Even big-mouthed celebs have the right to speak their minds

Chicago Tribune ^ | 4/18/03 | Renee Graham

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Define the words and you define the argument
Define the argument and you win the argument

It's time for the liberal Humpty Dumpty's to take a great fall.

[IowaHawk]

Oh, Jesus-H-Cripes on a pogo stick.

Campus speech codes, RICO prosecution of anti-abortion groups, IRS harassment of conservative non-profits, and this guy thinks the primary Free Speech issue of the day is Tim Robbins' party invitations?

Somebody smack this bozo with a clue-by-four.

[The Wizard]

totaly true, and we have the freedom to never spend another dime on them, too

[sweetliberty]

"The Bill of Rights guarantees free speech to everyone, including celebrities who flash peace signs at awards shows or release music denouncing war"

This silly b*tch, is obviously as ignorant as the celebrities she poses as apologist for.

Okay dingbat...here's the deal. You have the right of free speech. That right only protects you from the government interfering with what you say. You are absolutely free to say whatever you want, but with every freedom, privilege or right there is a balancing responsibility. You are not prohibited in any way from hurling insults at your fellow Americans, but neither are we in any way prohibited from responding in kind. What you and your entertainer friends fail to grasp is that while the Constitution guarantees you the right to say what you want, when you want and to whomever you want, it in no way guarantees you the right to cameras and microphones and a national audience and it most certainly doesn't guarantee you the right to make money from it. That's called the free market, another American concept apparently lacking in your obviously limited education.

[Hot Tabasco]

Dear Renee Graham:

The last I read or saw on television Mr. Robbins and the rest of the Hollywood elitists are still walking the street, not behind bars. The last time I read my pocket Constitution, like 5 minutes ago, it guaranteed each and every one of us, including the left coast morons the freedom of speech. What I did not find in there was any mention of their right to be heard.

Unfortunately for those constitutionally challenged such as yourself, you seem to think that just because some loud mouth celebrity has something absolutely stupid to say and that your lame stream media chooses to give him the platform to espouse his own hatred of the United States, that I am somehow constitutionally obligated to listen to his pathetic rant.

I’ve got news for you sweetheart, I have no such obligation, be it legal or otherwise, to listen to anything the likes of Robbins or Sarandon have to say and I am exercising this right by telling those who sponsor their actions that I will no longer support them or their productions. Additionally, I will no longer go to the theaters that showcase their movies nor will I rent their videos. What I am doing is simply exercising my constitutional right as a consumer in this free republic.

By the way, I recently contacted NBC, ABC and CBS requesting equal airtime in order to voice my side of the argument against Robbins, Sarandon and the other pathetic has-been Martin Sheen. As of this writing, no one has contacted me.

So tell me, who really has the freedom of speech here? It certainly isn’t me and for some reason I don’t expect you to come to my aid. Do me a favor if you can, give them a call and ask them why they chose to ignore my request for equal time.

By the way, there is more to the United States Constitution than the preamble, I would suggest you read on…..


Sincerely.....

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

Thanks! :-) I'll let you know if I get a reply (doubt that I'll even get one of their canned, generic replies, but you never know).

[aruanan]

It has been a good long while since I've had a sit-down with the U.S. Constitution, but if my junior high school memories serve me correctly, I don't recall the Bill of Rights guaranteeing free speech only to those who espouse one particular opinion. Yet that seems to be the disturbing interpretation preferred by those encouraging a backlash against some celebrities who have been outspoken opponents of the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

Poor Renee, it has been a long time since you've had a sit-down with the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution deals with protecting free speech from government interference. It has absolutely nothing to say about folks telling a big-mouthed celeb to blow it out his other capacious orifice. Why? Because that's free speech too. It's protected by the Constitution. So is a voluntary association of individuals dedicated to the purpose of making sure their money doesn't go to fund the celebrity in question and encouraging others to do the same by not paying to see the celeb or buying products the celeb is promoting.

Although I believe that such boycotting is masturbatory in that it seldom accomplishes anything but making the boycotters feel good over getting back at someone they detest (remember Rush and Florida orange juice?) and diverts their energy from productive endeavors such as getting out the vote and working for candidates so they can effect a change in public policy, it's still activity that is protected by the Constitution.

[NJJ]

. . . but if my junior high school memories serve me correctly.

Looks like this one didn't even get to high school.

No one is blacklisting these turds. Blacklisting would prevent them from getting jobs. We just don't have to go see their movies and if some producer wants to make money on his film, then he should cast it with actors that will draw an audience.

[ODDITHER]

The only reason that the Hollywood elite pro-terrorists are allowed center stage is because of their celebrity status. It certainly isn't because of their vast knowledge of the constitution, or inside knowledge of the Baath Regime. It absolutely isn't because of their education and knowledge.

You and I wouldn't be able to command time from CNN, ABC or NBC.

Therefore, if one uses their celebrity status in order to sway peoples opinions, they better be ready for the consequences when people don't agree with them. Since I can't demand equal time to debate them, I can only show them that I disagree with their results of exercising their free speech.

My reason for avoiding any products that they have a vested interest in, is because I can't stand to see them. I don't care what role they are playing, all I see is bitter mean angry whiny liberals that are spewing venom.

It has nothing to do with them excercising their free speech and everything to do with keeping my blood pressure low enough. Besides, I can't afford to replace any more TVS by throwing things at it when they appear on the screen.

[boop]

Don't forget Marge Schott who was FINED 25,000 dollars for things she said in PRIVATE. She was eventually forced to sell her majority interest in the Cincy Reds. Must have missed liberals coming to her defense. Oh, wait, Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson said it wasn't ENOUGH to apologize.

[Kevin Curry]

Even big-mouthed celebs have the right to speak their minds

So is the government punishing big-mouthed celebs for speaking their minds? I guess I missed that.

On the other hand, private citizens have the First Amendment right to blacklist and boycott big-mouthed celebs to their hearts' content. It appears to me that the First Amendment has never been more healthy and vigorous.

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

My eyes, my eyes!

Actually my ears, too! That woman has the most irritating voice I've ever heard on TV!

[Bigg Red]

Sorry, but I don't understand your question.

[watchin]

Your #5: A) Can they really be that stupid? B) Or are they just being disingeuous?

My response: C) All of the above?

[BlueLancer]

"The woman has the right to speak ...
But the rest of you will not listen!"
(The Alcalde, "Zorro, the Gay Blade")

[Paul C. Jesup]

Why do these useful idiots deserve any rights when they gladly continue to strip us of our rights?

[JusPasenThru]

Celebrate diversity.

Vote with your feet/pocketbook.

If they don't like it, their choices include
1) use a little common sense and, might I dare say, sensitivity before shooting off their mouths.
2) move to a country which allows only one point of view to be expressed, and hope that theirs is included.
3)STFU.

[Paul C. Jesup]

This one of the reasons I prefer to collect anime, manga and imported foreigne CDs. Hollywood usually doesn't even see a dime of my money and I get a good value of entertainment for my money.

[Brad C.]

I thought the following write up from www.rachellucas.com ( a blog site)was exceptional.

Letter to Tim Robbins
I hereby capitulate to the reality that I am running out of ways to rant and therefore have resorted more and more to writing fake "letters" to the asshats I disagree with. Here's the latest, to Tim Robbins, Mediocre Actor and Big Fat Hypocrite.

Dear Tim,

It has come to my attention today that you don't understand some things, such as the English language, the Constitution, logic, or fairness. Al Gore is guilty of the same thing, and I can see how you'd try to model yourself after such an illustrious politician, but really now, I think it's time for you to pull your head away from your buttocks.

Yesterday, you said:


"A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio...[that] if you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications. Every day, the airwaves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent."



If you can, please provide the world with specific examples of such threats and warnings. The reason I ask is because I see people every day on the news saying, "I oppose this administration." But I haven't heard of any ramifications being rained down upon their heads.

You and your wife are perfect examples. You've been travelling all over the world for the past few months saying extremely negative things about Bush and the war, but unfortunately, you look healthy and well to me. Also, I noticed thousands upon thousands of people taking to the streets lately, holding up signs saying "Bush=Hitler", but I guess the news media are just burying the stories about how these people have been sent to gulags. If you could clear that up for us, that'd be super. Thanks.

Anyway, per your claim that the airwaves are filled with "warnings, veiled and unveiled threats": Again, please supply specific examples and then notify the police. I mean, if there are actual threats being delivered, you have a legal case.

Per your insistence that the airwaves are filled with "spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent": That would be free speech. It is well within any citizen's Constitutional rights to spew invective and/or to hate. Remember, hating is not illegal, despite the best efforts of the Politically Correct cadre. Also, maybe you haven't noticed, but the vast majority of the anti-war protests have consisted of "spewed invective and hatred" directed at Bush and those of us who support the war. I realize you prefer to remain hypocritical, but I'm just pointing this out in case you care about your credibility.

You also said yesterday,


"In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom...when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce. Any instance of intimidation to free speech should be battled against. Any acquiescence to intimidation at this point will only lead to more intimidation."


That's very helpful advice. But I think your wife and your money have clouded your judgment and your view of reality, because there has been no illegal reprisal against people like you or the rabid anti-war protestors. The only reprisal I'm aware of is, for instance, people boycotting the Dixie Chicks. That boycott is itself free speech. Is that what you insist needs to be "battled against"? Saying, "I wish Tim Robbins would shut up" is free speech. Is it time to "get fierce" with me?

Moving on. You seem to be a tad upset with the National Baseball Hall of Fame because they canceled yours and Susan's appearance at a "Bull Durham" anniversary gala. It seems the guy in charge doesn't like your views on the war, so he disinvited you to his party. You said:


"[The] cancellation of our appearance in [Hall of Fame headquarters at] Cooperstown is not about my views; it is about my right to express those views. I am extremely grateful that there are those of you out there still with a fierce belief in constitutionally guaranteed rights."


I believe your education has failed you. The Constitution does not guarantee your right to speak at a party at the Baseball Hall of Fame. The Baseball Hall of Fame is not obligated in any way whatsoever to provide a forum for you to express your views. The Baseball Hall of Fame is completely incapable of infringing upon your Constitutional right to express your views, unless they send someone to tape your mouth shut.

I hope that clears things up for you. Out here in the real world, we try to familiarize ourselves with the actual laws of the land, our actual Constitutional rights, and the actual meaning of the words "fear", "intimidation", "threats", etc. I realize that in your sheltered millionaire world, anyone disagreeing with you in a less than ass-kissing manner is perceived as threatening and as trying to take away your civil rights. I know it must be difficult to be treated like a superstar for years and then suddenly be unwelcome at a private party, but it would behoove you to reexamine your own paranoia and self-centered worldview.

Otherwise, we will continue laughing at you, mocking you, and calling you an asshat, which you will translate as threatening you, hating you, and trying to go Nazi on you, which will result in us continuing to laugh, mock, and call you an asshat. And so on.

Sincerely,
Rachel

P.S. You'll notice I called Susan Sarandon your "wife." I did that to annoy you.

[Bigg Red]

Ah, yes, "all of the above". Good point!