I understand your point about freedom of speech (in the non-Constitutional sense) being endangered by non-governmental entities. In the case of these two actors though, it doesn’t seem that they were punished for their opinions so much as their failure to be popular. I doubt if casting directors actually give a damn about an actor’s political views, just whether people will pay to see them or not.
S&R took an unpopular stance in an extremely public way and are paying for it. Had they managed to sway public opinion in their favor, their careers would have flourished. They gambled and lost.
My own boss is extremely liberal whereas I am some sort of conservative/libertarian/anarchist. S I try not to inflict my radical views on him because it would piss the guy off. I don’t feel that my right to free speech is in danger because I use common sense in where I speak.
See how many posters here demontrate themselves what I mean:
I come with a question, give an article to make my question clear.
Result:
1.People can’t separate the question from the poster. Good example of how the meaning of “freedom of speech” is modified in people’s mind even before they start reading, and provokes already an attempt to silince that voice. See those attempts to ridiculize and twist the onversation sprread all over this topic. Including someone telling the world that Aldebaran is a troll… Which is a far as one can go to silence some ones voice on a message board.
Since the example goes about people who are anti-invading a sovereign nation by the USA, as I am, the premature conclusion is quickly made:
A. I “hate” (sorry but everytime I see someone write such a word I must laugh with the childishness of the writer) the USA
B. I have a “political agenda”
C. I only see this one example to underscore my questions
D. I can’t ask the same questions if the people in my example would have been pro-invading a sovereign nation and confront the same difficulties.
That is you people judging me because it is very clear from my previous posts on this board that I shall never agree with that criminal illegal murdering invasion.
However, prepare yourself for a little surprize now:
If some pro war demonstrator would confront the same difficulties as the people in my example (which I seriously doubt seen the current situation in the USA, but nobody says it doesn’t happen) I would make exactly the same case.
I find it extremely childish and laughable (and as I said: a very good example of the case I bring up here) that people here make every effort possible to picture me as “US hater” and “defending a political agenda”.
If I want to defend a political agenda, I’ll search a career in politics. Upto now I’m not a professional politician.
Thank you for noticing.
Further we have here - as the posts of Latro show - a very deep water between what is seen in Europe as free speech and how it is viewed in the USA.
And so sorry, but I don’t change my OP. Because what is said by Latro, by me, by some others is absolutely true:
If you can’t defend your views without being boycotted, threatened, fired, whatever, then you can have all the laws you want to defend your rights, you have no free speach in practice.
Now there are some posters who come up with comments on my examples of how “free speech” is viewed in Belgian society:
You don’t understand a bit what I’m saying and/or you twist what I say and present yourself as not understanding.
By the way: Take notice once again that Belgium is the country of my late mother and her family. It is not the country I’m born,not the country of my firrst citizenship and not the one I have my main residence. Yet I became a citizen through my mother’s citizenship.
And take also notice that using people’s background to try to twist a topic is as immature and desperate as one can get.
And by the way: If minimalizing the holocaust is part of your understanding of “free speech” then you can keep it. Normal people don’t minimalize the suffering of millions of people and the incredible cruel death of millions of people.
I didn’t make the effort to open that link indicating that Belgium has no “free speech” because there was some book published on this issue that faced opposition. I don’t take my information about such issues from the internet.
Yet whatever is written behind that link and if true or not:
I support every government that restricts this mocking with people’s suffering and with history. In Belgium this is restricted by the anti-discrimination laws. Thank you for noticing that I call such normal and civilized.
If you call people denying the holocaust and mocking with all those people’s suffering normal allow me to advize you to go see a psychiatrist.
This is an interesting discussion, not in the least since we have here two very different views on the same issue.
Sorry that I’m short in my reply on all what was raised here.
I just came to take a quick look to follow it up a bit. I’ll come back later this day to get more in detail in my now a bit generalized reply.
Anytime one expresses an opinion (political or not) in public, there is a potential consequence. The consequences may be positive or negative, depending on the group of listeners. When a person speaks out on any subject, they had better be prepared to either deal with any negative reactions or keep their opinions to themselves.
For example, my daughter is involved in cheerleading. My personal opinion of cheerleading is “Get out of the way; we can’t see the game!” I can say that to her, and she knows that I love her and support her in what she wants to do, and she thinks it’s funny. If I said that at a cheerleading competition, with the coaches and other parents there, I should be prepared to handle the negative reactions I would surely encounter.
Although politically I agree with Robbins and Sarandon, on the freedom of speech issue, I think Robbins is all wet. As stated above, he wants to eat his cake and have it too - he wants to say whatever he wants to say but doesn’t want to deal with any potential consequences from those who disagree with him. That the potential (but highly unlikely given the current political climate in Hollywood) consequences are economic in his case doesn’t negate the rights of others to disagree with him.
Strawman argument - no one is threatening to smash Robbins’ or Sarandon’s windows. An offer to admit them to the Baseball Hall of Fame was withdrawn, and Sarandon was not extended an offer to work for the United Way. And lots of people think (and have stated) that their opinions are crap.
Is this “putting pressure” on them, or voicing their disagreement?
How about if I picket every appearance of Robbins with signs accusing him of moral cowardice? Is that “pressure”, or disagreement? If I am the head of a major studio, and I have a plum starring role in some movie, but I don’t offer it to Sarandon because I think she is a left-wing fruitcake who will bring bad publicity to my movies- pressure or disagreement? How about if I am the head of the United Way, and I don’t want her kind of bad publicity - am I interfering with Sarandon’s freedom of speech by not letting her work for me?
Sarandon and Robbins are moral cowards. They want all the benefits of taking an unpopular opinion, but none of the drawbacks.
It don’t work like that. They are free to speak their minds, and to put pressure on others to try to get them to agree. So are the rest of us.
I begin to see the gulf between what is considered free speech to most of the posters here, and you. To us, free speech means not only can you express your opinion, about whatever topic, but that others have the right to express their opinions about your opinion. While I completely agree that it is shameful that teachers are bullying students into keeping silent, I consider it even more shameful when the government decides that a bookseller can be subject to criminal punishment for carrying a book that questions the extent of the holocaust. You’re view boils down to freedom of speech, as long as you the speech is “normal” and don’t hurt anybody’s feelings. I’m sorry, but that is much more restrictive than allowing those opinions to be aired, and debated, and disproven.
You don’t want to read my link, fine. Revel in your misapprehensions. It doesn’t surprise me in the least.
Just to clarify, the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states (and subsequently local governments), so hate crime legislation (a state action) and police action are all under the umbrella of the First Amendment, regardless of its source (i.e. federal, state or local government mandate/law/legislation).
It is an interesting discussion, but because we have two very different views on two very different issues.
My family is from Sonora, but I grew up (from age 10) in South Tucson. I currently commute between DC and Alb. New Mexico, as my job takes me all over. I hate the east coast, but thats where the jobs and money are.
/aside
Aldebaran…oh, never mind. Its hopeless.
From McCarthyism Watch
My house is in Albuquerque, and my company does extensive pro-bono work for the school system here. I know for a fact that there was MUCH more to this than McCarthyism Watch is saying, with the teachers being as much to blame as the school system. Its pretty well known here in Albuquerque, and I’ve actually met one of the teacher in the article (Carmelita Roybal), but anything I could say will be anecdotal. To my mind though, if this is one of their star stories it shows the flaws in their thinking…and also the fact that they are not telling the WHOLE story.
BTW, to the best of my knowledge all the teachers are back teaching again. The most I remember was a week suspension, nothing remotely permenient.
Ironically, I am writing this from one of the charter schools (NVCS) and the teacher in the class I just left (a journalism class who uses our wireless laptops) is discussing Afghanistan atm…in a very critical way. Some of his points I disagree with (hes a friend of mine, but we have agreed to disagree), but the point is he’s in there right now teaching it. Anecdote I know, and not prove-able, but to me its funny. The difference is, he isn’t throwing it in the state/schools systems face, trying to make a statement, or get publicity…he’s simply teaching. I see no fear of teaching what he believes is the case, especially in a journalism class where the subject is totally relevant.
From Roger Mexico
Thats definitely a difference. However, the core issue is the same. Dell didn’t fire Benjamin Curtis because he was arrested only…they fired him because they didn’t want their name associated with his actions. I agree, I kind of like the guy, and it probably would have enhanced his popularity…but the guys at Dell didn’t want their company associated with that kind of behavior. As another example of someone who DIDN’T get arrested (I dont think anyway…could be wrong here) is Pee Wee Herman. He got dumped for his behavior (NOT, ironically because he was a talentless moron, ironically), even though he didn’t get arrested.
Roger, I’m not going to say that there are never abuses…there are. Possibly the Bush thing you cite WAS an abuse…I don’t know all the details there, just what was said in your post. From other things they (McCarthyism Watch) posted, I’m taking it as them having ALL the facts with a grain of salt, but I conceed that it LOOKS pretty bad. However, by and large, with few (notable and possibly even extreme) exceptions, I think the system works exactly as designed…and it works mainly as the people WANT it to work.
From Latro
No, I wouldn’t agree. The right of private citizens to express their displeasure or boycott other people based on their opinions when expressed in a public way is something to be protected. Its something that the American people think is VERY important…the right to argue and show our opinions, even when they are lame or uninformed.
Companies do what is in their best interest…they want to make money. If disassociating themselves from someone who MIGHT cast the company in a bad light due to public real or percieved displeasure, cost them money, or whatever else is percieved to help the company, thats exactly what they will do. If YOU owned the company, wouldn’t you do the same thing? After all, you are in the business to make money, yes?
Certainly there is a fine line between expressing displeasure, boycotting, etc, and threatening or bringing undue pressure. Are there occational abuses? Sure there are. We are human after all, so nothing we do will ever be perfect. No country in the world, least of all America, is perfect, and never has any abuses of its principals or systems. What you have to look at though is, does the system as a whole function as intended MOSTLY? Does the system do what the majority of the people want, in the majority of the situation? Are the people, by and large, happy with it? I think that the answer to all those questions is yes…by and large the system DOES function as intended…it DOES do what the majority of people want it to do. By and large, the majority of Americans is reasonably happy with the system as its operating for most given situation. Is there room for improvement? Sure is. Is it important to remain constantly vigilant and to squash abuses imediately they are seen? Damn right on both scores.
I’m starting to get the impression that Latro wants absolute freedom of expresion for himself and people he agrees with, and everyone else can just go to hell.
And it’s not even really freedom he wants, he wants freedom without responsibility or consequences, which sounds more like license to me.
If Sarandon or Robbins or anyone wants to express their views and be absolultely certain that no negative response is generated, they’re free to do so in an empty room. But as soon as they express their views to anyone else, they run the risk that someone will disagree, and some of those people are casting directors (who might decide not to hire S&R, which is their right) or movie fans (who might decide not to go to any more S&R movies, which is their right).
So, Latro, when you go to the movies, who decides which film to see? Is it your choice, or someone else’s? Is there a government official requiring that you see certain movies featuring certain actors? Would you tolerate anyone telling you that you have to go see certain films? This is implied by your statements; that those of us who pay to see movies no longer have full freedom of choice.
Personally, there have been certain movies I declined to pay to see for any number of reasons: I didn’t like a particular actor, I don’t like the genre, I didn’t like the theatre it was playing in, or I just didn’t feel like going out that night. Oftentimes, I didn’t have a specific reason at all. Are you telling me that an actor’s political views are not a valid reason for me to avoid his films? Frankly, I would have to tell you to go to Hell, and that I will make my own decisions based on whatever criteria I like, or none at all.
Here’s the kicker: I want everyone else to have to same freedom of choice as me. If enough of those individuals refuse to see a particular film, and it bombs, and the actor can no longer find work… well, that’s life in a free society. I will never ever ever accept that Robbins’ freedom (or anyone else’s freedom) trumps mine. Robbins can have as much freedom as I do, no more, no less (well, I’m Canadian and he’s American, so the standards of freedom are slightly different, as defined by our respective laws, but you get the point).
If I express a controversial opinion in public, I run the risk of losing friends and the respect of associates (because they, as free individuals, can decide whether or not they want me as a friend). Robbins faces the same risk. And if someone threatened to do me harm for my views (or do me harm for any reason), I could call the police. Robbins should have the same option.
Frankly I’d be amazed if I needed to further clarify at all.
I don’t believe you, so I’ll withhold my earlier offer of respect. The fact that you can’t even make the statement without throwing in the side comment (“which I seriously doubt…”) suggests to me that you’re not willing or able to seperate the two issues.
I think it is very likely that if a pro-war actor had been boycotted, you would laugh and say they got what they deserved.
Here’s the distinction: the constitutional laws protect citizens from the government, while you and Latro seem to feel they should be extended to protect citizens from each other. The problem is; how do you protect yourself from Citizen X without putting some limits on the freedom of Citizen X? If you want to be protected from boycotts by Citizen X, doesn’t that mean you’re forcing Citizen X to buy your products or go to your movies? Would you tolerate someone forcing you to buy a product or see a movie? If not, why are you so happy forcing Citizen X to do so?
You keep mixing “threatened” in there, and many posters here have explained at length that threats are not acceptable and that they are different from boycotts. You’re free to keep putting them together, if you want. We’re free, though, to keep saying that putting them together is stupid.
You have a very immature and self-centered opinion of freedom of speech, in that it only seems to apply to speech you agree with. I also disagree with minimizing the Holocaust, but I disagree more that some political opinions should be stifled.
Your definition of “normal” seems to be: “anyone who agrees with me”, which strikes me as narcissistic in the extreme, if not outright bigoted. Can you describe a “normal” person with a different political view, or is anyone who has a different political view abnormal by definition? Is any Bush supporter “normal”, for example?
Bryan, please try and comment on things that people actually say. Not on what you would have liked them to have said, just so you can write a nice post.
The premise is all wrong. You guys (and gals) make it seem like speaking against the war is like being a racist or an anti-semit.
That aside, this whole “Ah, but this is the backlash of private persons and not the government´s fault” doesn´t make it exactly “right”. To stay with the above mentioned “dirty jew” and “holocaust” example, would the holocaust have been a good thing, if it had been orchastrated by private persons and not the government? Hardly! So, I´d hope for a little more thought on whether the consequences for speaking out against the war are really Robin´s and Sarandon´s just deserts and overall a good and justified thing.
I do agree on the “Ok, I am not going to watch their movies” sentiment, that is indeed up to the individual person (although I still recall the international screams of bloody murder when Cruise´s flick “mission impossible” was boycotted around here for his previous appearance in a scientology ad).
However, firing a teacher - if that really happened - and other similar repercussions are worth worrying over, imho, ymmv (actually most definitely it will).
In the logic of arguments, if a poster says he agrees with Premise X, and disagrees with Premise Y, it’s well within the rights of others to speculate on his position on Premise Z. If the speculation is wrong, the original poster can clarify, if he wants.
In this case, Aldeberan’s statements (and yours) lead me to draw certain conclusions about his (and your) motives and attitudes. Everything I’ve seen so far suggests that he (and you) want freedom without responsibility, and in his case, that freedom should only apply to people he thinks are “normal”.
Uhm, no. The “which I seriously doubt” is in fact the concern that there is one sided “punishment” of political views. If pro-war activists are having a hard time at the moment as well, then this is as much grounds for concern. You just don´t hear those stories on the news though, hence the doubt.
Personally I am disapointed that you don´t make good on your previous offers, though. It might even devaluate the worth of said offers.
I think it´s even more likely that he´d fly over to personally rip that poor sap´s heart out and kick him in the balls…
Yeah, right!
Thanks for the opinion, but it doesn´t really help the debate. At all.
Nobody wants to force people to go see their movies, but the aforementioned complete social shunning isn´t acceptable either.
Besides it´s one thing to say “I don´t like Tim Robbins, so I am not going to see his movies” or to say “I don´t like Tim Robbins for his political views and so I am not going to see his movies.”
For the same reason a private enterprise cannot just discriminate against people of one skin colour, they cannot just discriminate against people for their political views.
Please try and comment on whats been said, and what your disagreements with them are. Points have been raised. Do you agree or continue to disagree with them? If you disagree, can you list out your points of disagreement to each point raised?
From Optihut
You lost me with your holocaust example unfortunately. No idea what you are getting at there.
Are you saying that private individuals DON’T have the right to express their displeasure in someone who is making a very public statement that they disagree with? Are you saying that companies don’t have the right to acknowledge public sentiment when they decide whether or not to continue to use or employ some famous personality that might have used their access to a public forum to express some controversial subject?
Just deserts? They are adults who have to take responsibilities for their actions, same as you and me. Basically if you take a stand on some issue, especially one so charged as pro or con the war (WHILE the war is happening no less), you have to EXPECT that some segment of the population is going to be unhappy with you. As example, look at december. Look at Reeder. If you are a public figure, and you make such statements in a PUBLIC forum, using your privilaged access to mass media and such, then there will be fall out from your actions, both good and bad. If you DON’T want said fallout, then DON’T take a public stand on such an issue. However, if you do, then expect that there will be some consequences…and be adult enough to put up with it. If someone threatens you with violence or something else, then by all means avail yourself to the law…thats what we have police and such for.
From Optihut
No idea what you meant by the Tom Cruise thing…I’m not much of a movie person.
Even by the posted cites on the McCarthyism Watcher, none of the teachers were fired. Several were suspended, and mostly because of their own intransiance (anecdote only, I have nothing to back that up but personal experience with one of the cites). I actually respect some of them that took suspension rather than back off, as they took a stand, no matter how wrong they were, and faced the consequences. And I’m NOT saying they were wrong about an anti-war stance…but in some of the cases, they deliberately provoked the response they got, for their own reasons.
To me this is all so blindingly logical that I don’t understand at all the counter side. Could either Roger Mexico, Latro or Optihut (please, not Aldebaran, as I don’t think you have anything relevant to contribute, IMO…we all know America is evil, blah blah blah) list out clearly their objections to how the system is working currently?
Specifically where is the line drawn between what private citizens can and can’t do as far as when they disagree with a public figure (contrasted to how things actually ARE…i.e. its currently illegal to threaten someone, etc). What SHOULD the government do to prevent private citizens from being able to boycott or generally protest against a public figure using his access to mass media and such to make a controversial political statement? What should the government do to companies that refuse to continue to employ such people due to pressures by the public? Do you see the recent uproar against the anti-war crowd as a serious threat to FoS in America, is it a normal reaction having happened for almost the entire history of the US, or just a blip on the radar screen? If you think its a serious threat, can you list why? Can you also say how its different than any other time when there have been charged issues? Finally, do you think that America’s interperatation of FoS is flawed in some way? How is Europes, for instance, so different from our?
Thanks for the effort guys. I’m really enjoying this thread with a few exceptions that won’t be named…
When reading your last comments, I can only conclude that you are completely unable to put aside your pointless prejudices.
Your view on me was prejudiced even before you posted one letter on this topic. Because I don’t agree with you, you tried to silence/ discredit me with your biased comments.
Then, when confronting the - for you obviously cruel - reality that I’m not as you would like to picture me, you stand by your premature unjust views and try to push them even harder.
Sorry, but that is not debating, that is merely advertizing your prejudices. The same counts for several other members who particpate here.
But wait: we have now even Hussein and Iraq showing up in an attempt to twist the discussion into something as pointless as one can get. Makes me wonder what the next move of the desperates is going to be.
Why not? Are you free to shun someone if you want? Should there be anti-shunning legislation? Suppose a government official decides that someone is being unacceptably shunned. Then what? Everyone is forced to go see that person’s movies, or invite them over for dinner, or go to one of the political rallies?
If you find being forced to give money or support to people you disagree with is unacceptable, why are you willing to suggest others have to?
How are they different? Do you have the right to boycott Robbins for any reason you want, be it his political views, his looks, his acting abilities or his choice of roles? Do you like the idea of being able to make your own decisions and not have to explain them to people? If you’re going to insist that political opinions are not acceptable reasons to boycott an actor, then you essentially force everyone to explain why they don’t like that actor in your search for incorrect political thinking.
Charming, but incorrect. If you were looking to hire someone and had the choice of two equally qualified candidates, the laws may prevent you from eliminating one because of skin colour. In the case of Hollywood roles, though, an important qualification for a job is an actor’s ability to draw in the public. If an actor’s stated political views make this ability questionable, I see it as a casting director’s perogative to disqualify the actor for that reason.
