Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: g_w_north who wrote (167555)	4/11/2003 5:44:02 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1577893

P.S. I guess there should now be a questionnaire for actors to fill out before they're handed roles? No, what the right would prefer is that they keep their mouths shut inbetween roles and just look pretty. To counteract the wealth and public opinion actors in this country command, the right has insisted for years that every actor is stupid [they had to ease up on that notion when Reagan was in office....hehehe]. They particularly like to make fun of B. Streisand who has amassed a huge real estate and stock portfolio, and is laughing all the way to the bank. Of course, Streisand is a devout and outspoken liberal. In any case, for the past 6 months, its been open season on liberal actors and singers in this country. Fortunately, they are smart enough not to let the right silence them........they saw what the right did to entertainers during the McCarthy years.

To: g_w_north who wrote (167555)	4/12/2003 10:53:08 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577893

So, as a conservative you are stating that free speech is stupid and it is only proper for celebrities to suffer consequences because they all have incompetent opinions that are forced upon a naive, unsuspecting public. Absolutely not. Nothing could be further from the truth. These people have EVERY right to say what they want to. But the public has every right to turn them off and avoid their movies. Further, people who are in control of organizations sponsoring these people have EVERY right to disassociate from them. I think these people should have their free speech. But is seems like some would have us give the actors their free speech yet prevent opposing voices from speaking (e.g., in the cancellation of the Bull Durham event). If some entity doesn't want to lend their good name to Tim Robbins because of what Robbins has said, that should be their prerogative. Still, my point remains that one has nothing to do with the other. This was a celebration of a movie that was politicized by a neocon who decided single-handedly on punitive action against someone who's opinion differed from his. Plain and simple. Obviously, this "neocon" (who was in control of the program) disagrees. I don't know what his relationship to the organization is, but why should an organization who is opposed to Robbins' stance be required to allow Robbins to participate? It is like you think Robbins ought to be able to have his say, no matter how uninformed he may be, yet you don't want the sponsor of the celebration to have his say. It is really quite inconsistent.