Posted on 04/26/2003 5:05:29 AM PDT by rickmichaels
Over the last several months, many celebrities, stars, and famous others have spoken against Operation Iraqi Freedom. They, like all Americans, have a God-given, inalienable, constitutionally enumerated right to voice their opinion. What they did not expect was a response: harsh criticism to their opinions, excoriating commentary, or the public actively avoiding their movies, books, music, etc. They embrace the right to freedom of speech when it allows their sentiments to be expressed, but are stunned when they find themselves on the receiving end.
It's about time.
The people who voice anti-war sentiments are typically divided into several categories: those who oppose war for religious reasons; those who oppose war for moral reasons; those who oppose war for political reasons; and those who oppose war because they don't like who's waging it. Most people who find themselves in the "pro-war" category can thoroughly disagree with, but moderately respect, the sentiments of those who oppose war of any type, in any form, for religious or moral reasons. Although some might consider these bases flawed depending upon the circumstance, they nonetheless retain a consistency of judgment that one can accept graciously.
I've seen very little disgust directed at them. The anti-war protestors motivated by other factors, however, are not being treated kindly.
In my article, "Blood of Patriots," I speculated then, and I insist on it now: Americans have been centered – not politically, but in their souls. Let us see if my prediction didn't bear out: "The vast majority of pundits shall, for the time being at least, relegate the pettiness of past political discourse to the nearest garbage pail. In stark contrast to true victims, whose lives ended so publicly and horrifically just a few short days ago, media-promoted ‘wannabe victims' will be dismissed as charlatans and their cheerleaders as enablers. Those who pull inane, political punches will see their careers end abysmally. Those who embrace symbolism over substance will soon join the aforementioned."
Now what, if anything, does this have to do with Conservatives?
In a word, everything.
In record numbers, Conservatives tuned into Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, Conservative columnists, books, and magazines that offered a counterpoint to the mainstream media. Conservatives of all stripes turned on their computers, used chat boards and HTML mastery to research and dissect the news, and dominated on-line activism. And slowly, but with ever increasing regularity, Conservatives dropped out. They made conscious choices to avoid channeling funds through ticket sales, record sales, advertising dollars, etc., to those celebrities, stars, and famous others who used their notoriety to promote anti-conservative messages.
The celebrities, stars, and famous others want us to believe there are "hateful" forces afoot, (no doubt a massive, secret orchestration by those evil Republicans) looking to deprive people of their rights and use extreme tactics to silence the opposition. If it comforts them to believe that, let them. I've been writing political commentary for years now, and the only time I heard from the Republican National Committee is when they wanted money. Since we have little to spare lately, they aren't calling me anymore.
No, the plain, simple truth is Conservatives are dropping out. They are rejecting the destructive lies of the liberal culture that say it's okay to kill over a million children in a womb every year, but we should lie naked in the street to prevent the death of a single child in Iraq. They are rejecting the lie that it's okay for your child to grow up a dysfunctional, drug-dependent, sexually confused, foul-mouthed miscreant, but a child who draws a picture of his dad in his military uniform and carrying a firearm needs psychological counseling and suspension. They are rejecting the lie that it's alright for Saddam to allow thousands of his people to be tortured, imprisoned in dungeons, starved, raped, and brutalized, but we are the evil ones for liberating them.
So go ahead, celebrities, star, and famous others, say what you want. I will defend to the death your right to say it, but it doesn't mean I have to listen to it, agree with it, or even acknowledge it. More importantly, I don't even have to acknowledge you. I don't have to support you with my discretionary income.
Since you are crying about it so incessantly, it seems a great number of Americans have realized they are free to tune in, turn on, and drop out, too.
They also have the right to remain silent.
Our own little "Third way" axis needs to be divorced.
Why is it that nearly every time anyone begins to critcize these abberrent AINO(Americans in Name Only)the speaker or writer almost always prefaces his criticism with the whinning, sniveling excuse for these America last windbags with the above italicised worn out cliche?
To keep repeating this Constitutional right that even Kindergarteners know by heart, only encourages these complainers to increase their hue and cry for more recognition and in their minds gives their "pissin and moanin" more credibility.
ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THIS NAUSEOUS ENCOURAGEMENT!!
Saying what you believe can get you in hot water, can inhibit your career potential, can get you ostracised, can get you fired, can get you sued, can get you labeled as a bigot/hater/intolerant/homophobe/etc, can lose you an election, can scar you for life, can get you dead,...... In many real ways freedom of speech is a myth because it has been negated by other laws of the land.
No,its not a myth. It is, however, not without consequences. Free speech is guarenteed for political purposes. Politics always has consequences. Adults are aware that there are conseqences for everything and act accordingly.
The Founding Fathers utilized thier God-given rights to free speech at the peril of their lives ... and many paid the full price. How is it that people of today imagine that free speech does not carry some cost? The mark of a true believer is one who voices his opinion while being fully prepared to bear all consequences.
The Constitution merely guarentees that there will be no "formal imperial entanglements" as a result of voicing your opinion. It doesn't guarentee anything else whatsoever.
Sez Ms. Linda A. Prussen-Razzano
Sorry Ms. P-R but the hyphenated name thing is about as lib as it gets. Bye now!
J
Precisely. The First Amendment - in fact the entire Bill of Rights - stands as a constraint against government, not the population.
The numbskulls in Holywood and elsewhere seem to forget that the same freedoms apply to us ordinary citizens as well as to them.
Besides, remember their actions and harping about Dr. Laura? What about her free speech?
If the truth has negative consequences for the speaker, then free speech is a myth.
Politics always has consequences.
Most of what I listed is outside the political arena.
That is about as deep as Sheryl Crow's "To avoid war, don't have enemies."
What in the world is "the truth"? Mr. Sarandon intoned his "anti-war/pro-free-speech" mantra, conveniently forgettting his "anti-Dr. Laura/anti-free speech" stance a fw years ago. The TRUTH is that he and his skank wife were anti-Republican, NOT anti-war.
ALL rights have responsibilities associated with their excersize. And rights are between the government and individuals, not individuals and individuals. I worked in a State University for a long time. I learned quickly that it would be bad for my paycheck to be anything other than apolitical.
Was it "unfair"? Yes, but it was a reality. You can't legislate reactions.
My statement can stand even without those two words.
I learned quickly that it would be bad for my paycheck to be anything other than apolitical.
Isn't that what I included in #9 above?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.