The sad fact is that USAToday believes what Sarandon said about being banned from participating. In fact, the reporter & editor who wrote & edited this thought this was an outstanding ironic trump card to end the story so they could elitely look down upon us "free-speech-stifler-peons."
LA Times media reviewer Howard Rosenberg belittled George Bush's TV appearance three days after 9/11. He rec'd 950 critical e-mails out of 1,000 in less than two weeks. So he had to write another column defending himself 12 days later: Of course, he, like Susie S, resorted to ending the article w/his first amendment trump card: "It's one thing to label someone a miserable jerk, another to advocate stilling the jerk's voice just because you find it strident."
Hugh Hewitt caught him on it: "Rosenberg lacked the courage in the recent column"--wrapping "himself in the First Amendment, which demonstrates either ignorance or disingenuousness...What stinks is this pathetic attempt to have ib both ways, to claim First Amendment protection while serving up an explanation/excuse that is neither."
Rosenberg only admitted to having poor timing of his column. Hewitt: "The column's timing didn't stink. The editorial content and supervision did."
There ya have it: Liberal commentary is never wrong. It never stinks. It's just poorly timed. Obviously anyone who disagrees with a liberal commentator from LALand (Hollywood or not) is attempting to "still" their voice.
Try convincing Hollywoodites of the putridity of their rhetoric and they'd swear you were attacking them with duct tape. (See, they've convinced themselves that when their movies bomb, it wasn't their fault...their product was 100% art...therefore, the problem was with the consumer who sought to stifle such art by not forking over their entitlement of art...greenbacks).