Hollywood Liberals Hate Free Speech

So does his long-term partner, Susan Sarandon, as well as Janeane Garafolo, Martin Sheen, The Dixie Chicks, Mike Farrell, Sean Penn, Michael Moore, Harry Belafonte, Ed Asner, Danny Glover, Chrissie Hynde, and other ''anti-war'' celebrities.

They only love free speech when they are using it to bash the military, President Bush, and America, both in our own media and overseas. However, when the American consumer, offended by their blame-America first rhetoric, reacts with petitions and boycotts, the words ''blacklist,'' ''undermining free speech'' and ''suppressing dissent'' are used by these celebrities.

Hollywood is scared, because it is getting the message where it hurts; in the wallet. Movie receipts for March were down 18 percent. Martin Sheen lost an advertising spot with Visa, and the Dixie Chicks may lose Lipton tea as the sponsor of their tour. Janeane Garafolo’s new ABC-TV show is now the target of boycotts. And then there is the duo of Sarandon and Robbins.

The couple has signed ''statements of conscience'' against both the war on terrorism and liberation of Iraq. They have spoken at rallies sponsored by communist front groups A.N.S.W.E.R. and ''Not In Our Name.'' At the Academy Awards, they flashed Winston Churchill’s ''V'' symbol, which the ''peace'' movement hijacked from the inspirational British leader. They used every public opportunity to push their views on the people of America, who gave them the gift of fame by supporting their work over the years.

Now Sarandon and Robbins are getting a response they don’t appreciate one bit. The United Way canceled a fundraising appearance by Sarandon after complaints by members, fearing the event would become divisive. Most recently, the Baseball Hall of Fame canceled a tribute to their 1988 baseball movie Bull Durham for the same reason.

Robbins used an appearance at the National Press Club on Tuesday to lash out at those of us who dared get uppity with celebrities like him. He accused the White House and conservative media of a conspiracy to silence dissenting voices. Additionally, Robbins also accused the President of fracturing unity after September 11, 2001 with the ''either you are with us or you are with the terrorists'' speech. All this outrage is because these two pampered celebrities didn’t get their egos stroked for some 15-year-old movie.

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.

Absolutely right!! And that is the crux of this issue. Mr. Robbins has not witnessed his forum eroding as a result of our disagreement. In fact, I would argue that it has grown. But, what he is seeing is a naive generation awakened from the a philosophical catnap, where nothing is anything, morals is a dirty word, values are a questionable attribute of the 'uncultured' prude, and ethics are fodder for snickers over latte's at the bottom of Queen Anne Hill. He wants his 'groupies' back. But, we can't go back. 911 woke us all up like a pot of hot water. America is just not buying him anymore, and he can't stand it. I argue that it is he, that would like us to shut up. He made that perfectly clear in the entirety of his speech. He lashed out at his critics and all but demanded their silence. 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. Exactly right! I do not see anyone here advocating the denial of anyone to speak their minds. The issue that should be perfectly clear to activists (ACTIVISTS) like Robbins and Sarandon (and especially the sponsors of their activism) from now on is not that we don't want to hear it, but that we will be listening. And we too can be just as active.

Thank you for your comments. As I read them, you make two important points: (1) that, in Robbins case, the controversy surrounding him has actually resulted in his being provided more, not less, of a forum to disseminate his views, e.g., the National Press Club; and (2) he is trying, in part by casting himself (a bit of a Hollywood pun) as a victim, to stiffle opposing views from being expressed. Note how he tries to tie such views, and those who express them to the "government." Again, thanks for your analysis.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.