otherwise it's repression, oppression, and horrible.
While I've seen this from both sides, the left have raised it to an art form. Robin Williams is perfectly free to calim Bush is a dictator, but should somebody dare to question the wisdom of accepting political commentary from a comedian, and they are labelled as a Nazi out to stamp out the rights of ll good Americans.
Why is that, I wonder? Why can't the left tolerate a little dissent and why are they so threatened by the idea that unpopular opinions may carry consequences? The paranoia is real, just check out the hate mail received by a site which criticizes the hollywood activists and their lame pronouncements.
Let's try to nail this one down once and for all. A public boycott does not equal governmental suppression of free speech. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have a right to voice your opinion without any consequences from other citizens. This is a fabrication of the left, who like to play victim whenever possible.
The most ironic part of this whole thing is that the boycott has been the weapon of choice of the extreme left. The NAACP boycotted South Carolina in an attempt to force them to change their state flag. I don't recall anybody on the left crying about the crushing of dissent then. Lefties threatened boycotts of advertisers on Dr Laura's TV show, and succeeded in getting it cancelled. Did anybody cry about the repression of her opinion?
Obviously not.
You want free speech, you got it. Speak your mind, shout it from the mountaintop, get yourself a blog, preach it on the street corner.
Just be prepared to accept the consequences, particularly if your opinion is controversial or unpopular. If you are an entertainer, be aware that if you use your job as a soapbox, the views you express will become associated to your performance, and you just may alienate your audience.
Posted by Rich at April 22, 2003 11:37 AM | TrackBackRich, you have to realize that you could interchange "right" for "left" in your post and it would be just as accurate.
You say Robin Williams is free to call Bush a dictator, and he is free to do so. But how many people have been vilified for daring to speak their opinions? Jeneane Garafalo, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins...
And don't try to claim that boycotts are only a weapon of the left. The entire "boycott the French/Germans/Russians" debacle has raised idiot boycotts to a new level.
For the record I don't agree at all with these liberal's opinions - I'm liberal, and have been a strong war proponent since the beginning - but I can't stand by and let you cast all these first stones.
When the conservative mainstream lets liberals speak their minds without their being labeled "traitors" and being publicly ridiculed for their opinions, then we can talk. It works both ways, absolutely and without either side having a hint of moral superiority in this conflict.
Posted by: Barry on April 22, 2003 1:46 PMBarry, you've illustrated my point perfectly. I am equally justified in ridiculing Robin Williams as he is in ridiculing President Bush. That's freedom of speech. Tim Robbins vilifies President Bush and is vilified in return. Why is his speech sacrosanct and the response is not?
Here's a quick exercise for you:
He uses his position to expound his point of view and to call people to action. That makes him a fair target for criticism.
Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
As for your contention that the left and right are equally at fault, I disagree. Reading this story:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200304/CUL20030421a.html
confirms something I've noticed myself, and it may just be a function of the internet, but lefties are far more likely to flame those who disagree than righties. Look at the comments on Bubba's site for confirmation. Very rarely does he get flamed by a conservative, although there are several of us who disagre with him. He himself rarely engages in flaming anybody, although the same cannot be said for some who comment there. In just the few comments I pull, I've been flamed several times.
I think it has to do with a basic difference between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be rational, leading with the brain and not the heart. Liberals tend to be more emotional, leading from the heart and not the head. This leads liberals to be more passionate about their beliefs, taking them more personally, so that when those beliefs are questioned, they see it as a personal atttack, and respond in kind, leaving the conservative baffled by the unprovoked blast of vitriol.
Just a thought.
Posted by: rich on April 22, 2003 3:02 PMI don't doubt that people have the right to say what they want to and to react to what has been said by other people in the fashion that they so please.
At the same time, what I see lacking is a respect for people having differing opinions. If someone articulates a rational argument against going to war (yes I realize that some don't believe that such a thing exists), I think it stiffles the free exchange of opinions by people calling for boycotts. Taken to the extreme, we will have a polarized society where anti-war folks hang out with other anti-war folks and watch movies made by anti-war actors, with pro-war folks hanging out with other pro-war people watching movies staring pro-war actors and even more polarized viewpoints.
For instance, I understand the boycotts of the Dixie Chicks. Saying that you are ashamed to be from the same state as the President makes you deserving of some scorn. But Susan Sarandon flashing a peace sign at the Academy Awards should not receive the same level of scorn.
I've always wondered why conservatives don't seem to comment on liberal blogs. I personally have done what I can to get people of differing viewpoints to come to my blog and flame me, but all I seem to get are conservatives who either can't read or claim as fact things that simply are not and easily disproven.
Posted by: Manish on April 22, 2003 7:06 PMI complimented Sarandon for her classy display at the Oscars here: http://64.21.37.2/~rhailey/archives/001536.html#001536
And if every protest against the war was classy, or well reasoned, I would agre with you. But this anti-war movement has been notable for the mean spirited and emmpty-headed rhetoric. Bush has been compared to Hitler for cryin' out loud! The editor of salon.com has come out and admitted he hoped for lots of American and civilian casualties to make Bush look bad.
It's despicable!
The left is in grave danger of being overrun by the extreme elements within their party, and they'll learn, just as the republicans did with the extreme christian right, that the zealots sdrive away more support than they attract.
Posted by: rich on April 22, 2003 9:53 PMThat's so funny!
Posted by: tickling on September 1, 2004 3:38 PM