More lefty whining of Censorship...

[insein]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3902833.stm

Elton attacks 'censorship' in US


Sir Elton John is currently performing in New York
Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of "bullying tactics" used by the US government to hinder free speech.
"There's an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious," he told New York magazine, Interview.

Sir Elton said performers could be "frightened by the current administration's bullying tactics",

The singer likened the current "fear factor" to McCarthyism in the 1950s.

"There was a moment about a year ago when you couldn't say a word about anything in this country for fear of your career being shot down by people saying you are un-American," he told the magazine.

The singer said things were different in the 1960s.

"People like Bob Dylan, Nina Simone, The Beatles and Pete Seeger were constantly writing and talking about what was going on.

Backlash

"That's not happening now. As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts - or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter," he said.

He voiced concern that it appeared acceptable to speak out if you were pro-Bush, using the example of country singer Toby Keith, but not if you were critical of the President, as in the case of country rock band, the Dixie Chicks.

"On the one hand, you have someone like Toby Keith, who has come out and been very supportive of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - which is OK because America is a democracy and Toby Keith is entitled to say what he thinks and feels.

"But, on the other hand, the Dixie Chicks got shot down in flames last year for criticising the president. They were treated like they were being un-American, when in fact they have every right to say whatever they want about him because he's freely elected, and therefore accountable."

Sir Elton is currently in New York playing a series of concerts.

I don't think these people freakin get it. Free speech means speaking your mind without fear of imprisonment or retribution from your government. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE NO REPERCUSSIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!

Meaning if the people or private businesses choose to either boycott your products or drop their advertising agreements due to CONTRACT VIOLATIONS, then it is their right to free speech as well. They don't want your opinion to reflect theirs then they won't buy your product or in a businesses case, avoid signing you to ad deals.

When will you people realize that Freedom of Speech does not mean freedom from other people's speech.

 

[UsaPride]

Sir Elton said performers could be "frightened by the current administration's bullying tactics",

Damn, I missed the bullying tactics? I just figured people boycotted these idiots on their own, not bullied by the President and his Administration.

 

[HGROKIT]

I agree and applaud everything insein wrote.

Plus:

"That's not happening now. As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts - or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter," he said.

What the hell is he talking about? Maybe none have been written, scheduled or sang. I have not heard of any, but that does not mean censorship is the reason. Maybe its just that no one is really that opposed to the war - it is Bush that they are opposed to. I think foreigners ought to stay the hell out of our political arena and STFU!

His Tobi and Dixie analogy has no merit - neither does Elton. His "Sir" title is honorary, but the autor of this piece throws it in there like it is a big deal. Who cares?

 

[dilloduck]

His feather boa allergy is gone to his brain. Maybe he's trying to be part of the "chic" Youra peein crowd that loves to Bash America.

 

[NightTrain]

Yep.

I think it's great that the Ditzy Chicks were shunned by millions for their indiscretions whilst overseas. I don't listen to Country, but my wife tells me that they're still not played here in AK.

They do indeed have the right to say those un-American things; but it's our right as consumers to decide we will no longer support them.

I have a personal list of entertainers that I refuse to support in any way, due to their own beliefs and make it a point to mention why I don't care for them whenever they come up in conversation.

It's not "censorship" that really irks these people, they know full well that they haven't been censored. What gets their goat is that when they ram their foot into their mouths, average Americans such as myself take notice and add them to the list of idiots that won't see one red cent of my money, and make it known to everyone that's interested in my opinion why I feel that way.

I suspect many of them, such as Elton, long for the '60s when it was cool to practice activities such as spitting on American personnel arriving home from war, burning American flags and treating the enemy combatants as heros.

Elton John can go to hell as far as I'm concerned. I never liked the little fag anyway.

 

[Moi]

Too bad so many "entertainers" didn't go to school and get an education. They confuse censure with censor.

The american people (and, in my opinion, everyone else on earth) should and are free to decide for themselves whom and what to support. The fact that the Dixie Chicks' comments, and Elton's too, were reported widely, is full evidence that there is no censorship in the united states.

There is, however, censure, which is entirely different, entirely constitutional and entirely righteous in my opinion.

May the almighty dollar to continue to roll...

 

[softwaremama]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3902833.stm
I don't think these people freakin get it. Free speech means speaking your mind without fear of imprisonment or retribution from your government. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU HAVE NO REPERCUSSIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE!

Overpaid, amoral Hollywood types are led by their value system (well, not really a system, because it's one thing): cold, hard cash $$$ for TV shows too tacky to watch, CDs w/vile lyrics, and movies that tear down everything your grandmother ever taught you.

They "get" that their version of free speech (speech without critique or repercussion) equals million$ in their pockets. Imagine what the Dixie Chicks boycott actually accomplished--hey thanks!

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Yeah, anti-war protesters get run over by tanks Tiananmen Square style. Celebrities are jailed for speaking out against Bush.

Give me a fucking break. I get tired of this freedom from consequences shit, rather than freedom of speech. That's really what they don't like. They don't like it when there is a backlash because some people don't feel the way they feel.

 

[MtnBiker]

So who was censoring Doctor Laura when advertisers pulled their support for her TV show?

And how many of the Hollywood and Music industry characters backed her up?

 

[Merlin1047]

I get tired of this freedom from consequences shit, rather than freedom of speech. That's really what they don't like. They don't like it when there is a backlash because some people don't feel the way they feel.

Exactly. The Hollyweird crowd has become so arrogant that they think THEY are the only people with rights in this country.

I believe they think that failure to buy their albums or see their movies based on a dislike of their conduct or statements should be considered a hate crime.

 

[NightTrain]

So who was censoring Doctor Laura when advertisers pulled their support for her TV show?

And how many of the Hollywood and Music industry characters backed her up?

Good point, MB.

Guess it doesn't count when the shoe is on the other foot. I remember how the libs went apeshit over her comment that 'homosexuality is unnatural', and they cheered for the sponsors that ditched her as a result, after threatening a boycott. Nothing about how it was unfair and she was excersizing her freedom of speech from that camp.

 

[Bullypulpit]

The first casualy of war is the truth, so they say. A close second is freedom of discourse, particularly if that discourse questions the rationale for war.

In the case of a just war, as was WWII, such questioning served to keep the government as honest and above board as was possible at the time.

In the case of an unjust war, as we have in Iraq, authority must be questioned...partcularly when the rationale for war has morphed several times and been discredited.

We, as Americans, are fully within our rights to question the administration's actions, and expect a truthful answer. Our founding fathers expected the citizenry to question authority, and the freedom of speech is enshrined in the First Amendment of the Constitution...the Law of the Land. Failing to question the authority of our leaders is servile and unpatriotic.

 

[dilloduck]

But do the "questioners of authority" have some kind of immunity to being quetioned themselves. This is how they have operated for some time now--Hiding behind free speech. There is also a right to speak against the questioner. Can't have it just a one way deal, Bully.

 

[acludem]

What about the sponsors that threatened to pull out of Ellen DeGeneres' sitcom when she came out of the closet? Or the sponsors who threatened to pull out of the Grammys if Janet Jackson wasn't removed from the bill? These were under pressure from right-wing big brother government activists. Both extremes support censorship. Don't try and pin it all on the left - or have you forgotten that John Ashcroft had clothes draped over a nude statue in front the Justice building?

acludem

 

[Comrade]

What about the sponsors that threatened to pull out of Ellen DeGeneres' sitcom when she came out of the closet? Or the sponsors who threatened to pull out of the Grammys if Janet Jackson wasn't removed from the bill? These were under pressure from right-wing big brother government activists.

So what, did anyone threaten to jail the sponsors if they didn't pull out with their OWN money? No!

No way you can pull out the big brother crap when you know very well those sponsors made their own decisions basd on their own monetary interests.

Both extremes support censorship. Don't try and pin it all on the left - or have you forgotten that John Ashcroft had clothes draped over a nude statue in front the Justice building?

So wait, is the statue being cencorsed from her own rights? Or are we talking about those in the justice building who have a right to see boobies in the workplace?

So statues with bare tits at the workplace, that's a constitutionally protected right?

 

[Avatar4321]

So statues with bare tits at the workplace, that's a constitutionally protected right?

Yep of course. Didnt you realize that? Bare tits in the work place is a constitutional right, speaking up against singers and actors you disagree with and refusing to buy their work is unconstitutional.

 

[007]

The thing is with these big mouthed, opinionated entertainers, there's ALWAYS someone following them around with a microphone and a camera. Every damn little worthless piece of shit these morons utter is printed as if spoken by Confuscious, or Nastradomous. (spelling?...) Like it's the most important revelation of the 21st century, and we ALL need to hear it.
If someone followed me around with a microphone and a camera every damn step of a every damn day, and I had to depend on my image, INCLUDING WHAT I SAID, to sell myself and my product to pay for my lifestyle, the last thing I'd do is say a bunch of shit that I knew would piss of a portion of my spending patrons. But no... these assholes want to blab on and on about whatever the fuck they want, and with the first tone of discourse from people that say, hey, fuck you now, we're not buying your shit anymore, they think that's BULLYING??!! It ain't got a fucking THING TO DO WITH BULLYING!! These fucking morons brought it on themselves!!!

Sing your song, put on your show, do your acting, but shut the fuck up, OR PAY THE CONSQUENCES! What part about that don't these shit for brains understand? Unfortuanately, that came with the territory when they became high profile entertainers. If they don't like it, then they can get the fuck out of the business. Well, no, they won't be doing that. Then they'd have to give up all their fame and money, and that's all these fuckers really care about anyway.

Fuck 'em all. Dick lickers.

 

[Comrade]

Hehe, I bet that felt good saying it as much I enjoyed reading it!

 

[007]

Hehe, I bet that felt good saying it as much I enjoyed reading it!

Damn straight it did.

What I don't understand is why people have the need to dissect these situations to such a rediculous extent. What the hell is really going on is slap you in the face OBVIOUS.

Liberal pinheads.....

 

[Moi]

What about the sponsors that threatened to pull out of Ellen DeGeneres' sitcom when she came out of the closet? Or the sponsors who threatened to pull out of the Grammys if Janet Jackson wasn't removed from the bill? These were under pressure from right-wing big brother government activists. Both extremes support censorship. Don't try and pin it all on the left - or have you forgotten that John Ashcroft had clothes draped over a nude statue in front the Justice building?

acludem

Not one example represents censorship. Choices of private corporations and people do not and cannot be so.

I do not recall anyone with the authority to imprison someone telling the sponsors that their sponsorship of these two items was illegal. That's censorship.

A company voluntarily refusing to pay money to support causes which are abohorrent to their ethos is not censorship. It's freedom of assembly, capitalism, etc. Even if those companies did so because they were in fear of a public backlash...again, they chose to do so. No one forced them. The public has a right to spend their money on what they wish to.

As far as covering a nude statue, it is my understanding that censorship must involve a freedom. There is no freedom to publicly display pornography, regardless of what you think Larry Flint's trial was about. No one made it illegal to be placed inside someone's gallery, home or office.