Skip to comments.George Clooney Calls First Amendment 'Unfortunate'
Posted on 10/12/2012 2:31:52 PM PDT by ColdOne
"Freedom of speech means you have to allow idiots to speak, and thats the unfortunate thing." "This guy clearly wanted to create problems," he continued referring to Nakoula Basseley, the Egyptian immigrant who appears to have masterminded the making of Innocence of Muslims. Clooney added that he saw part of the YouTube video: "It made me mad and Im not Muslim," he said. "It made me mad for the quality of film that it was, more than anything. But the simple truth is that in order to make [democracy] work, the idiots get to have their say, too. And thats unfortunate."
Note: Clooney used the word "unfortunate" not once but twice in his answer.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Let’s arrest him for saying that.
It’s the leftists that want to silence the other side. Crazy Uncle Joe wanted to silence Ryan last night. When you know your ideas are wrong you have to silence the opposition.
A) There is no film called “The Innocence of Muslims” it’s only a video ginned up to enrage the Muslims by some shady CIA and Soros-related tricksters and (B) Can you imagine Mr. Clooney’s thoughts on the 2nd Amenedment?
The future does not belong to those who slander George Clooney.
What a moronic thing to say, he should be locked up for saying such stupid things. /sarc
Thank you for not using the outdated term “liberal.”
Yes George, we do. Works out pretty well for you, doesn't it?
Will someone please tell these Hollywood people they’re not experts on anything, including the First Amendment.
“Freedom of speech means you have to allow idiots to speak, and thats the unfortunate thing.”
Yes George it is unfortunate that we have to listen to you.
By the way how did nepotism in Hollywood work out for you?
If it wasn’t for Rosemary you might have made it as a stand in.Lucky for you sad for us.
Sorry folks, but in this case George is mostly right. It is unfortunate that as a consequence of the First Amendment we must allow abusive, moronic people to speak freely.
Must I remind you of “Piss Christ”? That is a “statement” which would clearly be better if not made at all.
However, the difference between the “movie” and the piece of “art” is that we were forced to pay for the “art”. I would love to ask George if he doesn’t agree that the “movie” and the “art” fall into the same category of “hurtful” speech? The next question would be: “Why do liberals insist that I have to pay for one of them with my tax dollars!!!
[At this point I attach a disclaimer to the effect that I have not investigated the contents of the “movie”. It may well be a legitimate documentary saying what needs to be said about Islam. However, for purposes of argumentation, I concede George’s viewpoint that the movie was a hateful hit piece. By doing so one can shame people like George who take the hypocritical position that one artist should be arrested while the other should be paid from public funds.]
First off Georgy boy, we’re not a democracy. This country wasn’t founded on mob rule principles.
Second, using his logic, should we be allowing low information citizens to cast their ballots in a Presidential election? Isn’t it “unfortunate” that my vote is cancelled out by some crackhead Obama-phone parasite?
The wacky left seems as obsessed with this video as do Muslims.
Think about that for just a minute (you lib lurkers can take ten). Why is it so great that the 1st Amendment allows idiots to speak? Here's a hint... Because otherwise who is going to determine who's an idiot or not? (and thus allowed to advance opinions and ideas) Sure, picture your friend and confidant making that call. Nice image eh? Now picture your worst enemy having that power. Not so great. Oh, you're sure it wouldn't be all that bad? Sorry, the rest of us don't share the rosy-glasses view of human nature. Individual men and women may be great, but mankind as a whole continues to menace and subjugate one another. No-one can be trusted with the power to silence opposition, to silence the idiots.
George Clooney is beyond contempt. He demands huge salaries for acting that isn’t even acting - watch his movies - he simply acts like his “I am so wonderful that I wish I could kiss me” self. Not one iota of talent and clearly among the most “greedy” of the nation. How this buffoon thinks he can criticize anyone else’s intellect is a mystery to many of us.
What is really funny is somebody criticizing another person for making a lousy film given the number of stinkers he has been involved in.
Exactly, he was looking into a mirror when he said it.
Clooney, the idiot extreme left-wing liberal that claims he can call President Bush anything he wants but demands everyone call Zero by the title “President Obama” and not “Obama” or anything else. He worships the Democratic party.
This is as irOnic as the US Gubbmint training me to kill commies and radical Mooslims.....
The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet George Clooney of Hollywood
So commie George must think only the intellects like him should decide which dummy should or should not get to speak. Hmmmm, my guess would be that he’d choose conservatives to be muzzled. So much for the freedoms are soldiers fought and died for. Take a hike George.
So speaketh George.
My bad...excellent additions.
Just have to bear in mind how dhimmi pre-submitted (to Islam) libs go orgasmic saying the phrase “the prophet Mohammed”
They only bash Christians because we won’t cut their heads off.
Going back a long ways, but it seems to me that saying, “I don’t agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” got us to this point.
What is needed is, unfortunately, is for people to gain wisdom through experience. Sometimes, living through the wrong choice is enough. But then you have the really stupid people and ‘you cain’t fix stupid’.
When has a media liberal ever said “the Savior Jesus”? I rest my case and I’m not even Christian (being Jewish)
“The false prophet Muhammad” is the correct usage.
Maybe Jews and Christians should start beheading actors.
He’s not saying free speech should be restricted so I have to admit, I agree with him and have said the same thing myself.
People forget that when the concept of Freedom of Speech was enshrined in the American psyche’, dueling was legal.
Shootin’ your mouth off could get you killed.
The agitprop was made by and for worldwide jihad, but pretty boy george doesn’t mention that. Odd for someone *so concerned* about the Muzzie genocide in Darfur.
Very well stated.
Might I add, there is no stated right in the Constitution providing for the “right not to be offended.” Taking that offshore, frankly I do not care for the sensibility of irrational radicals of any ilk or belief that use their bruised feelings as an excuse to exercise senseless violence.
This made up “right not to be offended” is at the root of ‘political correctness’ (PC) which is a favorite tool of communists/socialists/Marxists/progressives/democrats to stifle free speech and silence their opposition, thru self-censorship, for fear of being impugned as violating PC rules.
As intelligent, mature and unemotional adults, conservatives who know how important the 1st Amendment is to freedom have learned to ignore offensive speech emanating from provocateurs disarming their ill intentions.
George, I invoke a post-natal abortion on you, effective yesterday. All perfectly legal, yuh know?