Now we can add the movie Bull Durham to the list, joining Visa commercials, United Way appearances and movie studio lawsuits. The list of economic consequences of public anti-war stances taken by entertainers continues to grow. How do you feel about this?

I like it, but am surprised by it. I didn't think public opinion would have such an impact. There seems to have been a line drawn in the sand in the minds of the majority of Americans. That line was March 19. As the first bomb fell on Iraq, public opinion solidified here at home. It was now time to turn off the anti-war rhetoric as our troops were in harm's way. Those public figures who continued to speak out became subject to repercussions. Some economic, some political. The political payback won't be fully felt for a bit, but I think it will be harsh. The economic consequences seem to be well on their way.

I'm not looking to re-hash all the war/anti-war arguments.The specific question is this.

Should celebreties use their platforms as bully-pulpits for any political causes?

My stance is no. I support them because of their talent and ability to entertain me. Period. If they want to enter the political spotlight, fine, run for office. Otherwise, just shut up and entertain me !

FYI - some of us had opinions on that matter here Celebrity political views, Do we really care?

I closed that one, however, since it is old & it is hard to debate people have been banned

We can take up this debate here

I feel that is is completely fair that they are subject to backlash for their actions.

Everyone should be accountable for their actions, and if they really feel strongly about it, they would continue regardless of backlash. That is the true determining factor.

When you have groups like the Dixie Chicks who say the were "just joking" when they made their remarks and it lead to a dramatic decrease in revenue, those people are hypocrites and deserve what they get.

Yes, celebrities should stand up for their political beliefs and become active members of charitable and/or political organizations. Just because someone has a job as an entertainer doesn't negate their right to free speech, and it doesn't mean that they have to be doing that job 24/7. If you don't like what a celebrity says, you don't have to support them by seeing their films or purchasing their albums.

If I was a movie producer I would attempt to protect my interests by limiting the speech of the actors involved.

Hmmm... *thinking*....

I doubt anybody needed the definitions, but there they are just the same. I'm curious as to how the celebrities speaking out is considered bullying? I haven't heard any of them tell me what to do or attempt to intimidate me into taking up their cause. They're speaking out against the war based on their perspectives and opinions. I don't see how it's any different then when they speak on behalf of an AIDS, Cancer or Equal Rights issue, despite what views other people may have.

Are they asking you to support them in their position...? You aren't obligated to support every single statement a celebrity makes, you know. You're making statements right here and I presume you have made statements offline as well... should you be quiet unless you plan on entering the political spotlight? Just because you own their movies or pay to see their movies does not mean you own their opinions or political positions. It's rather arrogant and ignorant to assume as much, which is precisely what your statement implies.

Do you like, or do you have to like, every movie Susan Surandon or Tim Robbins puts out? I wasn't that big on The Client or High Fidelity... and I'm certainly not big on the Dixie Chicks. Hey... maybe if they can't make movies or music that "entertains me" they should just sit down and give it up! Let the actors and musicians I like fill the movie theatres andn airways!

If you don't like their movies or music, you aren't forced -- or should I say bullied -- into listening to them or watching them. Are you? The same goes for their politics or the politics of anybody else for that matter.
[EDITED RESPONSE BELOW]

The movie producer can hire another actor or the record company can give their contracts to somebody else. They only own the cinematic and recording work of the artists. They do not own the artists themselves. They can't limit the speech of an individual just because they work for them... there isn't some corporate exclusion cause in the Constitution. You can check.

Heck no. Hell no.

Everybody has a right to free speech, but nobody has a right to have a louder voice than mine if they haven't been elected to be my voice.

The celebrity's contribution to society is to basically be an overpaid and pampered court jester paid to entertain us. It ain't rocket science. They make their money by pretending to be something they are not.

when they decide to use their celebrity to advance a cause, they are short circuiting our electoral process. 50 years ago, no big deal. In this age of 24 hours and instant news, the rules have changed. We elect people to represent us. If that representative is not doing what we elected him/her to do, we get a group of like-minded individuals together and protest.

Celebrities use mass-media to circumvent that process without allowing me, Joe Schmuck, the same opportunity. It should be illegal. For example, in campaigns, each candidate must be given an opportunity for equal time in the media. Our local station in an unnamed small city in southwest Ohio, WHIO TV, can interview Candidate R, but they must also give Candidate D equal time.

If Susan sarandon and Tim Robbins can get on camera and tell us this war is bogus (which I happen to agree with), anybody pro-war should have a chance regardless of whether they've played hide-the-salami with Cher.

If they become a lightning rod for what they say and get hammered, to hell with them. They deserve everything they get because they never DESERVED that opportunity in the first place. They can stand with us as one voice instead of acting like they are more important. And acting is all they can do.

But I would have to admit, it's not completely their fault. This is a society where we average an 8th grade reading level. This is a society where 80% polled favor this war, but 60% of those people think Iraqis flew airplanes into our buildings. Celebrities are simply taking advantage of the average American moron.

I'm sorry... but when did the celebrities force the news stations to broadcast their opinions? Did the actors force FOX, NBC, CBS or ABC to air their opinions? Did they pay them to...? The answer is NO. You have an issue with their voice being louder? Take it up with the news stations that broadcast them.

You elect officials to make official decisions as they pertain to your interests. Last time I checked, the celebrities weren't doing anythign to endanger your interests. They merely stated an opinion. They don't have to be elected to do that. Their actions are doing nothing to the electoral process and that has to be one of the most ridiculous claims I've heard regarding Hollywood bashing yet.

Gee... it's a funny thing but didn't all those protesters on both sides of the issue get interviewed at different times by the very same news stations I mentioned above? Weren't "pro-war" and anti-war people given voices in the forum sections of newspapers, public opinion polls, and various interviews on the street throughout the course of the war...? Again, the issue is with the news stations broadcasting interviews and footage, not with the actors/actresses/musicians.

When the celebrities buy the news stations and radio waves and subject you to information and speeches against your will, then you might have an issue to take up with them. Until then, send your complaints to the operations manager at the local news station and the radio disc jockeys.

Seems to me entertainers have the 'right' to express their opinions publicly, as long as there is no contractual obligation to do otherwise. Taxpayers also have the 'right' to boycott their products and movies.

As much as I find the assertion that since someone is "overpaid" that they are no longer allowed to speak there mind utterly bewildering, I have another question.

In a supply and demand situation, ie the entertainment industry; how can someone be overpaid?

Please state which quote you're responding to. I don't like fishing.

[bold emphasis added]

[QUOTE=Abs like Jesus+Apr 11 2003, 05:50 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Abs like Jesus @ Apr 11 2003, 05:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--DaytonRocker]The celebrity's contribution to society is to basically be an overpaid and pampered court jester paid to entertain us. It ain't rocket science. They make their money by pretending to be something they are not.[/QUOTE]
[bold emphasis added][/QUOTE]
Thanks Abs. I kind of got it after reading through the posts again.



I don't think entertainers are overpaid. They are paid not just for the tangible work they do, but the illusion they represent. I suppose one could argue (on the basis of that illusion) that they shouldn't have a public opinion in politics. I still believe they have that right. On the other hand, perhaps when negotiating their contracts, future employers should take their personal beliefs into account, and draft them accordingly.

Abs, its an expression and the term used together is not the same as the two words seperately.

Why are you guys responding to off-topic issues like how much these guys are paid?

Bottom line is, they have a right to speak, and I have a right to voice my opinion by not going to their concerts, movies or whatever. Of course, being an American, my attention is short term and I will go back as soon as they shut their traps and aren't annoying me so much.

It's simply a way to quash dissent and critisism by going on the attack any time a celebrity voices an opinion. I'd much rather listen to a celebrity than the blow hards on Fox pontificate their idiotic opinions with such authority, yet all they seem to talk about is how angry they are about someone ELSES opinion. They use their bully pulpits to encourage boycotts and backlashes that should have been extinct when McArthyism ended.

Don't buy their music or watch their movies if their war/political opinions bother you so much. But could people please stop whining about how they hate the fact that they have opinions and that some might actually get a chance to voice them? At least put it in perspective.

If Barbara Streisand get's a full hour to disgust you with her idiotic opinions on a cable news channel I would expect loud and angry complaints. But when The Dixie Chick singer says one offhand sentence to her audience in France it's nothing to go postal over. That was completely blown out of proportion...as was the canceling of the Bull Durham movie. The guy in that did that is Reagan's old press secretary. It seems that some people can't seperate baseball from politics from entertainment but what else would one expect from a professional political spin doctor? He simply gave the views of Tim Robbins more press than he would have ever had at that engagement anyway.

If you kept that in the context I presented it, not really.

Of course celebrities aren't casting votes on the house floor for us. But our elected officials are casting their votes based on what their constituents want.

So, if you followed my premise before letting your eyes glaze over, you would see who the constituents are - the person with an 8th grade reading level and a penchant for "Rejection TV".

The celebrities are far more influential than they should be and it's true....that's not their fault. However, if they want to go on TV and says the war sucks, they become an activist...not just another person voicing their opinion.

And something very important to consider from this "Hollywood Basher" - I have listened to Susan Sarandon's view on this and agree with her 100%. The Dixie Chicks stated something many people are thinking and if I were from Texas, I'm not sure I could disagree.

But they have no right to have a louder voice than mine. Because they do have a louder voice, the consequences will be much greater and they deserve everything they get.

They have no right? That sounds thoroughly unamerican if you ask me. Everyone having the same voice is a much more communist approach to politics. The fact remains that people listen to them for whatever reasons and they have the right to say whatever they want. They could say that the Pyramids were built by space aliens for all I care. If you think that people are uneducated; why would you fault the people they follow. If people are too stupid to pay attention where you think they should your concern should be with educating those people; not with restricting the rights of others to compensate.

They are being educated...by the Susan Sarandon's of the world. Hence, my point.

But in terms of the backlash (which I though this topic was about, but I won't hide behind it if you wish to debate it further), they do deserve what they get for all the points I mentioned earlier. They're using a forum the average person doesn't have to sway the masses, and i think it's fair that the masses voice their opinions using the only means they have available.

Nice try ABS, but next time you decide to 'define' please define the term as it is used. Hats off to AMLORD for getting to the dictionary before I did.

As for the last sentence quoted, let us get one thing straight ABS. You are certainly free to disagree with any stance I take or opinion I express. However, you have no right to call someone, or their opinions, arrogant or ignorant. I don't believe I've ever posted anything crass and personal towards you, but I certainly can join in if that's what you'd like.

Try keeping what I say in context and perhaps you won't feel the need to play the wounded victim. Your statement implied that actors and actresses shouldn't be allowed to speak out unless they were entertaining you. I'll leave it up to personal opinion, but that's what I gather from: "Otherwise, just shut up and entertain me !"

As I've already pointed out, the actors, actresses and musicians aren't the only ones who get to speak out for or against political agendas through a public medium such as television or radio. You don't seem to have any issue with protesters or other professionals going on television and expressing their opinions, yet you take issue with actors and actresses because you feel their only purpose (at least taken from your statements) is to entertain you or shut up. Unfortunately, you don't own them.

To presume that because a person's profession is entertainment (or any other profession) that they shouldn't be allowed to speak out on other matters at times when they aren't being paid is arrogant and ignorant. It's arrogant because it presumes that by paying for their work you somehow own them. It's ignorant because it makes the presumption that somehow their participating in the entertainment industry strips them of their Constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

If you see it another way, say so and explain why. Perhaps you should have worded your original statement better, so as not to give the impression that you felt you had some kind of property rights over the opinions and actions of those in the entertainment industry. The wounded victim routine with idle threats isn't going to garner any sympathy from me, though.
[EDIT BELOW]
I've detailed precisely why I labeled the view arrogant and ignorant... rather than whine about it a second time, I might recommend defending your statement and perhaps explaining why you don't view it as arrogant or ignorant. Perhaps it was the lack of clarity in your original statement which prompted me to view your opinions on the matter as I did...

Not whining ABS, just pointing out the disrespect with which you're posting. Apparently you would prefer to let this deteriorate into some kind of personal verbal war. Since this doesn't seem to be that type of forum, I'll pass.

It seems to me that there is a good balance between the fact that celebrities have a stronger voice in society's debates and the fact that they run a greater risk by using this voice. Nobody is going to boycott my services because of my opinions. This is just one of the things that goes along with having money and power. Any attempt to silence such voices would require an extremely repressive society.

Should they be allowed to express their opinions openly? Sure. Should people be allowed to boycott their works because of these opinions? Sure.

I generally agree with your views, Dayton, but we still disagree here. If you have complaints about people with louder voices -- who aren't elected -- it seems you should also have complaints with the unelected representatives of newspapers, television and radio shows. None of the reporters or hosts of these forums has been elected, yet, as primary sources of news and information, their voice is considerably louder than yours. And when we take into consideration that these people are the ones behind the distribution of the celebrity messages, it seems they are the ones that "hollywood bashers" (I use the term lightly, btw) should be going after.

Nobody seems to scream or protest against the journalists, television correspondants or radio disc jockeys who present news and information from their own points of views. Nobody even screams or protests against them when they are doing nothing more than presenting their opinion of a subject. Yet somehow, perhaps solely because of their celebrity, actors, actresses and musicians receive special discrimination from Americans everywhere. I just personally find it rather silly and hypocritical. It seems to me that the real issue lies with the media outlets and their employees who do precisely the same thing as the celebrities and, furthermore, are in charge of how widely the opinion of a celebrity is distributed.

That's not exactly true. Out of all the talking heads on TV, it is rare (in my opinion) to catch a one sided debate (I know...there is no such thing....just making a point).

All of the big news views (Fox, PMSNBC, CNN, et al) are structured debate for the most part with at least two opposing views. This gets back to my point of why we don't allow a news show to interview Candidate R without giving Candidate D equal time. But when we click the remote and stay on that channel, we are generally looking for something.

Granted, Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage will rant about their lopsided views until the partisan masses hear what they need to hear . But their JOB is to be a one-sided blowhard....so everybody knows what to expect going in. I don't have a problem with that and generally agree with much of what they say. They are using the tools of their trade to do what they are paid to do.

However, the Susan Sarandons of the world are not using the tools of their trade to do their job. They are using the tools of their trade to do something they have no more right to then we do.

If they want to fill up our screen to tell us to watch their movie, that is their job and more power to them. If they want to fill up the screen to spout personal views, then so do I. If I can't, they shouldn't be able to either.

This isn't about restricting their right to free speech. I'd stand beside them protesting this invasion and occupation. But as an equal voice.

Yes, of course celebs have freedom of speech same as anybody else. But it is fully appropriate for the public to express their opinion back, and voting with the wallet is one legit way of doing so.

As for me, except in truly egregious cases, I choose my entertainers on how much I enjoy their performances, not their politics. Their fame gives them an opportunity for their opinions to be widely heard and I have no problem with that, but they still aren't any kind of authorities on anything but acting, and there's no need for me to take their silly opinions seriously... unless of course they make me really mad, and I don't get mad that easily.

Does what a celebrity carry more weight that the guy nursing a beer in a bar with a similar opinion? I'd say no. Nobody should listen to what a celebrity says merely because they are a celebrity. For all his passion about the subject I'm no more concerned about Tibet and the Dahli Lama than I was before Richard Gere fell in love with them.

Why should it be that a celebrity can't have an opinion? Because they make more money than most of us, an athlete or actor can't say, "Well gee, I'm not too crazy about a war in Iraq." Why should being elevated to a position where people listen to what you have to say mean that I have to care about what you have to say?

Additionally, why is it that it's the celebrities opposed to the war getting grief? I'm not for the war, but I'm not calling for a boycott of Bruce Willis flicks or Toby Keith CD's.

Dennis Miller is pro-Bush and pro-war. I thought Dennis Miller was a jerk before he shot off his mouth and now I've just got two more reasons to think he's a jerk.

You pays your money and make your choice. I think the real idiots are people who care what a celebrity says. If it echoes your own viewpoint that's well and good. But if it doesn't why get bent out of shape over it?

Where everyone thinks alike nobody thinks very much.

The tools of her trade, when last I looked, was acting. Being a celebrity isn't exactly a tool. If she were using the tools of her trade we'd see movies starring the Susan Sarandons and Tim Robbins vehemently opposing the war. I've seen Sarandon and Robbins both interviewed, but I believe they were invited by the news stations to be interviewed and asked about their positions on the war. Following the interview, I believe it was the decision of the news station (whatever medium) to air that opinion and precisely how much that opinion should be aired. They had no more say than the interviewed protester on the street as to how much time their interview was given on the air.

And nighttimer brings up a good point in the lack of opposition facing the Toby Kieth's and Bruce Willis' who are all for the war. Could not their voices be the balancing counterweight to the anti-war voices of celebrities?

Perhaps you feel they shouldn't be talking either, since as celebrities they're almost sure to get more air time than the average guy or gal on the street. But what about issues outside the war? Should we be uncomfortable when an actor or musician supports some other cause publicly...? Perhaps drilling for oil in Alaska. Or maybe they want equal rights for homosexuals to prevent them from being discriminated against. Maybe they want to support adoption over abortion... or maybe they want to oppose a fellow celebrity and support the freedom of choice, including abortion.

Celebrities are going to have opinions; they can't help it. Should their status as celebrities prevent them from speaking them? Once they're famous they can't really help the media attention they get. Often times they get more than they really care for. The only way you're going to keep them from having a louder voice than you -- on any subject -- is to somehow persuade the media to quit giving them so much attention. And if that doesn't work, I suppose you'll just have to ignore them.

The people who post on this forum are expressing opinions which are read by hundreds of people - giving them a wider audience than Joe Schmoe who has no internet connection and three friends. Should, then, those of us posting only be allowed to post within the areas of our own knowledge and expertise? If I am an auto mechanic should I only post in threads about fixing cars? GW Bush had no experience in politics when he became governor. Why should anyone listen to him? Why aren't all politicians political scientists?

Each of us has the right to speak our minds, and furthermore, our specialization does not in any way preclude our having important things to say in areas outside our field of study. Bill Gates has a louder voice than I do, more people will hear his opinions than mine. And that is only because he is very wealthy and successful. Yet when I hear people complain about this whole tired Hollywood thing, there seems to be some extra disgust and vitriol in it. But the question should not be, "why should we care what these idiots think," it should be, "why shouldn't we care?" Is there something about being a Hollywood celebrity that precludes being smart? Being informed? Being interested in the world outside of making movies? Either agree or don't, just don't get your shorts in a twist about it!

I can see why people have a problem with celebrities using their fame to spread their political opinions - as Michael Moore did at the Oscars, for instance - but there is nothing that can legitmiately be done about it. Freedom of Speech is a basic tenet of modern representative / democratic government, and I for one am utterly unwilling to have it curtailed any further. If you don't like a celebrity's opinions, then I'm afraid all you can do is turn over and don't buy their products.

The real question we need to ask is why we are asking for the opinions of these celebrities. Of course, some of them are just running around spouting off their views without being asked, but on every show, these celebrities are being asked their views on the war. Talk show hosts and interviewers know that this is what people want to know; it gets them ratings and sells magazines.

I personally don't much care if a celebrity wants to make these things their personal cause. If it is their thing, they can do whatever they want. However, they have to handle any repercussions there might be as well. For instance, Sean Penn is suing a director, saying he was fired from a movie due to his political views. That director has just as much right to fire him as Penn does to express his views to the public. The director may have disagreed with his political views, felt he would hurt ticket sales to the movie, or had a completely different motive for the firing. It is completely up to them to use whatever actor they want to. If Penn wants to stand out and be outspoken, he has to be willing to face any consequences for his actions. I disagreed with Bill Maher, but I can at least respect the fact that he didn't sue ABC over his show's cancellation.

The only thing I ask is that celebrities take the time and learn the issue before spouting off publicly. I've seen too many quotes from celebrities on both sides of the debate who had obviously not been paying a lot of attention.

I disagree with many conservative celebs like Charleton Heston, Tom Selleck, Awwnold and Mel Gibson. Still enjoy their movies though. Cant beat the Omega Man.

It is amusing to see conservatives so upset by liberal celebrities speaking their mind. Personally i dont pay attention to celebrities, watch Oprah, Bill OReilly or read the National Enquirer but clearly someone must be doing it. I guess Im secure enough in my political beliefs that i dont worry about what celebrities (conservative or liberal) say about anything. Most majored in drama anyway, if that.