Tim Robbins' speech to the National Press Club

[zakur]

For anyone interested, here is the transcript of the speech given by actor Tim Robbins to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003:

'A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation...' (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-01.htm)

[Samus]

Not that I'm a fan of Hollywood types speaking out on issues they (usually) have no clue about, but...
Our ability to disagree, and our inherent right to question our leaders and criticize their actions define who we are. To allow those rights to be taken away out of fear, to punish people for their beliefs, to limit access in the news media to differing opinions is to acknowledge our democracy's defeat. Preach on, brother Tim! He's absolutely right. The major point of his speech was that the "with us or against us" attitude damages our ability to disagree, to challenge conventional thought, to have peaceful dissent from those that govern us.

I'm not anti-war, but I am anti-overreaction-to-war, and it looks like he is, too.

Wonder how many people helped him write this speech, though.

[Lurker]

While I am not particularly anti-war that speech was very, VERY good. Applause for Tim Robbins.

Lurker

[Nie Trink Wasser]

What I find amusing is that Mr. Robbins is complaining about how his freedom of speech should be protected, but yet anyone who disagrees with him and wants to express that, is committing some sort of crime.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
What I find amusing is that Mr. Robbins is complaining about how his freedom of speech should be protected, but yet anyone who disagrees with him and wants to express that, is committing some sort of crime.

See, I did not get that out of his speech. I guess I was thinking about O'Reilly (a person who has a popular TV show) who has continually said that these Hollywood types should not be speaking out and it is tantamount to treason for them to question while the troops are in the field.

I may not have agreed 100% with Robbins but the general theme I do.

Lurker

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
What I find amusing is that Mr. Robbins is complaining about how his freedom of speech should be protected, but yet anyone who disagrees with him and wants to express that, is committing some sort of crime.

Ah, the old "I'm just expressing my right to free speech by preventing you from expressing yours" approach.

Actually, it's not really a free speech issue, because the HOF is a private entity and can chose who it wants.

No, the real issue here is the crap excuse that the guy gave, that he didn't want to "politicize" the HOF, which could happen if Robbins and Serandon showed up.

Aside from the fact that they hadn't planned on talking about politics in any way, and aside from the fact that by doing what he did, he brought all the politicizing on himself, the claim that he doesn't want to politicize the HOF is nonsense. He didn't seem to have any problem with the HOF sponsoring a recent visit by Ari Fleischer to Cooperstown. In fact, the HOF put out a press release advertising that they were sponsoring his visit.

Non-political my ass.

[Richard G]

Mr. Robbins is taking himself too seriously. Hes just a trained monkey that jumps through hoops in front of a camera.

Nobody gives a sh*t what these overpaid Hollywood crybabys think.

[Tmy]

What a joke. Look at all the scumbags that are in the Hall of Fame. They dont care about your character as long as you dont bet on baseball.

This is dumb. Its supposed to be about baseball and not the war.
Really has Tim Robbins said anything that horrible? He's against invading Iraq........GASP!!!!! So were plenty of Americans. Its not like Tim boy was burning crosses, killing people, riding on Iraq tanks, or smacking POWS. Since when is being a peacenic such a despicable thing.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Nie Trink Wasser
What I find amusing is that Mr. Robbins is complaining about how his freedom of speech should be protected, but yet anyone who disagrees with him and wants to express that, is committing some sort of crime. Do you have a reference for where he said that?

[corplinx]

That speech is a mix of good points and memes. A tell-tale sign of naivety.

[corplinx]

"Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers, and by their fair and balanced electronic media cousins, 19th Century Fox. (Laughter.) Apologies to Gore Vidal. (Applause.) "


You know, f*ck you Tim Robbins. When all the other big anti-war celebs were going on TV like the Fox News Channel and defending their anti-war activism, you and Susan were in hiding.

Then you wonder why you get a bad rap in the press?


F*ck you, you fignut. Whining crybaby b*tch.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx

You know, f*ck you Tim Robbins. When all the other big anti-war celebs were going on TV like the Fox News Channel and defending their anti-war activism, you and Susan were in hiding.

That's right Tim. You should have called them up and demanded that they let you express your personal views on their privately owned station. Fox News should have no choice in who they decide to cover.

Originally posted by corplinx
F*ck you, you fignut. Whining crybaby b*tch.
Now THAT's what I call a thoughtful, reasoned response.:D

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tricky

That's right Tim. You should have called them up and demanded that they let you express your personal views on their privately owned station. Fox News should have no choice in who they decide to cover.



Of course, if Robbins had shown up on Fox, all we would have heard is about how they should shut up and butt out. If they don't raise a big stink with a national publicity campaign, then it is because they were hiding.

I'll admit, I didn't see much of anything from them outside of a peace sign they flashed on their way into the Oscars.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

That's right Tim. You should have called them up and demanded that they let you express your personal views on their privately owned station. Fox News should have no choice in who they decide to cover.


Now THAT's what I call a thoughtful, reasoned response.:D

Im sorry Tricky, but after Janeane Garofolo, Mike Farrell, and others got on TV easily to talk about their anti-war views. I doubt Robbins/Sarandon would have had a hard time. I think O'Reilly once said they refused an invite to discuss their views on his show.

Being more center to the anti-war movement that any of those other celebs, I am pretty sure they had a stack of invites to discuss those veiws on the media they blame. However, I get the feeling they dodged those opportunites. Then they blame the media for getting a bad rap.

Tim Robbins, in the linked article, said that after 9/11 he imagined we would all rush to walk little old ladies and clean up parks and teach children to read.

And you guys doubt his naivete, if not stupidity?

Sure. Bomb us, and "like a Phoenix out of the fire, we will be reborn" and grab a broom to sweep the rubble from the sidewalk.

What a maroon.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx


Im sorry Tricky, but after Janeane Garofolo, Mike Farrell, and others got on TV easily to talk about their anti-war views. I doubt Robbins/Sarandon would have had a hard time. I think O'Reilly once said they refused an invite to discuss their views on his show.
Possibly he could have, but watching other celebrities get savaged in the press (that liberal press) for expressing their views, I can't see anyone volunteering for this. Nor do I see any pro-war people stepping up to say how brave Janeane, Mike and Natalie were for stating their opinions in the face of overwhelming opposition. Mostly I see them getting called names like "fignut" and "b*tch". Are these hate-filled people so desperate for new targets to tear apart that they are now complaining because more of them aren't jumping onto the sacrificial alter?

So, Corplinx, do you have any specific thing that Robbins said in his speech that you want to discuss?

Originally posted by corplinx
Being more center to the anti-war movement that any of those other celebs, I am pretty sure they had a stack of invites to discuss those veiws on the media they blame. However, I get the feeling they dodged those opportunites. Then they blame the media for getting a bad rap.

Perhaps if the media could guarantee that the issues would be discussed calmly and logically, then they would be a bit less reticent to discuss them. However, when you have a commentator who calls people traitors for disagreeing with the government, then it is a bit hard to trust them to be fair and impartial. Maybe if Fox balanced it's position a bit with editorials about the right-wing overreaction to anti-war patriots....

Originally posted by Tricky

However, when you have a commentator who calls people traitors for disagreeing with the government, then it is a bit hard to trust them to be fair and impartial. Maybe if Fox balanced it's position a bit with editorials about the right-wing overreaction to anti-war patriots....

What commentator called them traitors? And who specifically was he/she talking about? Do you have a link?

I don't recall any "overreaction" to anti-war protests until the protestors started trying to shut down our major metropolitan areas.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

So, Corplinx, do you have any specific thing that Robbins said in his speech that you want to discuss?



What about the part I already pasted?

"Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers, and by their fair and balanced electronic media cousins, 19th Century Fox. (Laughter.) Apologies to Gore Vidal. (Applause.) "

Did anyone on FoxNews call them a traitor or any other epithet? Or is FoxNews just the whipping boy of celebrities who want to espouse their views with no challenge?

[RandFan]

I didn't see Dead Man Walking at the theatres because I suspected that it was a diatribe against capital punishment. When I finally saw the show on video I was very pleased. I thought Tim Robins did a fantastic job of showing both sides of the issue. I have liked of his work and have respected his opinion.

I am a staunch free expression advocate. I am not only concerned with governmental censorship but I am also concerned that expression could be affected by public sentiments. That unfortunatly is the conundrum of freespeech. People have a right to speak out against those who speak out.

I would say that I am very opposed to boycotts. I was not pleased with what the Dixie Chicks had to say about Bush while in a foreign country but I don't think formal boycotts are productive. By all means vote with your check book and don't buy works by people who anger you. This is America and you have every right to chose not to support a certain artist and to speak out against anyone whom you disagree with. And yes, you have the right to call for boycotts. That is another form of protected speech. But it is my right to speak out against such ideas. It wasn't that long ago that I was defending Laura Schlesinger against boycotts on this forum. I remember telling people that political winds have a way of shifting. I think some people doubted me.

I don't share a lot of views with Mr. Robbins. Some of the things that he has said has angered me. But I hope that no one feels that they are in jeopardy to speak his or her mind.

If that happens, and at the risk of sounding trite, then the terrorists will have won". Ok, it is trite, damn.

"The best answer to bad speech is more speech". I hope that doesn't ever become trite.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Richard G
. . . Nobody gives a **** what these overpaid Hollywood crybabys think. From your remark, I assume you are neither overpaid nor a Hollywood crybaby. That makes me curious as to your own occupation and whether your are lucky enough to fall into a group whose every opinion is worthy of consideration, or like all those hapless actors and other "trained monkeys" you fall into a group whose opinions are beneath consideration. My object is to figure out how I can tell from a person's occupation whether to listen to his ideas or not.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx


What about the part I already pasted?

"Susan and I have been listed as traitors, as supporters of Saddam, and various other epithets by the Aussie gossip rags masquerading as newspapers, and by their fair and balanced electronic media cousins, 19th Century Fox. (Laughter.) Apologies to Gore Vidal. (Applause.) "

Did anyone on FoxNews call them a traitor or any other epithet? Or is FoxNews just the whipping boy of celebrities who want to espouse their views with no challenge?
You're asking the wrong person. I don't watch Fox news and I didn't make the statement. I have no doubt that Robbins and Sarandon have been called that by many though. I have certainly heard enough of it in everyday conversation. Possibly those exact words weren't used. You could try asking Robbins for his references.

But this is nitpicking. Do you have any disagreement with the principals he stated? If so, which ones?

[daredelvis]

Originally posted by Richard G
Mr. Robbins is taking himself too seriously. Hes just a trained monkey that jumps through hoops in front of a camera.

Nobody gives a **** what these overpaid Hollywood crybabys think.

Who would give a sh*t what overpaid crybabies like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly have to say?

At least some of the anti-war celebrities are offering reasoned arguments against war.

-No connection to Sept. 11
Only a small percentage of Americans (I think it was less than 20%) knew that none of the Sept. 11th hijackers were from Iraq.

-Little (none so far) evidence of unconventional weapons
This was the original impetus for going into Iraq. They were everywhere and the Bush administration knew where they were. Hell they came from us in the 80s. Where are they? Now we are being told they might have been moved to Syria (next on the list). That seems to me to be a net gain in our security!

It is interesting that in a war to liberate and protect the people of Iraq we managed to get forces in to secure the oil wells, but nobody thought to secure the water system, the electrical grid, the hospitals….

[corplinx]

Let's face it. Robbins got dumped from a Bull Durham gig. Now all of a sudden he is going on about being dumped on because he anti-war. He says free expression is in danger.

Here's a clue Tim, the fact that news orgs are carrying your speech should tell you free expression isnt in any danger. Even if they didnt, your speech would still be linked by every left leaning blog and bush hating site on the web.

Its the same old act. One dash patriot act fearmongering, 5 spoonfuls of civil liberty infringement memes, and a slam on the evil Newscorp.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx
Let's face it. Robbins got dumped from a Bull Durham gig. Now all of a sudden he is going on about being dumped on because he anti-war. He says free expression is in danger.
I had never even heard he was against the war until the HOF fracas. Had you? Were they afraid he might say something about the war? Did he in any way indicate that he was going to use the gig as an anti-war platform, or was that just the paranoia of the pro-war people? If it wasn't to keep him from any possibility of "free expression", then why exactly was he dumped?

Originally posted by corplinx
Here's a clue Tim, the fact that news orgs are carrying your speech should tell you free expression isnt in any danger. Even if they didnt, your speech would still be linked by every left leaning blog and bush hating site on the web.
What news orgs are carrying his speech? I read the newspaper every day, and I found out about his speech two days later as a result of a link in these forums to an obscure website. I sent the link to a number of liberal friends of mine, and none had seen it before. In what way is his statement being carried by mainstream news sources? I've heard plenty of mainstream news sources talking about how the HOF took him off the speakers list, but none about his response. You really have to dig deeply into the "liberal media" to find these things.

Originally posted by corplinx
Its the same old act. One dash patriot act fearmongering, 5 spoonfuls of civil liberty infringement memes, and a slam on the evil Newscorp.

LOL. How many times have I heard conservatives complain about the "left wing media" only now to find they are totally impartial when they give the cold shoulder to a liberal. But Robbins is not fearmongering. All those things he is talking about have happened. You are doing it right now by trashing him for having an opinion different from yours. If you haven't heard people saying how celebrities shouldn't criticize the war, then you must be living in a different country from me.

Now quit with the character assasination, Corplinx and cite some of the specific points from the article that you disagree with. Right now, you seem to be doing your best to prove that everything Robbins said is true.

[corplinx]

"I had never even heard he was against the war until the HOF fracas"

I guess you missed him and Susan being out front of that whole "not in our name" thing. It must be nice in that cave you live in.

"What news orgs are carrying his speech?"

I heard excerpts on Scrips, AP, and FoxNews. I don't pay attention to them all though.

"You are doing it right now by trashing him for having an opinion different from yours."

I'm trashing him for being a whiner. Not for being anti-war. I went to the university who hosts the Ghandi Institute for Non-violence. I have a profound respect for genuine pacifism and nonviolent philosophy. I'm not sure if Robbins is in that camp since he never put himself in a forum for his views to be discussed, but I'm not oing to trash his anti-war view.

"Now quit with the character assasination, Corplinx and cite some of the specific points from the article that you disagree with. Right now, you seem to be doing your best to prove that everything Robbins said is true."

Tricky, I said I disagreed that freedom of speech is being curtailed, that civil liberties at being impugned because of a silent media, and that he himself was called a traitor by FoxNews. There isnt much more of substance he said to dispute with.

Here is a quote:

And then came the speech: You are either with us or against us. And the bombing began. And the old paradigm was restored as our leader encouraged us to show our patriotism by shopping and by volunteering to join groups that would turn in their neighbor for any suspicious behavior.

You expect me to dignify this idiotic meme-filled garbage by disputing it?

[corplinx]

Heres another gem:

And both of us last week were told that both we and the First Amendment were not welcome at the Baseball Hall of Fame.


I can imagine how that phone call went:

"Mr Robbins, you, your wife Susan, and the bill of rights will have been uninvited to the Baseball Hall Of Fame Bull Durham shindig. Sorry. Traitor."

Sour grapes? Sorry Mr. Robbins. But in your America it seems that your right to free speech comes before my right to associate with whom I want. In this case, they did not want to associate with you. Fortunately, they live in my America where their right comes before yours.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by corplinx

I guess you missed him and Susan being out front of that whole "not in our name" thing. It must be nice in that cave you live in.
Well, I don't listen to Fox news, but I saw that even Bill O'Reilly ]admitted (http://www.notinourname.net/fox_news_oreilly.htm)
Now, the usual left wing suspects signed the ad. People like Ramsey Clark, Jesse Jackson, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Al Sharpton and Congressman Jim McDermott. On the show biz side, Susan Sarandon but not her partner Tim Robbins, signed it...
Left wing suspects? Oh yeah, that's totally impartial.


Originally posted by corplinx
I heard excerpts on Scrips, AP, and FoxNews. I don't pay attention to them all though.
Perhaps you did hear exerpts. I didn't (I usually read newspapers). But exerpts tend to be "cut" so as to appear out of context. I haven't seen the entire text in any mainstream publication. You can hardly suggest that it is being trumpeted by them.

Originally posted by corplinx
I'm trashing him for being a whiner. Not for being anti-war. I went to the university who hosts the Ghandi Institute for Non-violence. I have a profound respect for genuine pacifism and nonviolent philosophy. I'm not sure if Robbins is in that camp since he never put himself in a forum for his views to be discussed, but I'm not oing to trash his anti-war view.
Whiner? Exactly how do you define that? Is it anyone who complains about anything? You certainly can't say that he hasn't tried to do something about it. If you call a whiner someone who states his opinion in a speech without putting himself in a forum to debate the people who disagree, then you must add the entire Bush administration to the list of "whiners".

Originally posted by corplinx
Tricky, I said I disagreed that freedom of speech is being curtailed, that civil liberties at being impugned because of a silent media, and that he himself was called a traitor by FoxNews. There isnt much more of substance he said to dispute with.
After watching people's careers being destroyed by speaking out against the war, you still disagree that freedom of speech is being curtailed? Would you agree then that no freedom of speech was curtailed by McCarthyism, because I see a very strong parallel here. Can you tell me where the difference lies? McCarthy showed that you don't have to call someone a name, but only show that they are not as "patriotic" as they should be, and you can destroy them. A number of people (mostly actors) never recovered their careers. It is interesting, though probably not surprising, that actors get singled out for "shunning". Probably it is because they are interviewed constantly. Must they always be sure they agree with the President when they speak?

Bush said: (http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/)
"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
I don't see how his position could be any more clear. If Robbins finds that position a bit too unyeilding, well, I must agree with him. As with everything, we cannot simply distill everything down to good or bad, right or wrong. It is possible, that in trying to correct a wrong, we could commit an equal or greater wrong. And two.... (edited to remove cliche')/

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Tricky

After watching people's careers being destroyed by speaking out against the war, you still disagree that freedom of speech is being curtailed?

Mike Moore's book is doing well in paperback. He just got an oscar. His career hasn't been destroyed.

And no, if someone's career is destroyed because of their opposition to something, that is not a curtailment of free speech. Do I even have to explain what freedom of speech means in this forum? I hate to teach you something you should already know as a citizen of this country. But, freedom of speech is not curtailed when you lose a sitcom because your anti-war diatribe on tv lowered your Q ratings.

The first amendment protects us from the _government_. Don't they teach civics and american history where you come from?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by corplinx


Mike Moore's book is doing well in paperback. He just got an oscar. His career hasn't been destroyed.

And no, if someone's career is destroyed because of their opposition to something, that is not a curtailment of free speech. Do I even have to explain what freedom of speech means in this forum? I hate to teach you something you should already know as a citizen of this country. But, freedom of speech is not curtailed when you lose a sitcom because your anti-war diatribe on tv lowered your Q ratings.

The first amendment protects us from the _government_. Don't they teach civics and american history where you come from?

While I somewhat agree with what you are saying here, Corplinx how would you feel about this scenario:

Assume Walmart got a hold of a petition supporting abortion. They then looked down that list and found 67 names who were also their employees. They then fired those people saying they did not agree with their points of view. It is a private company, right? Should they legally be able to do that or are they restricting the freedom of speech of those individuals?

Just curious...

Lurker

[rikzilla]

Tim Robbins is a fantastic actor. I am a huge fan of his work. But, that said, I think great Hollywood actors are like Playboy's Playmate of the Month.

As soon as they open their mouths and you actually hear what they think, they tend instantly to go from perfection to stupidity.
:rolleyes:

-z

[Gregor]

I enjoy posts from both Corplinx and Tricky on other topics. The vitreol on this thread is a little too strong.

Look, Robins is voluntarily a public figure. He chose to place his opinions before the public. Same for Moore. If the free enterprise system finds that (i) businesses disassociate themselves with such types and (ii) a majority of the public won't support their position - that's not a First Amendment issue.

It's capitalism.

I can welcome people with 'conventionally' unpopular views (I suspect that Robert Ingersoll was such a person). I can also dislike people with unpopular views and not support their financial endeavors.

Robins should not claim to be a martyr. If he wants to take a political position (which he has for years on various issues) fine. If private enterprise (like Fox News) and private citizens dislike it - they are free to do so. There is no First Amendment impact whatsoever.

[Gregor]

To answer your Walmart hypothetical - that can fire people but they won't for a personal belief.

Private businesses are free to hire and fire at will (subject to anti-discrimination statutes) and for any reason - including political or social opinion. The first amendment applies to the government, only.

Walmart wouldn't do what you propose for either ethical or financial reasons. People could protest or their sales might suffer.

It's the 'invisible hand' of capitalism from Adam Smith showing itself again.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Gregor
To answer your Walmart hypothetical - that can fire people but they won't for a personal belief.

Private businesses are free to hire and fire at will (subject to anti-discrimination statutes) and for any reason - including political or social opinion. The first amendment applies to the government, only.

Walmart wouldn't do what you propose for either ethical or financial reasons. People could protest or their sales might suffer.

It's the 'invisible hand' of capitalism from Adam Smith showing itself again.

Oh, I agree Walmart would not do it. But I was wondering of the people fired would have any traction in the courts on 1st Amendment issues? You seem to think no. I am not sure. Any lawyers out there?

Lurker

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Gregor
Robins should not claim to be a martyr. If he wants to take a political position (which he has for years on various issues) fine. If private enterprise (like Fox News) and private citizens dislike it - they are free to do so. There is no First Amendment impact whatsoever.

Not a first amendment issue, but the actions of the HOF did turn him into a martyr.

There were lots of things really silly about the HOF's actions. First, see above about how the president claims he didn't want to politicize the hall but does it by his own behavior, and also does so if it is someone he agrees with. Not fundamentally wrong, but shows his clear agenda, and that statements made about being not political are BS.

But for the issue of martyrdom: by cancelling the appearance, he has brought more sympathy to Robbins and Sarandon than could have ever been generated in a speech. In fact, had Robbins used the opportunity to talk politics, the entire press would have come down on him hard for hijacking this baseball event. The Hall could even put out a press release stating about how they had brought him in in good faith as a celebration of baseball and how they are ashamed at how he used them for his political agenda. Everyone would have hated Tim Robbins, even a lot of the anti-war crowd (look at the response to Moore - what an idiot, right?).

By cancelling the appearance, all of a sudden Robbins is a martyr and the HOF is the one getting ripped in the media. Turned the situation completely around.

If they wanted to cancel, the least they could have done is made up some lame, non-political reason. Visa has pulled its ads with Martin Sheen. It's probably because of the political views, but the official statement is that the life-cycle of the commercial had ended.

A BS lie that can't be tested is a far better approach than a BS lie that is obviously BS.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Lurker
Oh, I agree Walmart would not do it. But I was wondering of the people fired would have any traction in the courts on 1st Amendment issues? You seem to think no. I am not sure. Any lawyers out there?
The short answer is no, there's no constitutional grievance for the fired employees. In practice, there is a grayer area relating specifically to the tension between religious advocacy in the workplace and the employer's legal obligations to provide a harassment-free workplace (not too relevant here). For more information on that: http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~volokh/harass/substanc.htm#WORK

[Gregor]

Well, while I prefer to say I'm a piano player in a wh*rehouse, I am. At least in Texas, the employee cannot sue.

What would a fired employee sue on?

1. Breach of contract?
Answer: No. You are an "at-will" employee who can be fired for any reason or no reason at all (other than age, gender, or race)

2. Discrimination?
Answer: No. The only protected classes are age, gender, race, or national origin.

3. Violation of the 1st Amendment?
Answer: No. That only applies to federal or state action (through the 14th Amendment). Moreover, there is a technical issue as well - the Bill of Rights requires a federal statute to create a cause of action. Thus, the Civil Rights Act was created. Again, this only applies to states.

[c0rbin]

Bill O'Reilly

I laugh at anyone who seeks journalism from editorialists.

It is a waste of your time (or is it a 'waist'?) to get riled up over someone's views who are completely biased.

I expect people like O'Reilly and Savage and Rush and Hannedy to spout thier own rhetoric. Are you so surprised when Savage spills venom at "the liberals"?

Do you expect a balanced forum from these figure-heads of their ideology? The same thing goes for Moore, just the other way around. Both sides pander for ratings because that is their job.

Be not alarmed.

[Nie Trink Wasser]

Michael Reagan says :


Poor Tim Robbins. He thinks his rights are being stripped away– that he can no longer speak out, that he’s being gagged by a president he despises- yet he managed to cry about this assault on his rights to free speech in front of the nation’s media, which gleefully broadcast his views.

He’s talking about his first amendment rights being violated, but where does he make this complaint that he’s being prevented from stating his views publicly? Why before the National Press Club in Washington, about the most public forum around. Moreover, that speech last Tuesday has been rebroadcast and rebroadcast all across the nation. Some gag.

He keeps whining about Clear Channel and talk radio spewing out hatred and the dangers of limiting free speech at the very time he’s threatening a correspondent from the Washington Post for having reported accurately that his live-in girlfriend’s mother had said that he and her daughter, Susan Sarandon, were brainwashing her grandchild.

Free speech is seems does not apply to Washington Post reporters who write stories he doesn’t like.

Robbins rails against the Iraq war – a war that was waged against a socialist regime. Could it be that he objected to an attack on fellow socialists?

Robbins’ main complaint is not that he’s being gagged – he can’t claim that when just about every word he speaks gets reported by the liberal media – but that the American people can’t be forced to pay attention to his ranting.

He’s angered because the Baseball Hall of Fame had cancelled a joint appearance with Sarandon to celebrate the anniversary of the movie "Bull Durham." He can’t understand that it is the right of any group to decide to whom they want to provide a forum – he is so blinded by his unique conviction that everybody everywhere must be forced to listen to his socialist drivel, that he denies that right to the Hall of Fame and other venues which have shown the good sense to shun him.

You can stand on my doorstep and spew hatred about my father, but I’m not going to invite you into my house to attack my dad. It’s my house. He’s complaining because baseball said he can’t come back to Cooperstown because he’s so political that they are fully aware that he will use the occasion for more of his vicious anti-American ranting.

He insists that America is bitterly divided on the Iraq war, implying that more than half the nation is opposed to it – but his arithmetic is somewhat faulty – fully 73 percent of Americans support President Bush and his decision to oust Saddam Hussein and his brutal socialist regime from power.

To listen to him you would think that Americans are cringing in fear, desperately afraid to speak out. It doesn’t occur to him that they are speaking out, and what they are saying is not what he wants to hear – that in overwhelming numbers they approve of the war and applaud the President’s deft handling of it.

http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7369

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
After watching people's careers being destroyed by speaking out against the war, you still disagree that freedom of speech is being curtailed? Would you agree then that no freedom of speech was curtailed by McCarthyism, because I see a very strong parallel here. Can you tell me where the difference lies? McCarthy showed that you don't have to call someone a name, but only show that they are not as "patriotic" as they should be, and you can destroy them. A number of people (mostly actors) never recovered their careers. It is interesting, though probably not surprising, that actors get singled out for "shunning". Probably it is because they are interviewed constantly. Must they always be sure they agree with the President when they speak? Hi Tricky,

I personally would be very upset if people's careers were in truth being destroyed. I'm not certain that is actually happening in this case. I can accept that some might be losing opportunities but careers being destroyed seems extreme.

I am interested to know how you came down on the Laura Schlesinger affair? Do you think it is appropriate for GLAAD and NOW to call for boycotts against the Likes of EMINEM and Laura for things that they say?

Is freedom of speech a guarantee of freedom from consequences? In other words, if the ratings of West Wing go in the toilet at the same time that Martin Sheen is actively demonstrating against the war should the network keep West Wing on the air?

Personally I believe that freedom of speech should go further than the 1st amendment. I think we as a people should be tolerant of opposing views. I don't think we should get together and crush CDs because of something that a singer said in a foreign country or boycott Tide Washing detergent because a radio talk show host made a few statements that some interpreted as hateful.

That being said we live in a free country and fans are free to speak out against entertainers and choose not to purchase their products or watch their shows. They are even free to call for boycotts. Businesses are free to make decisions like canceling Dr. Laura or pulling advertising for EMINEM.

Many people feel that entertainers have an unfair advantage when it comes to speech. They (the entertainers) command attention and have "more" free speech than the average citizen. So they (average citizens) get angry and respond in ways to achieve some effect. They write advertisers and call radio talk shows and send email to everyone in their address book.

I'm not sure what the solution is but my biggest fear is that a minority of views will have power to determine what the majority can hear. It almost happened here in Southern California when a few people almost stopped a successful (libertarian) radio talk show host by calling for a boycott.

I would have a lot more respect for Robbin's "chill wind" speech if he had spoken up for Dr. Laura and EMINEM. Protestations that free speech is being curtailed are only spoken it seems when it is the protestors view being curtailed.

[Tmy]

Heres my problem, since when does the HOF have an offical stance on the invasion of Iraq? Its one thing if the HOF pres doesnt invite Robbins over his hoem for tea. Its another to use (abuse) his power at an organization head because of his specif views. Does he have the right to expell memebers of the HOF who spoke out against war? Do you think its proper for him to fire employees who are pacifists? Whats any of that have to do with baseball.

I dont think its fair to compare Robbins to Dr. Laura and Gladd. We not talking about hate speech or discrinination. Its just a view on whether to go to war or not. Robbins position is not so outragous or uncommon. He doesnt desereve the grief he's getting.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont think its fair to compare Robbins to Dr. Laura and Gladd. We not talking about hate speech or discrinination. Its just a view on whether to go to war or not. Robbins position is not so outragous or uncommon. He doesnt desereve the grief he's getting.

Personally, I don't think he deserves the attention he is getting, but I don't blame him for it. We can thank the HOF for that.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
I dont think its fair to compare Robbins to Dr. Laura and Gladd. To me, speech is speech. When we start judging the value of one speaker over another to determine what is appropriate and what is not appropriate speech then I think we make a serious mistake.

We not talking about hate speech or discrinination. Labeling something as "hate" speech is an effective way to ban such speech. Careful though, labels are easily placed when political winds change. Some have called Robbins and the other protestors "un-patriotic". I take issue with such labels. I don't think that they serve anything but a rhetorical purpose.

Its just a view on whether to go to war or not. Robbins position is not so outrageous or uncommon. Is that the measure? Whether or not something is outrageous or common? Many people do feel Tim Robbins words are outrageous and many people share common values with Dr. Laura. Sorry, but I find such a distinction lacking.

He doesnt desereve the grief he's getting. That is your opinion. Some people felt that Dr. Laura did not deserve the grief that she got.

That is the problem with free speech. We tend to come to its defense when we find the speech appropriate.

I supported Maplethorp. I don't like much of his work but I didn't want other to decide for me what I could see. I don't like Dr. Laura but I don't want others to tell me what I can hear. I don't agree with the message of Tim Robbins but would support absolutely his right to speak.

And grief, well I guess that just another word for speech, isn't it? Whether he deserves it or not is irrelevent.

[Tmy]

Im not so much judgeing the speech, im just surprised by the level of the backlash.

If I speak out against say, drilling in ANWAR, I really would be suprised if that kept me out of a speech at the baseball hall of fame. Seems kind of silly to me.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im not so much judgeing the speech, im just surprised by the level of the backlash.

If I speak out against say, drilling in ANWAR, I really would be suprised if that kept me out of a speech at the baseball hall of fame. Seems kind of silly to me.

Especially if they claim that they want to avoid anything political, right after they sponsored a trip by Ari Fleischer.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
Im not so much judgeing the speech, im just surprised by the level of the backlash. I understand.

I am not surprised by the backlash. Like I said earlier, a lot of people feel powerless. They don't command the attention that Tim Robbins does. Many people support the war so many people feel it is unfair that his opinion gets aired while theirs don't. So they speak up in any way the can. They call radio talk shows, write the editor of their local paper, etc.

If I speak out against say, drilling in ANWAR, I really would be suprised if that kept me out of a speech at the baseball hall of fame. Seems kind of silly to me. If 70% to 80% were in favor of drilling in ANWAR and a significant majority were passionate about that issue then I would not be surprised that such similar events would take place.

I don't agree with the HOF by the way.

In any event, many people are very passionate about this war. A significant majority support it. No one should be surprised that those who oppose the protestors would speak out. It is almost as if the protestors are saying to the opposition, "listen to what I say and don't respond".

If a majority of US citizens opposed this war then the same celebrities would demand that the government listen to the will of the people. The celebrities should be willing to accept that since the majority of citizens support the war then it is the celebrities that will hear from the people.

That being said I am concerned about any reduction in protests because of a sence of nationalism that we are experiencing right now.

You know sometimes I really feel that I am fighting both sides on this issue. It would be great if we could all embrace freedom of speech and be tolerant of issues that we disagree with.

[Tmy]

When you say 70-80% support the war, is that a post invasion stat? What was the % prior to invasion. It wasnt so high if I recall.

[Mike B.]

I find Robbins crocidile tears a little too much on this one.

He doth protest too much...

It is a great diversion, since many of his and other peace activists worst case scenarios did not pan out, he can now play the martyr to McCarthyism.

Too bad the HOF gave him a slow fat pitch to hit out of the park...

[Knightmare6]

Originally posted by dwb
...the "with us or against us" attitude damages our ability to disagree, to challenge conventional thought, to have peaceful dissent from those that govern us...

Very true...

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tmy
When you say 70-80% support the war, is that a post invasion stat? What was the % prior to invasion. It wasnt so high if I recall. I'll grant you that. I'm not really trying to argue percentage points now vs then but your point is valid and noted. Still a significant portion of people have supported the president. This of course does not justify the war anymore than if a majority were against the war would make it unjustifiable. But we are a democratic republic. And those that would demand that the administration listen to the will of the people when the will is on their side should consider the will of the people when it goes against them. Otherwise their admonitions are empty rhetoric.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by RandFan
Hi Tricky,

I personally would be very upset if people's careers were in truth being destroyed. I'm not certain that is actually happening in this case. I can accept that some might be losing opportunities but careers being destroyed seems extreme.

I am interested to know how you came down on the Laura Schlesinger affair? Do you think it is appropriate for GLAAD and NOW to call for boycotts against the Likes of EMINEM and Laura for things that they say?

Is freedom of speech a guarantee of freedom from consequences? In other words, if the ratings of West Wing go in the toilet at the same time that Martin Sheen is actively demonstrating against the war should the network keep West Wing on the air?

Personally I believe that freedom of speech should go further than the 1st amendment. I think we as a people should be tolerant of opposing views. I don't think we should get together and crush CDs because of something that a singer said in a foreign country or boycott Tide Washing detergent because a radio talk show host made a few statements that some interpreted as hateful.

That being said we live in a free country and fans are free to speak out against entertainers and choose not to purchase their products or watch their shows. They are even free to call for boycotts. Businesses are free to make decisions like canceling Dr. Laura or pulling advertising for EMINEM.

Many people feel that entertainers have an unfair advantage when it comes to speech. They (the entertainers) command attention and have "more" free speech than the average citizen. So they (average citizens) get angry and respond in ways to achieve some effect. They write advertisers and call radio talk shows and send email to everyone in their address book.

I'm not sure what the solution is but my biggest fear is that a minority of views will have power to determine what the majority can hear. It almost happened here in Southern California when a few people almost stopped a successful (libertarian) radio talk show host by calling for a boycott.

I would have a lot more respect for Robbin's "chill wind" speech if he had spoken up for Dr. Laura and EMINEM. Protestations that free speech is being curtailed are only spoken it seems when it is the protestors view being curtailed.
Hi Rand Fan.

First of all, let me apologize to Corplinx and anyone else if my remarks were taken as a personal attack. Yes, I am emotional about this issue, and I probably crossed the line.

As to Laura Schlesinger, I tend to look down on anyone who takes racist, sexist or homophobic positions. I do not call them traitors and I do not urge boycots. I simply make my own decision whether or not to listen to them. It grieves me that taking divisive positions is so popular these days. Fear and xenophobia are powerful tools, and I have rarely if ever seen them wielded in a useful way, but certainly people are free to yield them as long as they don't lie or slander.

But I have to confess, I am glad when I see someone take a stand against hate and fearmongering. People like Ralph Flanders (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAflandersR.htm), who stood up against McCarthyism are my heroes. So I respect Tim Robbins too. There is little doubt that he has hurt his popularity (which to an actor means "career") by taking this controversial stance, but I feel it is the correct one. Of course, Dr. Laura also hurt her career by taking an unpopular stance, but I do not feel her stance was the correct one. She has the right to hold it. The biggest difference I see is that Robbins took the chance on alienating a large number of people who otherwise liked and respected him. Dr. Laura only offended those who did not like her anyway. She was probably increased her popularity among her "core" group.

[corplinx]

Eric Burns on this Very Topic (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,84563,00.html)


I'm with Eric on this one.

[DavidJames]

Dale Petroskey deserves credit for recognizing his error:

"I inadvertently did exactly what I was trying to avoid," the former Reagan administration official wrote. "With the advantage of hindsight, it is clear I should have handled the matter differently.

"I am sorry I didn't pick up the phone to have a discussion with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon rather than sending them a letter," he said."

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/rockies/article/0,1299,DRMN_19_1900368,00.html

[corplinx]

Notice how he is continually referred to as "former reagan administration official".

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Tricky
As to Laura Schlesinger, I tend to look down on anyone who takes racist, sexist or homophobic positions. I'm not a fan of Laura so I haven't listened to her much. But to be honest I don't think her discussions on homosexuality are beyond the pale. I strongly disagree with a majority of her opinions but I think it counterproductive to label such discourse as homophobic just because we disagree with it.

TRANSCRIPTS: "THE DR. LAURA PROGRAM" (http://www.glaad.org/action/campaigns_detail.php?id=3307&)

I will respectfully let others decide.

I do not call them traitors and I do not urge boycotts. I simply make my own decision whether or not to listen to them. Thank you, I think that is appropriate. And of course I urge you to speak out against her ideas. In the end that is the best solution.

It grieves me that taking divisive positions is so popular these days. Fear and xenophobia are powerful tools, and I have rarely if ever seen them wielded in a useful way, but certainly people are free to yield them as long as they don't lie or slander. A free society comes with caveats. And you are right, fear and xenophobia are powerful tools used by both sides of the political fence. Being called a racist or homophobe is a very serious accusation. Jimmy the Greek lost his Job when he gave an honest opinion about black athletes. He was labeled a racist. Andy Rooney was reprimanded when he said something that was considered racially insensitive. Never mind that Andy marched for and has written many articles in defense of civil rights. I can honestly say that if he had not had such a history that he would have lost his job.

But I have to confess, I am glad when I see someone take a stand against hate and fear mongering. People like Ralph Flanders (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAflandersR.htm), who stood up against McCarthyism are my heroes. A man worthy of anyones respect.

So I respect Tim Robbins too. There is little doubt that he has hurt his popularity (which to an actor means "career") by taking this controversial stance, but I feel it is the correct one. I have not seen a case made that our government or this administration is seeking to create a black list or start a whisper campaign or actively silence or destroy actors careers. I would be very interested in seeing the parallels between Tim Robbins and Ralph Flanders. I will grant you that he (Robbins) is speaking out at a time when public sentiment is against him. I will not argue that this could hurt his career. I will also grant that to risk his career to speak out for what he believes takes courage. For that I salute him. But this is not McCarthysim. There is no senate hearing and no public figures accusing Robbins of being anti-American. Keep in mind that George Bush and many other leaders are being accused of genocide and murder. There are those calling for the impeachment of Bush and accusing him of all sorts of conspiracies and crimes. This freedom of speech cuts both ways. If you want to speak out against a popular action then you must be prepared to suffer consequences. I applaud those that do. I would have a little more respect for those that do so with out protestations of conspiracy.

Of course, Dr. Laura also hurt her career by taking an unpopular stance, [b]but I do not feel her stance was the correct one. With all due respect Tricky, this is the worst possible reason to support or not support speech. When I actively defended Maplethorp people accused me of supporting pedaphelia. I can find few worse things to be accused of. I found Maplethorp's photos of nude children disturbing and disgusting. However, the photos were legal and were not examples of pedaphelia. I did not support Maplethorp because he was "correct". I supported him because I support speech. I seriously dislike Dr. Laura but I would purchase a ticket to see her speak for the same reasons I went to see the Maplethorp exhibit. It is simply to easy to say, "they are wrong and therefore I don't support them". Yes, it is a fine line. I would think long and hard before I purchased a ticket to see a white supremist, unless I truly thought that free speech was in serious danger I probably would not. Each of us must make that decision for ourselves. I know that you support free speech and I don't question you on that but I think that ones "stance" should be secondary when it comes to our support of speech. Remember "I don't agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it." Let's also add, "I will also actively speak out against what you say."

She has the right to hold it. The biggest difference I see is that Robbins took the chance on alienating a large number of people who otherwise liked and respected him. Dr. Laura only offended those who did not like her anyway. She was probably increased her popularity among her "core" group. I respect your view point but I don't see it that way. Time will tell but I suspect Robbins will be hailed a hero by his core group.

Tricky,

Thank you for your reasoned response. This is an issue that is fraught with passion. I have lost friendships over it and I think that that is wrong. We can disagree without sacrificing friendship.

"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."
-- Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by RandFan
I'm not a fan of Laura so I haven't listened to her much. But to be honest I don't think her discussions on homosexuality are beyond the pale. I strongly disagree with a majority of her opinions but I think it counterproductive to label such discourse as homophobic just because we disagree with it.



Not beyond the pale, but coming from someone who has "Dr." in her title it is a bit different than you or me saying what she said. I would have less of a problem with her saying it if she were a Dr. of psychology. Instead she has a PhD in physiology. Hey, anyone can dispense advice. But once they start talking about psychological diagnoses she better watch out.

Lurker