(pick A or B, the correct answer will take you elsewhere)
Hollyweird Scum:
or Freed Iraqis?
Not quite, they are allowed to say what they please still. However, no one is required to give them a forum to do so, others have a perfect right not to endorse views they disagree with.
One thing missing from these discussions on free speech is that the right to free speech is regarding the government only. No one has a right to speak in my house, my business, my club, my organization, etc. if I do not like what they say.
Maybe, but what's really got 'em going now is that dissent to them is allowed, has a public forum, and has become acceptable.
When Howard Simon says, "dissent is never more needed", he isn't talking about boycotting the Dixie Chicks.
Hollyweird Scum:
or Freed Iraqis?
What is the alternative? That we are forced to patronize people whose views we do not agree with and believe are harmful to the people and institutions we hold dear?
We are choosing not to buy a particular viewpoint in the marketplace of opinion. If the consequences are that those with troublesome opinions disappear--that is not our concern. They had a choice and we have a choice.
Freedom of speech in the U.S. means only that a person is free to say just about anything--it does not mean that the person is then insulated from the fallout that occurs when people disagree.
What some call "the death of dissent", I call, "the conservative half of America finally shouting down the Looney Left".
Ron Shelton......"Baseball is the only game that honors the tradition of dissent to the extent that the game stops until the argument is resolved," he says.
Nonsense. Far from honoring a tradition of dissent, a ball game simply cannot continue when one of the managers is arguing with one of the officials. Also, the ump may just throw the bum out, if he gets to carried away.
Mr. Duryea really blew that one.
5.56mm
Tt's GWB who is daring to speak out against unspeakably agressive opposition, and it's Bush who is the rebel on the world stage. When you speak of allowing dissent, one must honestly respect GWB for his fortitude to stick to his guns dispite a world wide ignorance of his views on Iraq.
What a self-serving statement! Does he think the game continues in the NFL while the referees check the instant replay? And sometimes that interruption is at the behest of people in the booth and not even on the field.
"Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear."
Congratulations, Timmy. You've finally gotten a taste of how I've felt as I've watched you and your kind attempt to shred the 2nd Amendment over the years. Remember phrases like "assault weapon" or "Saturday Night Special", designed specifically to prey on the fears of the populace? How does it feel when, as in your case, you just imagine that your basic rights are being denied? Not so pleasant, is it? However, some good may come from this experience. Even though your behavior more closely resembles that of a spoiled child not getting his way for the first time, there's always the chance you may learn something from this rebuttal by the Hall of Fame. About how precious and fragile ALL of the amendments of the Bill of Rights are, not just the ones you approve of. If not, at least your whining has provided some entertainment for the rest of us. And entertaining others is what you live for, isn't it?
DING
that's the right answer.
Freedom of speech is not the ability to get on Larry King Live and say what you want, because not everyone is free to get on Larry King Live..
People who have taken advantage of certain venues express their 'opinions' got used to not suffering the consequences of their statements.
It's obvious 9-11 woke people up...
It amazes me that people who are supposed to be "professionals" in the business of touching on people's emotions are shocked when there is a negative reaction when they say something stupid or adverse to their patrons. The end of that patronage is not the end of their free speech, though it may seem like it to them because theywant both worlds, patronage of the fans and the ability to tell the fans what they should be thinking.
Tim Robbins is still free today to express his opinion, he just not as free as he used to be to charge money from the people he is expressing to ( guarantee you they are more upset about the money they won't get for the appearance in Cooperstown).
Very soon when their wallets feel the pinch, these people will get wise, shut up, and just make money.
Speaking of Baseball and freedom of speech....Anyone remember John Rocker. I believe this is the same situation, only the views are different. Rocker was free to say what he wanted, but not necessarily free to do it as a representative of Major League Baseball, where his statements affect paying customers.
It's called the marketplace of ideas. The government is not censoring what you are saying. What you are saying - the people (the marketplace, if you will) just are not buying it.
Actually, the game stops until the argument is resolved OR the umpire throws somebody out. Very judgemental on the umpire's part, don't you thnk? And, the argument very, VERY seldom changes the outcome.
The same hypocritical liberals who feign their disdain for the "death of dissent" here in the U.S. are in contrast jumping with joy that Castro just executed 3 Cuban dissenters for disagreeing with Communism.
But in the liberals' twisted doublespeak, dissenting with the liberal views of a Baldwin, Streisand, or Dixie Chick shouldn't be permitted, as that dissent might infringe on the liberals' rights to free speech, and other similar nonsense.
...And all of this is playing out as Communists are EXECUTING people for their dissent just 80 miles away from the shores of the U.S.