POLL: Are celebrities being denied freedom of speech?

Remove all ads!

That is quite the speech, Sprite! And I'm willing to agree that it is sad that there are intolerant people kicking around America. But I don't think that bringing up the First Amendment derails the topic at all. When Freedom of Speech is invoked in America, they are invoking the 1st Amendment. And my point stands in spite of Tim's skillful speech -- no one is forced to listen to his views. It might be better for them if they did, but there is no forced listening to any wing of thought in America. Also, the idea that only right wingers don't listen to the other side with open minds is ludicrous. Every time I watch CNN's Crossfire, that left wing guy is always interrupting and shouting down the other side -- like he ever listens!

Going to a slightly different freedom, I'm going to bring up Freedom of Assembly. When we are talking about the private sphere (my house, a private function, etc) Freedom of Assembly also implies that you can choose WHO you assemble with, and that means that you can exclude people. That includes people who have views you disagree with. Those people can call you all sorts of names, but they cannot infringe on your right to choose who you will associate with.

 

Sprite,

This is the part of Robbins speech that infers that his first amendment rights are being trampled:

The implication is that the government is using the media to discourage free speech. That would be unconstitutional. If Robbins makes statements like this without backing them up, his credibility is shot. If he has evidence of colusion, bring it forward or else knock it off. If the ramifications are not based upon pressure from the government, then too bad! You can't expect to be able to go out a say whatever you want without expecting anyone to react to it. They expect you to react when they ask for support of their agendas, but to just ignore them if you don't. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. War illicites strong reactions, if you don't want to face those, stay away from the topic. Hollywood should stick with charities and arts, things that they also know nothing about, but at least no one cares!

Personally, I think he is just stunned by the response. I think that he and the rest of Hollywierd have displaced their own feelings on the rest of the nation. Because of their celebrity, and the fact that they have too many "yes men" around them, they can't understand how they could be part of a minority on this.

 

Depaara, you infected me with Churchill quotes :" The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". Reporters have the duty to inform the people with the information they need to base their decisions on them. If one viewpoint gets beaten up, there's a whole piece of the needed information lost.

There's a legal saying:" agere in fraudem legis". It means something like:" Follow the words of the law, but break it's spirit".

The 1st amendment speaks about interferrence with free speech through the goverment. Maybe the goverments today have more subtle means to interfere free speech then they had in the 18th century.

Just a pure fictional fairy-tale (I really mean fictional, I don't want to imply anything. Just play with a possibility), based on Dick Cheney: The Vice-President is the former ceo of a huge company. A news-channel is dependent on the advertisments it gets from this company. The company now demands, that the news-channel only reports "good" about the goverment. The management of the news-channel decides, they will from now on support the goverment 100% and will never disagree with it. Reporters who do so, get fired.

So, the goverment has found a hidden way to interfere with freedom of speech. Vice-President-Company-News-Channel. It has followed the wording of the 1st amendment, but broke it's spirit.

 

Funny little example, there! But like everyone else, the government and those in it are entitled to the assumption of innocence. In other words, as Darkwolf said, proof is necessary, and there is no proof, just assertions that the rights have been broken. Tim and Susan and the Dixie Sluts can all walk free -- there are no police tailing them, they have not been thrown in jail for their comments. There has yet to be an assault on them that they have reported to the proper authorities that has been ignored. They have not been lynched or tarred and feathered. If they can find a free citizen or corporation who wishes to let them use broadcasting equipment, they will be able to say what they want, as they have up until now, without a governnment agent censoring what they say. They can whine about the fact that a good chunk of the population doesn't agree with them, but public disagreement does not equal infringed rights.

So until they can prove criminal behaviour on the part of either the government or any private citizen, they should shut up.

As for reporters having a moral duty to report all sides, you must be joking! There are left and right wing newspapers -- I'm sure that the "Village Voice" will be giving Tim and Susan and all the rest lots of coverage. The primary goal of all reporters and news companies (not just American ones) is to sell papers (or ratings in electronic media -- you get my point) and if you think they will ever get rid of slant, well, you're wrong! They'll write from a perspective that appeals to their audience. And they have NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT to print what Tim says just because he is an actor.

I've written lots of letters to the editor that didn't get published. They chose not to. My freedoms were certainly not infringed by that -- making that argument dilutes the severity of those people who have had real infringements of their rights occur.

[ April 17, 2003, 23:17: Message edited by: Depaara ]

 

No, I am deeply convinced that this is a duty of a reporter who deserves to be called a "reporter".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/editorial/prodgl/chapter2.shtml

Concerning papers: Yes, there is something like a yellow press. Let's say, the pictures are nice sometimes. And I think the concept of a newspaper with a right tendency or a left tendency ok. But these tendencies shouldn't be permitted to distort truthful information. I think the quote above states my opinion about and conception of a good newspaper. If it does not fit it, it's not worth buying it. And when I am confronted with a newspaper that does not reach the standard of reporting I expect of a newspaper, I say it sux.

 

Sprite, I understand where you are coming from but I completely disagree that the spirit of the First Amendment is being undermined. The concern of the founders was to protect against governmental intrusion and that was it. They were tremendously concerned about the power of the government and sought to limit it. The ability to publicly criticize the government, and others, was cherished.

Also, I do think that there is selective outrage. For example, when John Rocker was disciplined by his workplace, in a harsher manner than any of the celebs discussed above have been, the people who are outraged now were nowhere to be found then. As a matter of fact, they seemed to jump on the anti-John Rocker bandwagon.

Still, I can't help but feel a great deal of the outrage at the publics reaction is largely due to the fact that the public is protesting statements that those upset agree with or advance and has little to nothing to do with concerns over free speech. Free speech for me and not for you.