POLL: Are celebrities being denied freedom of speech?

Remove all ads!

Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have been quite vocal on the fact that they feel that their, and others in Hollywood are being denied their First Ammendment (US) rights to freedom of speech.

Simple poll, yes they are, no they are not.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 22 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Are celebrities being denied freedom of speech? (22 votes.)

Are US celebrities being denied freedom of speech? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 32% (7)
* No - 68% (15)

 

Public backlash is not, and will never (but sometimes should) be considered denying someone their right to free speech. If the government threw them in jail for what they said, then yes. But that's not the case, especially with those two self-important yutzes.

I love their movies and respect them as actors, but they are just that - actors. They get paid their millions for their movies, are driven home in their limos to their million dollar mansions, hop private jets overseas to ***** about the government, and insist that their "status" gives them more credibility than the rest of us. They would rather rant and rave and get their names in the papers (which is working quite nicely) than run for public office and attempt to make real change. I mean come on - who'd want to switch careers, spending 60 hours a week making phone calls, pushing for new laws and making real change, when you can spend 2 hours a week in front of a camera flashing peace signs, doing interviews talking about "all I want is for people not to die...is that so wrong?" I mean, that would interfere with shooting for the next "Dune" TV movie, or the "Shawshank Redemption 2: Revenge of the Big Scary Group-raping Queres."

I think they're just out to further their careers, plain and simple. They're whining about their precious 1st amendment rights being trampled (which they aren't even close) to kick up ticket sales for their next movies, period.

 

Someone like Darkwolf or Mathetais can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the U.S. Constitution is this: The document is designed to limit the ability of the government to interfere the everyday lives of citizens. That's why the principal of checks and balances is so important and stressed. That said, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the GOVERNMENT from taking action against someone for things they may say that said government may not agree with.

With me so far? OK. The government also has a responsibility to ensure that individual actions do not infringe on the rights of others. That means that if I throw a punch at someone (let's say, for example's sake, my filthy animal of a mother-in-law) because she says something I don't like about the government, even if the government agrees with me that what she said was wrong or unfair, that government will prosecute me for assault -- correct?

Has anyone engaged in any CRIMINAL action against these actors? I'd like to see the law that says that everyone HAS to listen to what they have to say. I'd like to see the laws that say that the networks HAVE to air their views. Such laws would, to my mind, be an infringement of the rights of those networks or event organizers.

Therefore, if the government is not penalizing these actors, and individuals who disagree with them are not performing criminal acts in their negative response to said actors' comments, no freedom of speech is being infringed upon, and they should shut up!

 

Rabbit said

Fred Thompson did it! Oh, wait, he is a conservative, he doesn't count.

Sorry Rabbit, I couldn't resist!

 

Touche', Darkwolf. Now Fred Thompson I get. He's paid his dues as a public servant and as far as I'm concerned he can rant all he wants. His opinion is credible, despite his new full-time career. He knows the law and the constitution better than the afore mentioned yutzes combined.

 

Death Rabbit,

 

He, he, Darkwolf, I see you've proven your ability to find the hottest issue, which surely turns into a heated debate once again

I think celebrities usually use their celibrity-status to further a cause which seems to be important to them. Liz Taylor and HIV, Micheal Jackson and ... children, Paul Maccartney and animal-protection .... etc. etc.

And a lot of celebrities made it into politics, Ronald Regean, Sony Bono, George Bush (the son of the George Bush), Charlton Heston (the NRA is a political organisation). I actually can't wait to see Eminem in office.

So, now, the hot potatoe, yes, their free speech has be infringed. And the problem with the first amendment is, that dear old Jimmy Madison could not have known that there'll be something like TV. And if he knew about Fox News, he would have propably said, thanks, I stay British. (And would have made it clear, that prisoners shall not be transportet to Australia, because some Australian (a certain one) is a real pain in the ass.)

Anyway, those who are so proud of the 1st amendment, I can't stand these "contains explicit lyrics and profanity" sticker on CD's. I think this is a unbounded cheek (i looked that up) and an infringment of 1st amemndment rights.

 

Nice oxymoron in your first post Darkwolf

How could they be "quite vocal" on the subject if their "rights to freedom of speech" were being compromised? Last time I checked, the Dixie Chicks were still free, Tim Robbins had a press conference to talk about his "ill wind", and Eddie Vedar (along with the remaining 14 Pearl Jam fans) were enjoying coffee at Starbucks.
Yes, the Baseball Hall of Fame chose not to show Bull Durham. That organization is not government sponsored and is free to choose what it does with its events.
Yes, many people have boycotted the Dixie Chicks, even had public burning of their albums (aka Sean Hannity). Again, not government sponsored.
It's not oppression, its consequences...and its high time that the left wing began to face the consequences of its actions.

 

Those stickers do not infringe on free speech in any way. They warn parents about the material their kids may be listening to. The government also has the right to comment on things like that, and parents have the right to influence / discipline their kids up until 18 years of age. Now, if the records were banned outright, THAT would be a freedom of speech issue. Once again, banning the stickers would actually be a freedom of speech violation.

As for actors, some of them have valid points, but their status as an actor does not equal knowledge of world affairs. They MAY be knowledgable(sic), but doing a good job in Stepmom does not equal being an expert on foreign affairs. That good job in the movie certainly doesn't force networks to air her views, or event sponsors to invite her to their soirees.

 

@ Darkwolf

Yes, Darkwolf?

 

As mentioned above, the question as to whether a First Amendment Right is being infringed upon begins with:

Q: Is the government acting?

If the answer is no, then THAT'S THE END OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FIRST AMENDMENT STORY. Now, maybe you wish to protest that it isn't right that ordinary people get to exercise their rights or that they choose to exercise their rights in a perfectly legal manner but however you go about it, you aren't talking about the freedom to speak anymore - you are talking about something else.

Also, why is it that people assume that the anger with artists like the Dixie Chicks is a result of their being against the war and saying so. IIRC, their comments that drew fire were something to the effect of, 'Bush is an embarassment' which is hardly a well thought out and articulate stance against the war. Likewise, iirc, Pearl Jam featured 'Bush on a stick' in a mocking manner. Other celebrities have spoken out against the war in a more reasoned manner and the response has been.....nothing. For example,Nicolas Cage spoke against the war and I haven't heard a peep. So, why is it that those who believe there is a violation of some right portray the speech that the 'common folk' protest as if it was well reasoned debate - the speech drawing the ire of the public seems often to be hyperbolic insults.

If you think there is a right being violated I'd ask: What right, and support please.

 

I like it! Good conversation, no one attacking anyone. This is what it is about!

Sorry Death Rabbit, I was going to rib you about Thompson being in favor of the war. I think you were against it, weren't you? Sorry if I am wrong. I wrote it, started to re-write it because it wasn't funny, then decided to pull the ripcord, I guess I broke my legs on the landing.

Anyway here I go, and let the flames begin.

Hollywood celebs have absolutely NOT had their rights trampled. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were not violated in any manner by the baseball hall of fame. The 1st Amendment does not provide for any forum for you to express yourself, it only protects you from the government persecuting you.

There are consequences for our actions. Private individuals are free to show their displeasure with others by not associating with them. Business may terminate employees for speaking negatively about their companies. Political correctness has tried to eliminate these consequences, and that is wrong. It interferes with my freedom of expression. I am free to express my dislike of Robbins/Sarandon by not buying Bull Durham on DVD, (which I was going to do before Sarandon popped off). That is my form of expression. The MLB Hall of Fame is free to cancel their speaking engagement if they wish to. It is a 2-edged sword though, as the Hall has to face the consequences of that action. So all of you who disagree with this decision, stop crying foul, (pun, get it! ) cancel your trip to the MLB Hall of Fame, and go buy all of Robbins and Sarandon's DVDs, show your support, quite whining!

Freedom of expression does not equal freedom from consequences for what you express. It simply can't without blocking other's freedoms of expression.

 

I notice nobody's touching Martin Sheen, so I will.

He, his crusafix and ductape can go to the catholic hell they came from, if he finds it doesen't exist i'll create it just for him.

so no, not only are they not being denied thier freedom of speech, some are abusing it.

also i think Susan Saranwrap is a crappy actress, go Angles & long live MLB.

 

Greenlion,

I think it is funny that Martin and Charlie's Visa ad got pulled. I can just imagine that phone call.

"Dad, what the **** are you doing", Martin, "Son there comes a time in every man's life when he has to take a stand for the American People. I may not be re-elected next term, but I will go into retirement knowing that I did what was best for the people of the US, even if they don't realize it", Charlie "What the **** are you talking about, how many times do I have to remind you, you are not the president you *******! Do you have Alzheimer’s or what old man? Do you realize how much time at the local whorehouse... I mean how much cocaine... I mean how much money you just cost me!?" Martin, "Son you know as well as I do that war is hell, I mean we both spent time in Vietnam, me on that boat headed up the river and you getting stoned with Dafoe, I just hate seeing my soldiers going through that!" Charlie, "Crap, and you guys thought I needed an intervention, lay off the anti-depressants and the viagra for a while Pop, or you are going to be dead before you can destroy the rest of my inheritance!"

[ April 17, 2003, 03:56: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

 

DarkWolf i think i might love you


Thank You

 

Too funny, Darkwolf -- that makes up for your dead post a few posts up.

Question, though -- what's up with the Sheens? I have no idea what Greenlion was talking about when he mentioned the crusafix and duct tape -- please elucidate or post a link!

 

They are not denied their freedom to express their opinion in public. But what they really complain about IMHO is the consequences these statements had to their work. Ok if you believe something and you say it out loud you must accept the consequences good or bad otherwise you make a joke of yourshelf. Isn't that right;

 

I think the reference to the First Amendment takes this discussion off track. The complaints I've heard attributed to them (not that I've been paying too much attention, mind you) have not been about government interference with free speech for the most part, but about an increasing unwillingness in America to hear or tolerate dissenting voices. And I think they are exactly right on this front. Sure, people have a right not to listen to people who disagree with them, but it's not a particularly admirable choice to make. It defeats the spirit, if not the letter of the law, of the principles of free speech and goes back to the ghetto mentality Yago brought up. Not listening to those who don't share your biases makes it much harder to have meaningful dialogue.

Here is the speech by Tim Robbins that seems to be getting the bad press lately. I thought it was a pretty damn good speech, myself - so much so that I can almost forgive him for being such a pinko.

 

@ Darkwolf

Nope. For it. Cautiously for it, but still for it. I questioned the timing and the delivery, but not the cause, intent or importance.