Hollywood Liberals Hate Free Speech

ChronWatch.com ^ | April 16, 2003 | Kevin Willmann

[stratman1969]

Actor/Director Tim Robbins hates 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.

I’ve got some advice for you, Tim: ''Grow up, little man!''

[Bubba_Leroy]

No, no, no, no, no. You don't understand.

Free speech means that Hollywood liberals are free to use their celebrity status to get national coverage for whatever stupid, far left-wing ideas they may have, and to do so free from any criticism or boycott of their products. In fact, even if you were not intending to buy a movie or CD produced by a liberal you are obligated to do so if they have the courage to speak out against President Bush, Republicans, or conservatives in general.

Of course, free speech has no application to hate mongering conservatives. Just ask Dr. Laura.

[Scothia]

I wonder what Aussies thought of Robbins' snide attack on them (i.e., ownership of Fox)--he almost choke on his sneering. I'd hate to have been the person who had to clean the podium afterwards. And that "19th century" remark! Yikes! Trying to be the quip equivalent of Rush and falling so absurdly, humiliatingly flat.

I think we oughtta rejoice when these morons get such platforms--they prove to the world how void they are of anything resembling an intelligent argument.

Meanwhile, I'd rather hear a cat caught with its tail in a blow dryer.

[Nephi]

Did anyone notice the background in his press club appearance? Subliminal, indeed.

[birdsman]

Does Tim Robbins listen to Rush Limbaugh? If he doesn't, then by his own standards, he is infringing on Rush's right to free speech. Unless Mr. Robbins contributes money to the Catholic church, by his own standards, he is infringing on that church's rights of free religion. Just as Robbins has the right to not buy a subscription (boycot) to National Review Magazine, I have the right to not purchase (boycot) his product. The constitution allows us freedoms, but there is no freedom from accountability. On judgement Day, will Robbins be complaining to God that his atheistic views are constitutionally protected, and that he therefore should not be sent to Hell?

[Mr.Atos]

Its not that leftists actually support the concept of open expression (free speech). Its a convenient concept as long as it supports their motivations (like freedom of the press unless that press happens to be FoxNews or National Review). I suggest that they (the left) in fact do not value the open market of words and ideas. Observe the growth over the last two decades of restrictive 'politically correct' lexicon. All words and ideas are NOT welcome. Only the 'correct' ideas should be accepted. Opposing ideas may undermine their premise and disrupt their decrepid metaphysical construct. Mr. Robbins is not simply lamenting the fact that words have meanings and actions have consequences. He is angry at reality for not comforming to his perception. He is angry at us for not agreeing.

Free speech only means that any jack-a** can say what he/she pleases and maintain and express any opinion no matter how absurd. It does not mean that we have to listen.

Its not that we don't want to hear what you have to say, Mr. Robbins... We heard it and simply concluded you and your girlfriend to be irrelevent buffoons.

[jrushing]

A boycott is already going on in my house and we're confirmed tea drinkers

Amen, buy Luzianne tea. http://www.luzianne.com/

[3AngelaD]

Yes, I think we need to find out who those sponsors are, and let them know we won't buy their stuff (the beauty of American capitalism is there is always a substitute, and usually it turns out to be better than what you were using). If worse comes to worse, we could tape the stupid movie and then-fast forward thru it to get a list of advertisors.

[I_be_tc]

Did he really say that??? It makes no sense!!

I think we should all contact his publicist and say we would not dream of suppressing timmies' right to free speech. We should say we love it when he spouts such jibberish. Please, timmie, keep it coming! There is no fool, like an old fool, darling, and you are getting older every day.

TC

[Mr.Atos]

""I understand that you have a right to boycott Tim Robbins movies and write letters to ABC asking them to cancel Janeane Garafalo's sitcom. What I don't understand, as an American, is why you would want to? ""

Because as Americans and Capitalists, we support our cherished values with the direct representation of our being, and our efforts... the dollar. Unlike others in the world, we are not afraid to apply judgement consistent with those values and spend our efforts accordingly.

[nicmarlo]

He is angry at reality for not comforming to his perception.

This is the definition for solipsism.

Main Entry: so·lip·sism 
Pronunciation: 'sO-l&p-"si-z&m, 'sä-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin solus alone + ipse self
Date: 1874
: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its
 own modifications and that the self is the only
 existent thing

We don't agree with his SELF and that's why he's angry; his SELF is WRONG.

[Ronzo]

BOYCOTT HOLLYWOOD!!!

Thank you.

OK, you can go see "The Return of the King" when it comes out, but that's it...

[xJones]

I guess they're just not used to this kind of "trouble in paradise".

That's it. From the old playbook they expected to be media heros. But everything has changed, and dissenting voices are being heard now. Well, that's not supposed to happen!

Look at Michael Moore at the Oscar awards. He made his comments, lied about the number of booers afterwards, and has been spinning ever since. In the 1970s, he would have been a hero on ABC, CBS, and NBC. "The times, they are a'changing."

BTW, I view this as the middle class, the center, taking over and away from only communist, and left-wing propaganda. It's very unsettling for the ones that thought only the left had freedom of speech.

[Ptaz]

I'm all for these hollywood types having free speech, but they're going to have to learn how to accept the consequences for that free speech. But what angers me the most is they seem to think I don't have a right to have the same level of free speech they think they're entitled to. Whine like little babies when someone speaks out against what they've said.

[minmospop]

EEEWWWWWWWWW. Just thinking of SS in "low budget" anything gives me the creeps...YIKES!

[Mr.Atos]

Now wait a minute... use thoughtful judgement. Hollywood still has some good eggs, and be careful not to miss an amazing story just because it has one 'doofus' actor in it. It would have been a shame to miss the message of 'Last of the Mohicans' (the movie) just because of the opinions of Daniel Day Louis. That being said, I did pass on Sarandon's portrayal in Children of Dune, based on my expectations of the story's political implications as guided by a director that would have cast her in that role. I may be wrong, but all it cost me was a story that is probably better read than seen anyway.

...And be kind to Arnold! He can't be President, but governor of the second most powerful state in the union (below Texas, of course) ain't a shabby expectation.

[chimera]

Just typical liberal bullsquash. Free speech was never the issue. Robbins and Sarandon and all the others are free to spew their bilge whenever they want. Its just that the rest of us have the right to exercise our freedoms, speech (voicing opposing views), association (we don't have to come to their movies or concerts), and commerce (we don't have to buy the products of companies who sponsor these people). Its just that liberals brook no dissent of the liberal line at all, ever, from anyone. If you disagree with them you must be a conspiracist, or homophobe, or hatemonger, or McCarthyite, or whatever. Because, simply put, liberals can never be wrong about anything, so if you disagree with them, there must be something wrong with you.

[Robert A Cook PE]

I am NOT supressing his RIGHT to free speech.

H**L, it appears HE is the ONLY one who can GET IN FRONT OF TV camera and make speeches to the national press club!

(Where is MY RIGHT to demand HIS MONEY to pay for access to the TV camera to make my points????????)

What we are collectively saying is that I have a RIGHT to NOT BUY his products.

He demands WE support grape boycotts in support of Chavez and North Carolina boycotts in supprto of the NAACP, and South African products in the support of theuN policies and THE LIBERALS' DEMANDS.

Now, where is HIS RIGHT to my money? If he suffers a pay loss because of his beliefs and words, then WHY can the NAACP demand South Carolina and North Carolina residents suffer?

[cubreporter]

Wow, look at that scowl. It's just like the one on little Tommy D's face all the time. You know...that bitter gargoyle look. Lil Timmy and Lil Tommy....