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Thank you for not using the outdated term “liberal.”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.