Jennings Warns of “Aggressive Efforts” to Hush Anti-War Celebs

MRC ~ Cyber Alert ^ | 04-16-03

[dirtboy]

Can you gentlement both agree that for such bias, perhaps the media should be hanged? ;)

No - I cannot see how you can hang a snake... hand me the shovel.

[JasonC]

He didn't say anything about Muslims or about criticism of the president. He said those giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Which as he noted is explicitly mentioned as criminal in the actual text of the constitution - far from "trashing" any of it.

After WW II, a British subject who went to Germany and broadcast pro German propaganda during the war, was tried for treason and found guilty. The only uncertainty in his defense was whether he was actually an American citizen rather than a Brit (he was ethnically Irish, an "Orange" one; his family and personal history were cloudy on a number of points). Ezra Pound broadcast propaganda for Mussolini's Italy, and was also tried for treason (he plead insanity).

Notice than in these actual cases of prosecution for adhering to enemies during a time of actual war, propaganda support alone was considered quite sufficient. Nobody pretended Pound or "Lord Haw Haw" shot Allied soldiers, blew up trains, etc. What Peter Arnett did in Baghdad during this war came remarkably close to what those two did during WW II. It was not as sustained or as free of any nuance, perhaps.

There is every right to criticise the government even in time of war. There is no requirement than any of us like or support it. But in addition, there is a positive legal duty to support our government in war in deed rather than speech, and to refrain from giving aid and comfort to public enemies, whether by deed or by speech. You can say "I think this war is unwise" until you are blue in the face - that is advice to our own government. But "I hope we lose, we deserve to, I hope the enemy wins" crosses a definite line. It does not advise our own government, but fights against it.

And whether anybody likes it or not, that is what legally constitutes "treason". Which as the previous poster pointed out, is explicitly recognized as a crime by the constitution itself.

The constitution does intend "treason" to be construed narrowly, and says so. There had been scandals in England earlier, in which bills of attainder labeled political enemies traitors, pretty much at the whim of parliament or of the crown. The US constitution forbids that, restricting treason to actual aid and comfort to public enemies in time of war. But it definitely thinks treason exists and is a crime.

Plenty of moderns don't seem to. Indeed, the 20th century saw a positive epidemic of treason, from ideological extremists at both ends of the (conventional) political spectrum. Who put their ideology above their country. In the middle east, some do the same with their religion. We had a clear case of treason in this war already, when that sergeant in the 101 fragged his officers because he put loyalty to Islam above loyalty to his country.

No, people do not have a "right" to decide to put other organizations above their country like that. Whether that other organization is Islam, communism, the UN, CNN, "the left", "the press", or the Democratic party.

[Scothia]

A disc, one of these, a talk radio person in the South calling for the murder of Hollywood celeb, a particular Hollywood celebrity.

Anyone know what he's talking about?

To quote that great historian and social commentator Janeane Garofalo, ""They're always making this s*** up."

[Wil H]

It's funny how this works, Peter. I'm just a working smoo, and my paycheck is not dependent upon what millions of Americans think of me, just my bosses. Now, someone becomes a celebrity making millions of dollars, namely because millions of Americans are willing to pay money because of what they think of that person's singing or acting. Now, that person goes BEYOND singing and acting and makes a political statement that deeply bothers millions of people who in the past PAID MONEY to that person. Should they just keep on supporting that person's lavish lifestyle? Should they basically somehow be COMPELLED to keep sending their hard-earned money to a person they now dislike? How ELSE, Peter, would you make a celebrity immune from the consequences of their actions?

You are right but it can be stated in a simpler fashion

These entertainers produce a work product, if it's good they sell a lot, if it sucks, no one buys.

When they use they work status to produce another product -ie their political views, the same criteria apply, if their audience thinks it sucks, they vote with their dollars.

It has nothing to do with free speech or aggressive tactics.

It's about free markets and freedom of choice.

I have no more interest in Barbra Streisand's politics than I have in George Bush's singing voice.

[Scothia]

I have no more interest in Barbra Streisand's politics than I have in George Bush's singing voice.

And I have no more interest in Streisand's singing voice than I have in Tim Robbins' statesmanship or George W. Bush's news anchoring.

[ggekko]

The Hollywood left has grown used to a slavish, sympathetic media element that hangs on their every word as if everything that they say is a deep revelation an example of which is the Lauter interview of Robbins. This type of powder puff interview used to be the norm. The reality is that almost all entertainment celebrities are undereducated half-wits whose positions on most issues are pathetically ignorant carictitures.

For the first time in a number of years the intemperate, ignorant remarks of celebrities are being subjected to critical scrutiny. This critical scrutiny is what Tim Robbins is calling "censorship". These celebrities should wake up and realize that we are in a new era and that if they want to be celebrity-politicians they should be prepared to take the heat.

[FreeTheHostages]

[FreeTheHostages]

"I have no more interest in Barbra Streisand's politics than I have in George Bush's singing voice." Hmm, makes me think of a good tagline

[CyberAnt]

Well ... why doesn't Petah just take a look at his network's ratings - especially those during the WAR ... it seems that ABC and CBS both took a dive during the war coverage.

Somebody needs to tell Petah that THE PUBLIC HAS CHOSEN NOT TO LISTEN TO HIS DRIVEL!!!

[CyberAnt]

The Constitution guarantees you the RIGHT TO SAY

It does not guarantee you the RIGHT TO BE HEARD!

[longtermmemmory]

this is not an effor to hush! this is an effort to express contrary opinions. They mistake efforts to ignore with efforts to silence.

[Zacs Mom]

well, I tuned in to ABC Nightly News to hear what Mr. Jennings had to say on this topic but, wouldn't you know it, just as ABC was going to that story our local news broke in to televise live the results of the American Airlines union workers vote. They aired the entire speech and did not cut back to network until Nightly News was over. *sigh*

I looked on the ABC website & didn't see a reference to the story.....does anyone know where I could see/read Mr. Jennings' report? I'd like to know what the report addressed.

[Consort]

This is all a Hollywood/TV Liberal ploy to "justify" not giving work to Conservative entertainers as "retribution".

[RummyChick]

just saw a clip of madonna saying anyone that we aren't celebrating democracy because anyone who says anything bad about Bush or the war is punished

[TXBlair]

"What a fag this guy is. He obviously doesn't know what tru punishment is. I don't see any of these anit-American liberals being thrown into a subterranean dungeon and having the entrance sealed. Idon't see any of these anit-American scumbags having their finger-nails being torn out with pliers or having a red-hot poker shoved up their anus. This fag and the rest of his ilk who tote the anti-American party line need to shut the F up!"

Holy 'mokes!! Tell us how you REALLY feel! I couldn't agree with you more, though.

[ez]

Robbins is still unmoved: "No, I am ecstatic that they feel this freedom. I hope that they, that we have the resolve to, to get in there and make it work. So far we've lost our focus on Afghanistan, it seems to me. And, and we have a terrible track record as far as our military leading to democracy. Look at Panama, look at Nicaragua. It's not, it's not in our best interest for some reason to keep it going."

Robbins apparently advocates the US staying and colonizing whatever countries it liberates, rather than leaving the nation to its' own devices.

[sauropod]

White House Correspondence Association Dinner, 4/26/03, Washington, D.C.

Be there or be square ;-).

[sauropod]

The word in that blank is Whores. As in "Media Whores."

[Lady Eileen]

Hollywood is paranoid........remember what Rush said......the Left will become looney when they loose their power. The meltdown is happening......this is not a pretty sight.

[sauropod]

Sweetie cups, the wimmin' just SWOON over His Royal Podness.

It doesn't matter if he has bigger boobs than you.

Even for just a little while ;-).