Even big-mouthed celebs have the right to speak their minds

Chicago Tribune ^ | 4/18/03 | Renee Graham

[Ronin]

They need to understand that I am free to ignore them, criticize them, or boycott them as I see fit.

AND because your free speech rights entitle you to encourage others to ignore, criticize and boycott as well.

But we are wasting our time trying to convince them of that.

[rodeo-mamma]

That's right, the celebrities do have a right to free speech, they just don't have a right to what's in my wallet.

[netmilsmom]

Some on FR said it this way...
It is your right to pass gas in an elevator.
Is it crass, yes.
Is it right, no.
Will it make you any friends........?
But there is no law on the books that says you can't.

[scan58]

There's been a few, but here's one:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/890798/posts

[Jean S]

They have a right to HAVE their wrong opinion

Yes the do. And we have the right to ignore and even boycott their work.
Welcome to Free Republic.

[jetson]

The ultimate mouth

[Congressman Billybob]

More leftist cr*p from the Boston Globe. The author contradicts her own lead sentence in the course of her article. Freedom of speech is not limited to celebrities (and "officials" of various types). The American people all have their own freedom of speech.

Now, no one will attend if Joe SixPack calls a press conference. No one will quote a press release issued by Harriet Homemaker. Still, Joe and Harriet still have their freedom -- but the only way they can speak and be heard is to stop going to particular movies, stop buying particular DVDs and CDs. And only when hundreds of thousands of ordinary Americans make such decisions, does the press discover the "message" they are speaking.

Any person who reads the First Amendment honestly would realize that this, too, is part of the protection of that Amendment. Therefore, one concludes that this woman either a) cannot read the Amendment, b) cannot think about its function, or c) is politically bigoted in what she writes. Knowing the Globe and most of its writers and editors, I would put my money on c).

I cover the same subject in my latest UPI column.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, not yet up on UPI, and FR, "Who's Next?"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[mel]

Bingo, you got it

[Isle of sanity in CA]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,...

People forget that the Bill of Rights protect us from government, not from each other...

[george wythe]

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.

I’m missing the part that guarantees continuous popularity to celebrities who make unpopular comments.

If private organizations, businesses, or individuals decide to boycott these unpopular celebrities, somehow that’s the equivalent of Congress making a law abridging freedom of speech.

[MightyMouseToSaveThe Day]

I hope you two don't mind. I liked your succinct posts so well that I combined the two and emailed the Chicago Tribune with this:

"What is so hard for liberals to understand about free speech? Ms Graham writes: "The Bill of Rights guarantees free speech to everyone..."

Of course celebrities are free to say whatever they want. They need to understand that I am free to ignore them, criticize them, or boycott them as I see fit. Or, are only celebrities allowed to exercise free speech? It doesn't apply to the rest of us little folks? Such blatant hypocrisy does not escape the "little people"."

[bfree]

You asked for it, here it is: r_graham@globe.com

[EllaMinnow]

I don't mind a bit - I'm flattered.

You did an excellent job on the combining.

[TomB]

You know what the most amazing part of this article is? That the author freely admits she hasn't READ THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES since junior high, and doesn't seem the least bit embarrassed by that.

She might want to start her reacquaintance with that great document by realizing that it doesn't grant any freedoms, it only limits the government's reach over the God-given rights we already have.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why can't these idiots get the point?

Because they're idiots.

[marsh2]

The key element here is that these celebrities are a commodity. They are a human package of physical person (usually attractive,) personality, some sort of talent and a portfolio of work. This package is sold to employers as part of their commercial product (movie, record, concert.)

Aggressive public advocay can help to shape or reshape the attractiveness of the package - their public "image." Unpopular views can make these personalities less commercially valuable to employers as part of the final product they wish to sell. I would say that employers have every right not to hire a personality that will degrade the commercial value of their product.

Also, the public has every right not to purchase a product they do not like or want.

Celebrities are public persons. That is part of their job. When they start claiming that only talent should matter, they are not living in the world of the real.

[Great Dane]

They do have free speech, but so do we, how we use it is our business.

[Ole Okie]

The First Amendment says:

"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."

Folks, the First Amendment prohibits Congress from making a law abridging the freedom of speech.

The First Amendment addresses not at all the question of requiring anyone to listen to what's being said.

It doesn't require me to buy a video or CD, or to attend a movie starring the speaker.

The First Amendment doesn't prohibit anyone from reacting badly (non-violently) after the free speaker has freely spoken.

[MattAMiller]

A peron's sucess in Hollywood should, of course, be based on the quality of their plastic surgeon and not the content of their minds.

I'm not opposed to celebrities speaking their minds. If I were a celebrity I'd use my platform to speak my mind. And I'm not interested in punishing them just for being anti-war (There are a few, not many, who have gone way too far though.) But for the love of God, do not demand that you have the right to our love and adoration. These people live quite well on image. And whether it's because your breasts sag or because people vehemently disagree with you it can all vanish in a puff of smoke. They picked this line of work. They really ought to stop whining.

[EllaMinnow]

There's a certain CD by a certain trio that has been my favorite for a couple of years. My favorite driving music. I made the decision not to put it in my CD player after one of the trio exercised her right to free speech.

I was in a restaurant the other day and heard one of their songs over the sound system. I didn't complain, I just listened for a second and wondered why I had ever liked them at all. They ruined their music as far as I'm concerned.
And I'll never like it again.