The Actors, the War and the Hall of Fame (last word on Sarandon and Robbins)

NY TIMES ^ | 4/15/03 | lettres to the editor

[Liz]

Re "Cooperstown Muffs One" (editorial, April 12):

The politically motivated decision by Dale Petroskey, the president of the Hall of Fame, to cancel the 15th-anniversary celebration of the movie "Bull Durham" because he takes offense at Tim Robbins's and Susan Sarandon's opposition to the war in Iraq mocks the very values that baseball and our country purport to represent.

I suppose that Mr. Petroskey would like to bar all of us who oppose the war from Cooperstown as well. As we number in the millions, perhaps this is the only way for him to receive a long overdue lesson in civics. Mr. Robbins has surely demonstrated his mettle in a far more worthy way than Mr. Petroskey's grandstanding play.

______________________________________

Dale Petroskey would do himself a favor by reviewing President Bush's message to the people of Iraq ("Cooperstown Muffs One," editorial, April 12). Among other things, Mr. Bush reminds the Iraqi people that now they will be free to "speak your mind." This is a great reminder for everybody who wants to silence public opinion.

____________________________________________________

While Dale Petroskey's reasoning for canceling the Hall of Fame celebration of the movie "Bull Durham" seems absurd, to say the least (editorial, April 12), there is no free-speech issue here. Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have expressed their views on the war freely, clearly and repeatedly. The First Amendment does not require that we receive all views positively; it just guarantees the right to express them.

____________________________________________

How does canceling the Hall of Fame's 15th-anniversary celebration of "Bull Durham" abrogate free speech (editorial, April 12)? Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have used their celebrity to protest against the administration and the war at every opportunity. In doing so, they became, by choice, symbols.Honoring them is as much a political statement as disinviting them. Freedom of speech is not consequence-free. It allows people — and organizations — to answer back.

[Liz]

EXCERPT Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have expressed their views on the war freely, clearly and repeatedly. The First Amendment does not require that we receive all views positively; it just guarantees the right to express them.

Susan and Tim showed their contempt for Americans who support the president. They think free speech only applies to dissenters. The execrable ACLU has preached this doctrine for years.

We were expected to bow down in obeisance to sarandonrobbins' anti-war statements.

Well, guess what guys, we didn't like what you said. Too bad you had to learn about this the hard way: Free speech works both ways.

[Support Free Republic]

Your Donation Helps Counter These Guys
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[Diogenesis]

Wait for the Robbins-Sarandon puff pieces to appear in the NYTimes
and its terrorist-supporting daughter, the Boston Globe.

Ooops, the wait is over.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Tim and Susan. Doofus and Slut. Big mouths that are repulsed at being held accountable. Dang life sure aint fair sometimes. I wonder who wrote their comments for them? Neither is capable of stating a thought, even a misplaced stupid one.

[peeve23]

These misinformed "free speech" editorials seem to think that if someone does some negative to their public image that organizations should be forced to ignore that. What a silly notion. Should we have forced Hertz to keep the OJ commercials once it became clear that he was a nutcase murderer? I remember when Ford was running commercials years ago comparing it's Ford Aerostar Van to the aerodynamic design of the Space Shuttle. Then the Challenger blew up. Ford dropped those commercials like hot potatos.

Should Hertz and Ford have been forced to ignore current events that brought changes in the public image of their "spokesperson?"

[Kudsman]

Free speech works both ways.

Not to the left. Verbally attack a Republican Preisdent = free speech,right to dissent.

Say NO to a hollywierd nobody that pretends to be someone other than themselves for a profession = hate crime that deserves prision for life.

[Commiewatcher]

I never thought the Baseball Hall of Fame was there to honor or even acknowledge the existence of Hollywood Marxists who "earn" their living by playing make believe baseball. Even without their stance on the war they are "owed" NOTHING.

[ThirstyMan]

Mr. Bush reminds the Iraqi people that now they will be free to "speak your mind." This is a great reminder for everybody who wants to silence public opinion.

When a liberal is told his remarks are inappropriate he cries censorship! when a conservative declares his opposition he is called a controlling bigot.
The door of free speech swings both ways! as hard as that is for the libs like Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins and Pearl Jam's Eddie Vedder to fathom.
What? You dare oppose me?
What? you seek to punish me for my opinion?
This expectation of approval from your opposition is so self-righteous! That's not what free speech is all about.

[Lady Eileen]

bump

[demosthenes the elder]

well, the secret campaign the NEA and DNC have long waged to make sure the average American don't know diddly about the constitution sure seems to have borne fruit.
The 1stAm applies only to STATE infringements upon free speech, religion, association, and assembly.
If a private person or organization "X" chooses to exercise its power within its own bailiwick in a non-violent manner to limit or penalize the voiced opinions of someone else "Y" within "X"'s area of proprietary control, that is completely legal and not a "free speech" issue.

[Liz]

I never thought the Baseball Hall of Fame was there to honor or even acknowledge the existence of Hollywood Marxists....

They're not.

[ThirstyMan]

peeve: "Ford dropped those commercials like hot potatos."

The spelling of that word potato [pl. potatoes]gets us conservatives all confused! Or was it tomato?

TM

[Liz]

....I wonder who wrote timsusan's) comments for them? ....

Michael (blech) Moore?

[Liz]

Nice deconstruction.........

[laredo44]

Dale Petroskey would do himself a favor by reviewing President Bush's message to the people of Iraq ("Cooperstown Muffs One," editorial, April 12). Among other things, Mr. Bush reminds the Iraqi people that now they will be free to "speak your mind."

I'm sorry, I must have missed it. When, exactly, did Petroskey incarcerate Robbins and Sarandon?

[Liz]

They ain't seen nuttin' yet.....'til they been FReeped, but good.......

[RooRoobird14]

They think free speech only applies to dissenters

Actually, Timmy Boy and Saggy Boobs Sarandon think free speech only applies to them.

With these spoiled brats, everything is always about "ME, ME, ME!! MY WANTS, MY NEEDS, ME, ME, ME!!!"

[demosthenes the elder]

I can only try, and hope some of the herd will wake up.

[Liz]

I must have missed it. When, exactly did Petroskey incarcerate Robbins and Sarandon?.....

Remember, to a freaking Hollywood liberal, disagreeing with them is tantamount to capital punishment and almost as bad as having a threesome with short and skinny pervert Roman Polanski and fatstuff Michael Moore to get a part.

[PennsylvaniaMom]

Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Petroskey is a savvy business manager (of the Baseball Hall of Fame). Maybe he (unlike lets say the upper management of Lipton Tea) looks at the big picture and the demographic of his prospective clients (ie., those who would come and spend their $$$ at the Baseball Hall of Fame). Maybe he weighed the consequences of offending Sarandon/Robbins (who probably had to have a 'consultant' help them with the icky, bourgeous baseball scenes in Bull Durham) or the average American baseball fan (who probably had a relative, friend or at least an acquantance) who was serving in Iraq. Yeah that's a hard decision to make.