Last week at the Venice Film Festival Tim Robbins said Hollywood’s rejection of him and his wife Susan Sarandon for their anti-war views had rallied liberals to the cause of free speech. Here he explains why conscientious Americans must not let conservative politicians and media silence them**
Note that people outside the USA are informed about how US’ers opposed to the invasion of Iraq were threatened (and worse).
So giving you this example, my question about this is :
Do US citizens really still believe that they have “all freedom” and" all freedom of speech"?
Because just as Mr. Robbins and Ms. Sarandon have the right to express their ideas, I and others have the right to reject them.
Freedom of Speech does not mean that your speech has to be accepted. All it means is that the government can’t lock you up for saying what you want. And to the best of my recollection, neither Mr. Robbins nor Ms. Sarandon have been prosecuted for thier views.
No, because I can’t access it here. But I responded off the snippet you provided.
In any event, since they aren’t being prosecuted for their views, one can hardly say that they are being denied free speech as the term is understood.
In any event, it still doesn’t change things. The Baseball Hall of Fame is a private institution. The United Way is a private institution. They have a right to discriminate against people who hold views that are different from thiers. This is nothing new from Mr. Robbins and Ms. Sarandon who for a long time have complained whenever anyone disagrees with their POV.
Likewise, schools have a right to establish norms for staff members and students.
He complains that they’ve been labeled as “traitors” by an “Aussie gossip rags” (how that applies to freedom of speech in the USA is beyond me). If you believe the statement is libelous, Mr. Robbins, then sue; otherwise allow others to have the same freedom of speech to criticize that you do.
I’m also unable to access the article, for some reason.
Who is it, exactly who is claiming that they were threatened because they opposed the war in Iraq? A short excerpt from the article which illustrates the answer to this inquiry would be greatly appreciated.
Aldebaran, that article has nothing to do with the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. In fact, it gives dozens of examples of how freedom of speech is alive and well in the US.
If you were to stand i the middle of a public square denouncing John Ashcroft’s tendency to wear blue shirts, and I prevented you to do so (in a non-violent manner, i.e. without assaulting you), I am not violating your First Amendment rights. If I own a newspaper and refuse to print your letter to the editor, I am not violating your First Amendment rights.
But if the government silences you in the public square, or if the government shuts down my newspaper for printing your letter, then our First Amendment rights have been violated.
The Bill of Rights protects the American people from government action against our rights. It does not apply to citizen-on-citizen actions.
Remember, folks, only liberals and other America-haters have the right to free speech. NOBODY AT ALL has any right to disagree with these people, no matter what, in no way, whatsoever. Only those who hate America have the right to free speech. Disagreement with them is a thoughtcrime and shall be punished in the InternatCourt or the InterCrimTrib.
Aldebaran: FYI, here’s the first amendment. My bolding.
As others have noted, it’s a prohibition against actions by the state. Not actions by citizens.
Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Ah, I just saw what Zev posted, and he’s exactly right.
Robbins & Sarandon always want to have their cake and have it too. They want to be antiestablishment badasses, taking part in vitriolic street protests and taking every opportunity to make ad hominem attacks on the President because they dislike his policies, but they don’t want anyone to think badly of them because of it.
Both the BHoF and the United Way didn’t wish to have their events, which were meant to be for enjoyment of all involved, tainted by the political maelstrom which surrounded Robbins and Sarandon in the days around the genesis of the war. That’s their perogative. If either of them could be even a tiny bit less bellicose about their opinions, it’s doubtful that either would face such obvious repercussions. But you get what you give.
As for “Aussie gossip rags,” Zev, I’d presume that Robbins was attempting to slag on Newscorp, aka FoxNews and other media outlets owned by Rupert Murdoch, who is, of course, Australian. As usual, his ability to deal with that which he doesn’t like is limited to the ad hominem.
Put it this way. Let’s say I am the administrator of a local charity (Toys for Tots, for example). Now, let’s suppose that Mr. Famous, a big-time celebrity is going to come down to our shop and give us a much-needed boost with a personal appearence.
Let’s say then that Mr. Famous makes a speech in public saying that Hitler was really a misunderstood guy and wasn’t so bad after all.
I have the right to call Mr. Famous and uninvite him, solely based upon his speech. I don’t have to answer to anyone and Mr. Famous has no recourse in this (assuming, of course, that I am a private institution). Mr. Famous can scream “censorship” and “Freedom of Speech” until he’s blue in the face, but it won’t do him any good.
I finally got the article up and running. It has some kind of scripting error going on there, but you can by pass it with difficulty. Must be the government denying him free speech…
My only question to you, Aldebaran, is that if Tim Robbins is being denied his right to free speech…how is it we are reading his rant in the Sunday Herald?? Unless you are saying that mysterious scripting error really IS the government preventing us from reading it. In which case, they weren’t too effective, as I was able to finally pull the thing up and read through it.
From the Article by Tim Robbins
I would agree that our ability to question and criticize the actions of our leadership is what makes us who we are. I would question ole Tim though on who exactly is taking these rights away from us (or him)…got a cite Tim? Just because what he had to say was unpopular with a certain segment of the population, doesn’t mean his rights were being denied. As far as I know, the GOVERNMENT didn’t do anything to ole Tim…he just lost some popularity with some of his fans, and maybe irritated some other folks. No?
Just looking at the postings on this board should convince you that there are plenty of people both questioning and criticizing our leadership. A quick look on the web will show you countless websites, news sites, blogs, etc criticizing or out and out ranting agains the current administration…and lo and behold, many of them are actually IN America. The July cover of Time Magazine (heard of it?) has Bush on the cover under the title of UNTruth and Consequences for gods sake. I know you are shocked now. So…where is free speech being denied? Any actual examples?
Nevertheless I see discrimination and threats of people who don’t agree with the US government, taken to the level that children get remarks and discriminations at school as abnormal.
Very abnormal.
Abnormal, yes. But in no way is that a violation of their First Amendment rights. If I rip your tongue out to prevent you from talking about George Bush, that’s assault, but NOT a violation of your first amendment rights. Private discrimination and threats have nothing to do with the First Amendment. Governmental discrimination and threats do.
If I do it, it’s against the law. If the government does it, it’s against the Constitution.
A friend of mine in the USA was together with others arrested while walking in one of those anti war demonstrations.
He did nothing else then be there with the others.
So you find that normal. OK. It’s your country.
He didn’t find it normal though. He was rather furious because not only arrested for longer then a day but also rather beaten up by your nice democratic police.
Salaam. A
But why was he arrested? Was it for his views? Or was he tresspassing? Or blocking traffic? Was he on private property? After all, you may have a right to speech, but you don’t necessarily have the right to hold up traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge while doing so.
If he was “beaten up” unjustly, then he should sue. Can you give us some specifics on this incident?
Just because what he had to say was unpopular with a certain segment of the population, doesn’t mean his rights were being denied. As far as I know, the GOVERNMENT didn’t do anything to ole Tim…he just lost some popularity with some of his fans, and maybe irritated some other folks. No?