intolerant, Extreme Religious LEFT shoving their beliefs down our throats.

[sorroworechoes]

And they themselves -consisting of Robbins, Sarandon, Hitlery and the other "I Never Met A Child I Didn't Want To Dismember" demo(n)crats - WAGE WAR almost 24/7 against innocent helpless children.

sorry. Posting too quickly without proofreading. That should read "I've Never Met A Child I Didn't Want To Dismember" demo(n)crats

[Kenno]

Hollywood is scared, because it is getting the message where it hurts; in the wallet.

I disagree. They have enough money to last them awhile. What really bugs them is that no one treats them as the Cool Aristocracy any more, as was the case under the Clinton regime.

[Kenno]

And perhaps it's those experiences that have soured me against the idea of punishing people for speaking their minds, especially about something like a war, where a vigorous national debate would seem to me a necessity.

Unfortunately, the real world is one of "kill or be killed." If we do not punish them--as individuals, not with government action--for their anti-American speech, they will surely punish us for their pro-American speech.

[AFreeBird]

Amen, buy Luzianne tea.

I do, and I make "white trash" iced tea, as some southern genteleman I met once called it. Publically I think its called sweet tea in the south.

[Pharlap]

What you see as punishment, I see as the exercise of one's right to freedom of association. I do not know how to separate the exercise of this right from what you characterize as punishment. One inherently flows from the other, whether intended or not. To put it another way, my exercize of my right to associate with whom a choose will, of necessity, in certain instances result in the economic deprivation (your "punishment") of another. So be it.

[Pharlap]

No, now you are losing the cohesiveness of your point. My intent is NOT to punish. My intent is not to interact. That my unwillingness to go to a movie may translate into an economic loss for the actor who appears in the movie is an incidental, although real, side effect. Otherwise, your position would mandate that I must go to the movie because to do otherwise would be to punish the actor. Taken to this logical conclusion, your position becomes indefensible. Once you characterize my conduct as punishment, you seek, thereby, to deny me the freedom to act in a manner that is legal, ethical and moral. To deny one the freedom to act in a legal, ethical and moral way is an unacceptable position for one to espouse in our free society.

[Mr.Atos]

Really? Wow. I'm sorry to hear that... Try sleeping in tinfoil pyjamas.

I do find it interesting that you choose to make light of free speech issues, while posing in defense of same. Being that it is one of my 'cherished' values, I do not. If you are unable to comprehend the idea that it takes 100 to 1000 rational voices speaking by means of their fundamental abilities (that being free speech, choice, association, markets) to overcome the 'bully' pulpit of one Tim Robbins appearance played and replayed, and excerpted and re-excerpted all across the media, then I would suggest that our disagreement on principles and philosophy runs deeper than the subject of this issue and cannot be resolved here. I can merely elaborate that Mr. Robbins forum is much larger than mine and as such, he has the ability to displace my voice in the public forum. I can however exercise my choices in accordance with my values (my nation, the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, my individual soveriegnty, the young men and women who defend that sovereignty, and my life). Motivation? The motivation of this American is the defense of the judgement of my President, his cabinet, and absolute acknowledgement of America's moral right to act in accordance with its well being, and providing untarnished support for young men and women that act legitimately in my behalf and "not in Mr. Robbin's" name. It is unfortunate for you that you are Pro-War. I find that to be somewhat pathological for someone to be in favor or war. Do not confuse my motivations with your own. I, like most Americans, do not cherish warfare. I support the goal, and if that goal could be accomplished by a game of checkers, so be it. But in this case in could not. That is the failure of our enemy and not ours to bear. When the thing must be done, we do it reluctantly and with full acknowledgement of the consequences of this tragic action. as for this...I understand that they're entitled to do so, just not why they would want to live in a country where people were afraid to speak out against the actions of their government

... its been covered here, repeatedly, completely. If you haven't heard the answer that you are looking for, perhaps the failure is in your logic and not in our argument.

Meantime, stay away from Ms. Spears and check your premises. If you can't understand why someone who cherishes the value of free speech would want to silence the speech of others, I suggest that one of your premises is wrong... Mr. Government.

[ODC-GIRL]

My own preference is for there to be no political correctness, and for people to feel free to speak out, While that would be "nice" it's not reality. These people do not truly seem to be afraid to speak out, as we keep hearing from them nearly every day. I understand that you want a better world, we all do. But who gets to decide what that better world should be? There will never be agreement regarding what constitutes a better world. There will always be debate, and that's fine. That's what we are currently engaged in, here, and in America at large. What the left is currently experiencing is new for them. We are questioning them, challenging their positions, disagreeing with their statements and it is making them uncomfortable. Tough. There are examples of conservatives speaking out and being punished posted on Free Republic every day. Where are the celebrities coming to their defense for being punished for exercising their right to free speech? The silence is deafening. They are hypocrites. I don't necessarily want them "punished". They certainly have the right to speak their mind. I just don't have to listen or support them. I haven't seen anything with Jane Fonda in it for years for her activities during Vietnam and that hasn't seemed to punish or harm her in any way. I doubt our disassociating with these celebrities will have any lasting impact on them. Americans have a notoriously short memory and attention span. In the final analysis, my hope is that the heated debate would actually cause these celebrities to rethink (assuming they "thought" about it in the first place) their position. (Talk about an unlikely Utopia!) I question my opinions all the time by reading other opinions and as many facts as I can. When I find myself rethinking an issue, I am grateful for the divisity of available information. What sets these celebrities apart is the nature of their dissent. It is outright personal attacks based on their hatred for our current President. It is not based on critical thinking. I do not ask companies not to use these celebrities, I take my business elsewhere, which is my right. I do not ask ABC not to put on a show with MS. Garafolo. I will simply not watch. I do not ask them to shut up, I will simply not listen anymore. If businesses make economic decisions based on large numbers of people asserting their rights, so be it. Rights come with responsibilities, not the liberal sects forte'.

[sorroworechoes]

hey miniature,
your words, not mine.
Abortion IS dismembering children. Reminds me of Pink Floyd's "One Of These Days(I'm Going To Cut You Into Little Pieces.)" Could be the Anthem for the Extreme Religious LEFT.
Of course with Floyd it's satire, but with the demoncrats they're dead serious. Dead. Serious.
Abortion IS war. And Robbins is an anti-Bush, PRO-war hypocrite. Why you're defending him is your problem.