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.
"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