Printable View
Please provide a couple specific examples of movie stars complaining about their free speech being stifled after they have spoken and people have simply not followed their opinion.Quote:
Originally posted by Solmyr
That's the mistake made by all those moonbat movie stars who whine about their free speech being stifled when people ignore their idiotic opinions.
Opinions are only idiotic when it's given by a total dufus akin to this dork http://www.thresholdrpg.com/forums/s...&threadid=1581
Will more troops fix the problem in Iraq? Which problem?
More troops will help intimidate the borderline fanatic opportunists. But that raises another question, are we willing to send in more troops, and the cost that comes with it. Money makes people think twice.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...17/21903.shtmlQuote:
Originally posted by Damieux
Please provide a couple specific examples of movie stars complaining about their free speech being stifled after they have spoken and people have simply not followed their opinion.
Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon are quite infamous for it. You should be able to find plenty of examples with a little googling.
Nice try, Solmyr, but nothing in that article or any quote I’ve ever seen from Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon does what you attributed to "all those moonbat movie stars," which was to “whine about their free speech being stifled when people ignore their idiotic opinions.” Your statement attributes to movie stars an unreasonable expectation that they should not only be able to speak, but also that people should heed their opinions. No statement attributed to Tim Robbins or Susan Sarandon in this article suggests that they believe they have a right to have their opinions heeded. Robbins complained because he was prevented from speaking, not because he spoke and was ignored.
It is perfectly legitimate to complain when someone cancels an event to suppress a political statement. Of course, a private entity has every right to do this, and I can understand the Baseball Hall of Fame not wanting political controversy at its celebration. Still Tim Robbins equally has every right to complain in whatever venue accepts him.
Solmyr does, however, demonstrate a downside of free speech. Ideologues can freely make inflammatory and unsupportable statements. You can fairly easily expose this sort of behavior by simply asking the ideologue to support his statement and then dismissing it when he is unwilling or unable to do so. However, too often people simply accept and repeat things that they want to hear without any critical analysis. This can transform blatant falsities into gospel. That, however, is simply one of the prices we must accept for freedom in our society.
The article Solmyr linked to had numerous examples.Quote:
Originally posted by Damieux
Please provide a couple specific examples of movie stars complaining about their free speech being stifled after they have spoken
You asked for examples. He provided them.
This is where a man of intellectual integrity politely concedes that point to Solmyr. Conjuring up dubious nit picks just makes you look bad.
Frankly, I'm not sure why you decided to question him on an aspect of celebrity behavior that is so obvious and well known.
Uh. No. Perhaps you need to read again the statement that Solmyr made and compare it with the examples that he provided. Its pretty clear from the posts I've written, but I'll restate since you didn't seem to get it from the first read.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
You asked for examples. He provided them.
Solmyr wrote this: "That's the mistake made by all those moonbat movie stars who whine about their free speech being stifled when people ignore their idiotic opinions."
I asked for this: "Please provide a couple specific examples of movie stars complaining about their free speech being stifled after they have spoken and people have simply not followed their opinion."
Solmyr provided an article with an example of movie stars who complained about an event being canceled. No where in the article does any movie start complain because people ignored their opinions.
I think I'll wait until he actually manages to provide an example to support his ridiculous statement. Calling it a "dubious nitpick" is ludicrous. The whole point of my request was for movie stars who complained simply because people ignored their opinion. Just finding an example of a movie star who complained because an event was cancelled is a pretty big, "No shit." Of course movie stars complain about that, they have every right to do so. Its only the claim that they complain because people ignore their opinion that would make them ridiculous.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
This is where a man of intellectual integrity politely concedes that point to Solmyr. Conjuring up dubious nit picks just makes you look bad.
A great example of a blatant falsity being transformed into gospel. Where are the examples of these all of these celebrities complaining because people are simply ignoring their opinions? I haven't seen any.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
Frankly, I'm not sure why you decided to question him on an aspect of celebrity behavior that is so obvious and well known.
Well, I personally don't think that putting more and more troops in Iraq will solve the problem. I think that the majority of the peace process itself is going to have to be taken care of by the Iraqi people themselves. Let's just help rebuild and the get out.
I have no idea why ANYONE would even try to argue that celebrities do not throw a fit whenever there are negative reactions to their opinions. Whether it is complaints about being ignored or complaints that their free speech has been stifled, it is all part and parcel of the same "moonbat" (Solmyr's word) behavior.
This is so well known and so well documented that it is self-evident for most people. It is just another type of "diva-like" behavior that is extremely common from celebrities.
I looked up a few more examples of this behavior. If anyone should need more, please talk to Google. I searched for "free speech" AND "celebrity." I am sure a better search would have produced even better results.
I hope nobody will embarass themself by throwing a tantrum if the examples do not say EXACTLY, word-for-word, what they seem to require them to say. This is a discussion forum, not a contract dispute.
On to the examples:
<HR color=blue>
1) http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2704
Quote:
In a brief letter to Mr. Robbins, the president of the National Baseball Hall of Fame expressed displeasure at the actor’s public condemnation of the war against Iraq and informed him that the commemoration would be canceled as a result. As a baseball fan, Robbins was understandably disappointed.
As a leftist, he was immorally outraged.
Robbins responded to this alleged effrontery with typical celebrity sanctimony. "Long live democracy, free speech, and the ’69 Mets," he wrote in reply.
2) http://www.theinternetparty.org/comm...20030427000149
Quote:
Robbins to Connie Chung:
"I support free speech, and you can't have free speech in a society or even a club that is saying you can't talk. That's not a free society. You have to allow it. Democracy's messy sometimes."
Bruce Springsteen on the Dixie Chicks:
"The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American.
"The pressure coming from government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about -- namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home."
3) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/....aspx?id=11295
The above site compares the economic reaction of the public to celebrities speaking out to the McCarthy's House Un-American Activities Committee.
4) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=32223
5) http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...17/21903.shtmlQuote:
"I am here," said Sarandon last year at an anti-war rally in Washington, D.C., "because I am tired of being frightened to speak out!"
...
After Robbins /Sarandon's Hall of Fame disinvitation, Robbins addressed the National Press Club (not bad for a victim of allegedly suppressed speech): "Any instance of intimidation of free speech should be battled against. Any acquiescence to intimidation, at this point, will only lead to more intimidation ... Millions are watching and waiting in mute frustration and hope, hoping for someone to defend the spirit and letter of our Constitution and to defy the intimidation that is visited upon us daily in the name of national security and warped notions of patriotism ... We must honor and fight vigilantly for the things that unite us. Like freedom, the First Amendment, and, yes, baseball."
...
Next, the United Way of Florida disinvited Susan Sarandon from an invitation, extended months ago, to speak. Sarandon, appearing on CBS's "The Early Show" to promote, we thought, her upcoming television movie, said this about the disinvitation:
"And it's an interesting idea, you know, to say to people, ironic really, since we're supposedly liberating these people for a democracy and then you're telling people in this country where we have a democracy that you can't have a difference of opinion when the very basis for democracy is healthy discourse ... I know the American people are not stupid. And I know they believe in democracy in the way I do. And they support their, their, you know, Bill of Rights."
But Robbins' and Sarandon's invocation of "democracy," "freedom of speech" and the "Bill of Rights" shows their total lack of understanding of the First Amendment and its application to the private sector.
...
Hollywood's anti-war critics seem to want it both ways. They use their podium to espouse their leftist views, yet, when individuals and private organizations react negatively, they shout: "First Amendment"!
Quote:
Robbins was whimpering recently because a "Bull Durham" celebration at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., was canceled to prevent it from turning into a Michael Moore acceptance screech.
Only a Hollywood lefty would say that his First Amendment right to free speech is in jeopardy when he’s invited to the National Press Club. Both before and after a speech where he refers to the U.S. as a "rogue state" and compares it to the "Soviet Union," Robbins’ drivel is picked up by every wire service, appears in most newspapers and dominates TV and radio coverage.
Still, the guy complains about not having enough access to the media, saying, "To allow those rights to be taken away out of fear, to punish people for their beliefs, to limit access in the news media to differing opinions is to acknowledge our democracy's defeat."
...
Meanwhile on a VH1 special, Madonna bellyaches, "Anybody who has anything to say against the war or against the president or whatever is punished, and that's not democracy, it's people being intolerant." The material girl then explains a little constitutional law: "That's what our constitutional rights are supposed to be, that we all have freedoms to express ourselves and to voice our dissent if we have that."
6) http://www.spinstartshere.com/archiv...servative.html
7) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_ChicksQuote:
Personally, I don’t give a toss that George Clooney, Sheryl Crow, Jennifer Aniston, Cher and Alec Baldwin are all a bit left. I equally don’t care that the likes of Freddie Prinze Jr, Faith Hill, Drew Carey, Kid Rock and Shannen Doherty are right-wingers. It makes no difference to me. Just keep on singing or making TV shows or movies or whatever it is you do.
What I do care about is that anyone – regardless of the side of the fence they sit on – is being denied their right to free speech and opinion.
If we lose these rights, these freedoms, these lynchpins of democracy, then what does that say? Democracy is dead?
8) http://www.worldmessenger.20m.com/hollywood1.htmlQuote:
On April 24, the Dixie Chicks launched a publicity campaign to explain their position. During a prime-time interview with TV personality Diane Sawyer, Maines said she remained proud of her original statement. The band also appeared naked (with private parts strategically covered) on the May 2, 2003 cover of Entertainment Weekly magazine with slogans such as "Traitors," "Saddam's Angels," "Dixie Sluts," "Proud Americans," "Hero," "Free Speech," and "Brave" printed on their bodies.
9) http://worldnetdaily.com/news/articl...TICLE_ID=32275Quote:
Bruce Springsteen: "The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American
artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations,
and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American".
10) http://www.nationalreview.com/goldbe...berg042803.aspQuote:
Bruce Springsteen has said that a radio station not playing a song because of the artists political views is "un-American," and that the Chicks were simply exercising their basic American right of free speech.
What's next? Simple. They know they've lost a tremendous amount of their fan base, so now their only hope is to become free-speech icons for sympathetically liberal country music fans who didn't support the war in Iraq – all three of them.
11) http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=32413Quote:
When Martin Sheen was out there reminding the public that in real life he's the sort of guy who'd call the president he plays on TV a racist warmonger, some advertisers suggested that maybe they didn't want their cars or baby formula associated with him. The Screen Actors Guild, the Writer's Guild and the other protection rackets which serve to regulate and prohibit the speech of writers not in their club, issued blistering denunciations. "Some have recently suggested that well-known individuals who express 'unacceptable' views should be punished by losing their right to work," SAGs whined. "This shocking development suggests that the lessons of history have, for some, fallen on deaf ears." SAG went on: "With a painfully clear appreciation of history, we deplore the idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views."
...
When Madonna says that democracy is undermined whenever critics of the president are criticized, it makes me wonder what kind of train wreck her interpretation of the Kabbalah must be. Sheen and his defenders want to be simultaneously saluted for their "courage" to speak out while at the same time believe they there should be no risks for those who do speak out. Well, if there are no risks, where's the courage? And why should movie stars have a right to risk-free political speech when no other profession has anything close?
12) http://www.thirdsuperpower.com/previ...3/04/17/12/31/Quote:
Marianne M. Jennings, wrote (April 14, 2003) in the Deseret News, "Natalie Maines, one-third of the Dixie Chicks, said she was 'ashamed' of our president. Their CD sales fell nearly 60 percent in one week, airplay stopped and tractors gathered to smash the CDs outside radio stations. The left cried, 'Censorship!'
...
Ed Healy, in the Press Enterprise (Riverside, Calif.) on April 19, 2003, wrote: "... Tim Robbins ... complaining that he and Sarandon have been deprived of their First Amendment Rights
...
Dianna Piper in the San Diego Union-Tribune (April 23, 2003): "I find very interesting the reaction of many Hollywood actors and music groups regarding their freedom of speech opposing the war and President Bush. Where were the voices of Hollywood and the music industry when Dr. Laura was blasted? Where were Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and many others when her right to freedom of speech was threatened? They were not to be heard."
13) http://tampabay.bizjournals.com/tamp...07/story3.htmlQuote:
Tim Robbins is upset that the Baseball Hall of Fame has cancelled his and Susan Sarandon’s upcoming appearance. Recently, Sarandon’s appeance at a fundraiser for the United Way of Tampa Bay was likewise cancelled. Tim Robbins is calling it a “First Amendment” issue.
14) http://www.progressive.org/webex03/wxmc0406su03.htmlQuote:
"People have a right to believe and say what they want," Tomalin continued. "For us to see this type of censorship and political pressure to control the agenda and personal opinions of what people think is just disheartening."
15) http://www.celiberal.com/showCeliberal.php?id=24Quote:
McCarthyism Watch
United Way of Tampa "scrapped the $75-a-plate event after the charity got three dozen complaints about Sarandon's selection," according to AP. Robin Carson, who heads the chapter's board, said she didn't want the event to be "divisive."
Sarandon called the decision "disturbing."
Cached original story from MSNBC: http://www.celiberal.com/showCached.php?id=263
16) http://www.newsfilter.org/articles/hollywoodidiots.htmQuote:
FARRELL: Well, first of all, I don’t think it’s the American public that is objecting. I think that when people are exercising their right to free speech, as has been the case in this instance, and organized right-wing groups attempt to sabotage either their careers or their personal public profiles, I think that is a suggestion that there is an attempt to do something to stifle dissent. And that is really what’s at issue here.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Mike, is it sabotaging Danny Glover’s career? Really, not his career. He is a movie star. People are going to still go see this guy. But what’s wrong with, whether it’s the right wing or the left wing, saying, hey, this is what Danny Glover said? He said George Bush is a racist. He compared 9/11 to American troops. What is wrong with that? What’s sinister with that? Isn’t that free speech?
FARRELL: Of course. Nobody has any objection to people disagreeing and everybody has the right to agree and/or disagree. And I don’t know-when you take statements out of context, I am not quite sure what was in fact said. But the fact is that there is an organized attempt to stifle free speech in this country. And I think it’s interesting that they attack celebrities, only because they get more press that way, when in fact there were people in the military, people in politics, former ambassadors, any number of people who were disagreeing with the war policy of this administration, but they are not the ones that are being attacked.
17) http://www.celiberal.com/showCeliberal.php?id=51Quote:
President of the Screen Actors Guild: "We deplore the idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views," the union said in a message posted on its Web site. "Even a hint of blacklist must never again be tolerated in this nation." The term "blacklist" of course was birthed during the McCarthy hearings on Hollywood Communists.
18) http://www.celiberal.com/showCeliberal.php?id=19Quote:
Bruce Springsteen: "To me, they're [the Dixie Chicks] terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American."
Quote:
Madonna: "You know it's ironic that we're fighting for democracy in Iraq because we ultimately aren't celebrating democracy here.
"Because anybody who has anything to say against the war or against the president or whatever -- is punished, and that's not democracy -- it's people being intolerant."
19) http://www.progressive.org/july03/intv0703.html
20) http://www.counterpunch.org/sarandon.htmlQuote:
Martin Sheen:
Q: When has it become criminal to express yourself in this country?
Sheen: Right now.
<HR color=blue>Quote:
"In the US it is not a good time for anybody to feel strongly about things that are not popular", Sarandon went on, "and if you are against the death penalty it's like being against a war. Your loyalties to the government are questioned if you are against it."
I fear that even in light of these copious examples, someone will insist on finding some obscure, amorphous, and ridiculous way to nitpick even these examples. If such a person wants to continue ignoring the plain, obvious meaning of what Solmyr said in a refusal to admit celebrities are guilty of this behavior, have at it. Its your credibility at stake, not mine.
You probably have this fear because you know that your examples are not relevant. You still haven't provided even one example of celebrities complaining because people ignored their opinions. You've provided examples of celebrities complaining because their ability to express their opinion was inhibited. Those are not relevant.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
I fear that even in light of these copious examples, someone will insist on finding some obscure, amorphous, and ridiculous way to nitpick even these examples.
Solmyr made a very specific statement: "That's the mistake made by all those moonbat movie stars who whine about their free speech being stifled when people ignore their idiotic opinions."
Instead of admitting that this statement is unsupportable, you keep wanting to provide examples to support a different statement, i.e., that celebrities frequently complain about free speech being stifled when they are excluded from a forum for expressing themselves. But no one has contested that statement. Obviously, celebrities complain when that happens -- they have every right to do so, and I personally believe that they should do so.
Earlier you challenged my "intellectual integrity". Now I'll return the challenge. Either provide examples that support the statement that Solmyr actually made (celebrities complaining about free speech being stifled "when people ignore their idiotic opinions") or have the intellectual integrity to admit that you can't. Stop bombarding me with irrelevent examples. And for heaven's sakes, stop whining about "nitpicking" just because I am holding you to the statement that Solmyr actually made. Its not nitpicking at all -- each of my posts has been clear that the "ignored idiotic opinions" is the crucial point. If Solmyr had confined himself to an accurate statement, like the one that you want to support, then I never would have asked for examples.
*chuckle*
I'm psychic. :)
It is neither mine nor Solmyr's fault that you cannot understand the clear and plain meaning of his statement. He even clarified it when he provided the example he was referring to.
Have fun arguing with yourself.
*plonk*