Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins have been quite vocal on the fact that they feel that their, and others in Hollywood are being denied their First Ammendment (US) rights to freedom of speech.

Simple poll, yes they are, no they are not.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 22 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: Are celebrities being denied freedom of speech? (22 votes.)

Are US celebrities being denied freedom of speech? (Choose 1)
* Yes - 32% (7)
* No - 68% (15)

There is no requirement that celebrities be allowed an open forum to express their various opinions as to whatever topic is at hand. They can say what they want to whom they want, but they do not have to be invited to the party. There is no more of an entitlement for celebrities to air their opinions to the world through the media than there is for garbage collectors to air theirs. It's simply a question of what the media will print/televise.

That being said, the whole Baseball Hall of Fame thing was just plain stupid. They should have been told that the event was for purposes of honoring baseball and, if they could come without dredging up politics, they were welcome. Then let them make the decision.

Public backlash is not, and will never (but sometimes should) be considered denying someone their right to free speech. If the government threw them in jail for what they said, then yes. But that's not the case, especially with those two self-important yutzes.

I love their movies and respect them as actors, but they are just that - actors. They get paid their millions for their movies, are driven home in their limos to their million dollar mansions, hop private jets overseas to ***** about the government, and insist that their "status" gives them more credibility than the rest of us. They would rather rant and rave and get their names in the papers (which is working quite nicely) than run for public office and attempt to make real change. I mean come on - who'd want to switch careers, spending 60 hours a week making phone calls, pushing for new laws and making real change, when you can spend 2 hours a week in front of a camera flashing peace signs, doing interviews talking about "all I want is for people not to die...is that so wrong?" I mean, that would interfere with shooting for the next "Dune" TV movie, or the "Shawshank Redemption 2: Revenge of the Big Scary Group-raping Queres."

I think they're just out to further their careers, plain and simple. They're whining about their precious 1st amendment rights being trampled (which they aren't even close) to kick up ticket sales for their next movies, period.

Someone like Darkwolf or Mathetais can correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of the U.S. Constitution is this: The document is designed to limit the ability of the government to interfere the everyday lives of citizens. That's why the principal of checks and balances is so important and stressed. That said, the First Amendment is designed to prevent the GOVERNMENT from taking action against someone for things they may say that said government may not agree with.

With me so far? OK. The government also has a responsibility to ensure that individual actions do not infringe on the rights of others. That means that if I throw a punch at someone (let's say, for example's sake, my filthy animal of a mother-in-law) because she says something I don't like about the government, even if the government agrees with me that what she said was wrong or unfair, that government will prosecute me for assault -- correct?

Has anyone engaged in any CRIMINAL action against these actors? I'd like to see the law that says that everyone HAS to listen to what they have to say. I'd like to see the laws that say that the networks HAVE to air their views. Such laws would, to my mind, be an infringement of the rights of those networks or event organizers.

Therefore, if the government is not penalizing these actors, and individuals who disagree with them are not performing criminal acts in their negative response to said actors' comments, no freedom of speech is being infringed upon, and they should shut up!

Rabbit said
They would rather rant and rave and get their names in the papers (which is working quite nicely) than run for public office and attempt to make real change. Fred Thompson did it! Oh, wait, he is a conservative, he doesn't count. :o

Sorry Rabbit, I couldn't resist! ;)

Touche', Darkwolf. :) Now Fred Thompson I get. He's paid his dues as a public servant and as far as I'm concerned he can rant all he wants. His opinion is credible, despite his new full-time career. He knows the law and the constitution better than the afore mentioned yutzes combined.

Death Rabbit,

He, he, Darkwolf, I see you've proven your ability to find the hottest issue, which surely turns into a heated debate once again :D

I think celebrities usually use their celibrity-status to further a cause which seems to be important to them. Liz Taylor and HIV, Micheal Jackson and ... children, Paul Maccartney and animal-protection .... etc. etc.

And a lot of celebrities made it into politics, Ronald Regean, Sony Bono, George Bush (the son of the George Bush), Charlton Heston (the NRA is a political organisation). I actually can't wait to see Eminem in office.

So, now, the hot potatoe, yes, their free speech has be infringed. And the problem with the first amendment is, that dear old Jimmy Madison could not have known that there'll be something like TV. And if he knew about Fox News, he would have propably said, thanks, I stay British. (And would have made it clear, that prisoners shall not be transportet to Australia, because some Australian (a certain one) is a real pain in the ass.)

Anyway, those who are so proud of the 1st amendment, I can't stand these "contains explicit lyrics and profanity" sticker on CD's. I think this is a unbounded cheek (i looked that up) and an infringment of 1st amemndment rights.

Nice oxymoron in your first post Darkwolf

...quite vocal on the fact that they feel that their, and others in Hollywood are being denied their First Amendment (US) rights to freedom of speech How could they be "quite vocal" on the subject if their "rights to freedom of speech" were being compromised? Last time I checked, the Dixie Chicks were still free, Tim Robbins had a press conference to talk about his "ill wind", and Eddie Vedar (along with the remaining 14 Pearl Jam fans) were enjoying coffee at Starbucks.
Yes, the Baseball Hall of Fame chose not to show Bull Durham. That organization is not government sponsored and is free to choose what it does with its events.
Yes, many people have boycotted the Dixie Chicks, even had public burning of their albums (aka Sean Hannity). Again, not government sponsored.
It's not oppression, its consequences...and its high time that the left wing began to face the consequences of its actions.

Those stickers do not infringe on free speech in any way. They warn parents about the material their kids may be listening to. The government also has the right to comment on things like that, and parents have the right to influence / discipline their kids up until 18 years of age. Now, if the records were banned outright, THAT would be a freedom of speech issue. Once again, banning the stickers would actually be a freedom of speech violation.

As for actors, some of them have valid points, but their status as an actor does not equal knowledge of world affairs. They MAY be knowledgable(sic), but doing a good job in Stepmom does not equal being an expert on foreign affairs. That good job in the movie certainly doesn't force networks to air her views, or event sponsors to invite her to their soirees.

@ Darkwolf
Death Rabbit, Yes, Darkwolf? :p

As mentioned above, the question as to whether a First Amendment Right is being infringed upon begins with:

Q: Is the government acting?

If the answer is no, then THAT'S THE END OF THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH/FIRST AMENDMENT STORY. Now, maybe you wish to protest that it isn't right that ordinary people get to exercise their rights or that they choose to exercise their rights in a perfectly legal manner but however you go about it, you aren't talking about the freedom to speak anymore - you are talking about something else.

Also, why is it that people assume that the anger with artists like the Dixie Chicks is a result of their being against the war and saying so. IIRC, their comments that drew fire were something to the effect of, 'Bush is an embarassment' which is hardly a well thought out and articulate stance against the war. Likewise, iirc, Pearl Jam featured 'Bush on a stick' in a mocking manner. Other celebrities have spoken out against the war in a more reasoned manner and the response has been.....nothing. For example,Nicolas Cage spoke against the war and I haven't heard a peep. So, why is it that those who believe there is a violation of some right portray the speech that the 'common folk' protest as if it was well reasoned debate - the speech drawing the ire of the public seems often to be hyperbolic insults.

If you think there is a right being violated I'd ask: What right, and support please.

I like it! Good conversation, no one attacking anyone. This is what it is about! :cool:

Sorry Death Rabbit, I was going to rib you about Thompson being in favor of the war. I think you were against it, weren't you? Sorry if I am wrong. I wrote it, started to re-write it because it wasn't funny, then decided to pull the ripcord, I guess I broke my legs on the landing. :o

Anyway here I go, and let the flames begin.

Hollywood celebs have absolutely NOT had their rights trampled. Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon were not violated in any manner by the baseball hall of fame. The 1st Amendment does not provide for any forum for you to express yourself, it only protects you from the government persecuting you.

There are consequences for our actions. Private individuals are free to show their displeasure with others by not associating with them. Business may terminate employees for speaking negatively about their companies. Political correctness has tried to eliminate these consequences, and that is wrong. It interferes with my freedom of expression. I am free to express my dislike of Robbins/Sarandon by not buying Bull Durham on DVD, (which I was going to do before Sarandon popped off). That is my form of expression. The MLB Hall of Fame is free to cancel their speaking engagement if they wish to. It is a 2-edged sword though, as the Hall has to face the consequences of that action. So all of you who disagree with this decision, stop crying foul, (pun, get it! :D ) cancel your trip to the MLB Hall of Fame, and go buy all of Robbins and Sarandon's DVDs, show your support, quite whining! :p

Freedom of expression does not equal freedom from consequences for what you express. It simply can't without blocking other's freedoms of expression.

I notice nobody's touching Martin Sheen, so I will.

He, his crusafix and ductape can go to the catholic hell they came from, if he finds it doesen't exist i'll create it just for him.

so no, not only are they not being denied thier freedom of speech, some are abusing it.

also i think Susan Saranwrap is a crappy actress, go Angles & long live MLB.

Greenlion,

I think it is funny that Martin and Charlie's Visa ad got pulled. I can just imagine that phone call.

"Dad, what the **** are you doing", Martin, "Son there comes a time in every man's life when he has to take a stand for the American People. I may not be re-elected next term, but I will go into retirement knowing that I did what was best for the people of the US, even if they don't realize it", Charlie "What the **** are you talking about, how many times do I have to remind you, you are not the president you *******! Do you have Alzheimer’s or what old man? Do you realize how much time at the local whorehouse... I mean how much cocaine... I mean how much money you just cost me!?" Martin, "Son you know as well as I do that war is hell, I mean we both spent time in Vietnam, me on that boat headed up the river and you getting stoned with Dafoe, I just hate seeing my soldiers going through that!" Charlie, "Crap, and you guys thought I needed an intervention, lay off the anti-depressants and the viagra for a while Pop, or you are going to be dead before you can destroy the rest of my inheritance!" :D ;) :p

[ April 17, 2003, 03:56: Message edited by: Darkwolf ]

:lol: DarkWolf i think i might love you :lol:


Thank You

Too funny, Darkwolf -- that makes up for your dead post a few posts up.

Question, though -- what's up with the Sheens? I have no idea what Greenlion was talking about when he mentioned the crusafix and duct tape -- please elucidate or post a link!

They are not denied their freedom to express their opinion in public. But what they really complain about IMHO is the consequences these statements had to their work. Ok if you believe something and you say it out loud you must accept the consequences good or bad otherwise you make a joke of yourshelf. Isn't that right; :confused:

I think the reference to the First Amendment takes this discussion off track. The complaints I've heard attributed to them (not that I've been paying too much attention, mind you) have not been about government interference with free speech for the most part, but about an increasing unwillingness in America to hear or tolerate dissenting voices. And I think they are exactly right on this front. Sure, people have a right not to listen to people who disagree with them, but it's not a particularly admirable choice to make. It defeats the spirit, if not the letter of the law, of the principles of free speech and goes back to the ghetto mentality Yago brought up. Not listening to those who don't share your biases makes it much harder to have meaningful dialogue.

Here is the speech by Tim Robbins that seems to be getting the bad press lately. I thought it was a pretty damn good speech, myself - so much so that I can almost forgive him for being such a pinko. ;)

'A Chill Wind is Blowing in This Nation...'
Transcript of the speech given by actor Tim Robbins to the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 15, 2003.

TIM ROBBINS: Thank you. And thanks for the invitation. I had originally been asked here to talk about the war and our current political situation, but I have instead chosen to hijack this opportunity and talk about baseball and show business. (Laughter.) Just kidding. Sort of.

I can't tell you how moved I have been at the overwhelming support I have received from newspapers throughout the country in these past few days. I hold no illusions that all of these journalists agree with me on my views against the war. While the journalists' outrage at the cancellation of our appearance in Cooperstown is not about my views, it is about my right to express these views. I am extremely grateful that there are those of you out there still with a fierce belief in constitutionally guaranteed rights. We need you, the press, now more than ever. This is a crucial moment for all of us.

For all of the ugliness and tragedy of 9-11, there was a brief period afterward where I held a great hope, in the midst of the tears and shocked faces of New Yorkers, in the midst of the lethal air we breathed as we worked at Ground Zero, in the midst of my children's terror at being so close to this crime against humanity, in the midst of all this, I held on to a glimmer of hope in the naive assumption that something good could come out of it.

I imagined our leaders seizing upon this moment of unity in America, this moment when no one wanted to talk about Democrat versus Republican, white versus black, or any of the other ridiculous divisions that dominate our public discourse. I imagined our leaders going on television telling the citizens that although we all want to be at Ground Zero, we can't, but there is work that is needed to be done all over America. Our help is needed at community centers to tutor children, to teach them to read. Our work is needed at old-age homes to visit the lonely and infirmed; in gutted neighborhoods to rebuild housing and clean up parks, and convert abandoned lots to baseball fields. I imagined leadership that would take this incredible energy, this generosity of spirit and create a new unity in America born out of the chaos and tragedy of 9/11, a new unity that would send a message to terrorists everywhere: If you attack us, we will become stronger, cleaner, better educated, and more unified. You will strengthen our commitment to justice and democracy by your inhumane attacks on us. Like a Phoenix out of the fire, we will be reborn.

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.

In the 19 months since 9-11, we have seen our democracy compromised by fear and hatred. Basic inalienable rights, due process, the sanctity of the home have been quickly compromised in a climate of fear. A unified American public has grown bitterly divided, and a world population that had profound sympathy and support for us has grown contemptuous and distrustful, viewing us as we once viewed the Soviet Union, as a rogue state.

This past weekend, Susan and I and the three kids went to Florida for a family reunion of sorts. Amidst the alcohol and the dancing, sugar-rushing children, there was, of course, talk of the war. And the most frightening thing about the weekend was the amount of times we were thanked for speaking out against the war because that individual speaking thought it unsafe to do so in their own community, in their own life. Keep talking, they said; I haven't been able to open my mouth.

A relative tells me that a history teacher tells his 11-year-old son, my nephew, that Susan Sarandon is endangering the troops by her opposition to the war. Another teacher in a different school asks our niece if we are coming to the school play. They're not welcome here, said the molder of young minds.

Another relative tells me of a school board decision to cancel a civics event that was proposing to have a moment of silence for those who have died in the war because the students were including dead Iraqi civilians in their silent prayer.

A teacher in another nephew's school is fired for wearing a T- shirt with a peace sign on it. And a friend of the family tells of listening to the radio down South as the talk radio host calls for the murder of a prominent anti-war activist. Death threats have appeared on other prominent anti-war activists' doorsteps for their views. Relatives of ours have received threatening e-mails and phone calls. And my 13-year-old boy, who has done nothing to anybody, has recently been embarrassed and humiliated by a sadistic creep who writes -- or, rather, scratches his column with his fingernails in dirt.

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.)

Two weeks ago, the United Way canceled Susan's appearance at a conference on women's leadership. And both of us last week were told that both we and the First Amendment were not welcome at the Baseball Hall of Fame.

A famous middle-aged rock-and-roller called me last week to thank me for speaking out against the war, only to go on to tell me that he could not speak himself because he fears repercussions from Clear Channel. "They promote our concert appearances," he said. "They own most of the stations that play our music. I can't come out against this war."

And here in Washington, Helen Thomas finds herself banished to the back of the room and uncalled on after asking Ari Fleischer whether our showing prisoners of war at Guantanamo Bay on television violated the Geneva Convention.

A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications.

Every day, the air waves are filled with warnings, veiled and unveiled threats, spewed invective and hatred directed at any voice of dissent. And the public, like so many relatives and friends that I saw this weekend, sit in mute opposition and fear.

I am sick of hearing about Hollywood being against this war. Hollywood's heavy hitters, the real power brokers and cover-of-the- magazine stars, have been largely silent on this issue. But Hollywood, the concept, has always been a popular target.

I remember when the Columbine High School shootings happened. President Clinton criticized Hollywood for contributing to this terrible tragedy -- this, as we were dropping bombs over Kosovo. Could the violent actions of our leaders contribute somewhat to the violent fantasies of our teenagers? Or is it all just Hollywood and rock and roll?

I remember reading at the time that one of the shooters had tried to enlist to fight the real war a week before he acted out his war in real life at Columbine. I talked about this in the press at the time. And curiously, no one accused me of being unpatriotic for criticizing Clinton. In fact, the same radio patriots that call us traitors today engaged in daily personal attacks on their president during the war in Kosovo.

Today, prominent politicians who have decried violence in movies -- the "Blame Hollywooders," if you will -- recently voted to give our current president the power to unleash real violence in our current war. They want us to stop the fictional violence but are okay with the real kind.

And these same people that tolerate the real violence of war don't want to see the result of it on the nightly news. Unlike the rest of the world, our news coverage of this war remains sanitized, without a glimpse of the blood and gore inflicted upon our soldiers or the women and children in Iraq. Violence as a concept, an abstraction -- it's very strange.

As we applaud the hard-edged realism of the opening battle scene of "Saving Private Ryan," we cringe at the thought of seeing the same on the nightly news. We are told it would be pornographic. We want no part of reality in real life. We demand that war be painstakingly realized on the screen, but that war remain imagined and conceptualized in real life.

And in the midst of all this madness, where is the political opposition? Where have all the Democrats gone? Long time passing, long time ago. (Applause.) With apologies to Robert Byrd, I have to say it is pretty embarrassing to live in a country where a five-foot- one comedian has more guts than most politicians. (Applause.) We need leaders, not pragmatists that cower before the spin zones of former entertainment journalists. We need leaders who can understand the Constitution, congressman who don't in a moment of fear abdicate their most important power, the right to declare war to the executive branch. And, please, can we please stop the congressional sing-a- longs? (Laughter.)

In this time when a citizenry applauds the liberation of a country as it lives in fear of its own freedom, when an administration official releases an attack ad questioning the patriotism of a legless Vietnam veteran running for Congress, when people all over the country fear reprisal if they use their right to free speech, it is time to get angry. It is time to get fierce. And it doesn't take much to shift the tide. My 11-year-old nephew, mentioned earlier, a shy kid who never talks in class, stood up to his history teacher who was questioning Susan's patriotism. "That's my aunt you're talking about. Stop it." And the stunned teacher backtracks and began stammering compliments in embarrassment.

Sportswriters across the country reacted with such overwhelming fury at the Hall of Fame that the president of the Hall admitted he made a mistake and Major League Baseball disavowed any connection to the actions of the Hall's president. A bully can be stopped, and so can a mob. It takes one person with the courage and a resolute voice.

The journalists in this country can battle back at those who would rewrite our Constitution in Patriot Act II, or "Patriot, The Sequel," as we would call it in Hollywood. We are counting on you to star in that movie. Journalists can insist that they not be used as publicists by this administration. (Applause.) The next White House correspondent to be called on by Ari Fleischer should defer their question to the back of the room, to the banished journalist du jour. (Applause.) And any instance of intimidation to free speech should be battled against. Any acquiescence or intimidation at this point will only lead to more intimidation. You have, whether you like it or not, an awesome responsibility and an awesome power: the fate of discourse, the health of this republic is in your hands, whether you write on the left or the right. This is your time, and the destiny you have chosen.

We lay the continuance of our democracy on your desks, and count on your pens to be mightier. Millions are watching and waiting in mute frustration and hope - hoping for someone to defend the spirit and letter of our Constitution, and to defy the intimidation that is visited upon us daily in the name of national security and warped notions of patriotism.

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. These are challenging times. There is a wave of hate that seeks to divide us -- right and left, pro-war and anti-war. In the name of my 11-year-old nephew, and all the other unreported victims of this hostile and unproductive environment of fear, let us try to find our common ground as a nation. Let us celebrate this grand and glorious experiment that has survived for 227 years. To do so we must honor and fight vigilantly for the things that unite us -- like freedom, the First Amendment and, yes, baseball. (Applause.)

@ Darkwolf

I think you were against it, weren't you?Nope. For it. Cautiously for it, but still for it. I questioned the timing and the delivery, but not the cause, intent or importance.

That is quite the speech, Sprite! And I'm willing to agree that it is sad that there are intolerant people kicking around America. But I don't think that bringing up the First Amendment derails the topic at all. When Freedom of Speech is invoked in America, they are invoking the 1st Amendment. And my point stands in spite of Tim's skillful speech -- no one is forced to listen to his views. It might be better for them if they did, but there is no forced listening to any wing of thought in America. Also, the idea that only right wingers don't listen to the other side with open minds is ludicrous. Every time I watch CNN's Crossfire, that left wing guy is always interrupting and shouting down the other side -- like he ever listens!

Going to a slightly different freedom, I'm going to bring up Freedom of Assembly. When we are talking about the private sphere (my house, a private function, etc) Freedom of Assembly also implies that you can choose WHO you assemble with, and that means that you can exclude people. That includes people who have views you disagree with. Those people can call you all sorts of names, but they cannot infringe on your right to choose who you will associate with.

Sprite,

This is the part of Robbins speech that infers that his first amendment rights are being trampled:

A chill wind is blowing in this nation. A message is being sent through the White House and its allies in talk radio and Clear Channel and Cooperstown. If you oppose this administration, there can and will be ramifications. The implication is that the government is using the media to discourage free speech. That would be unconstitutional. If Robbins makes statements like this without backing them up, his credibility is shot. If he has evidence of colusion, bring it forward or else knock it off. If the ramifications are not based upon pressure from the government, then too bad! You can't expect to be able to go out a say whatever you want without expecting anyone to react to it. They expect you to react when they ask for support of their agendas, but to just ignore them if you don't. Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. War illicites strong reactions, if you don't want to face those, stay away from the topic. Hollywood should stick with charities and arts, things that they also know nothing about, but at least no one cares!

Personally, I think he is just stunned by the response. I think that he and the rest of Hollywierd have displaced their own feelings on the rest of the nation. Because of their celebrity, and the fact that they have too many "yes men" around them, they can't understand how they could be part of a minority on this.

Depaara, you infected me with Churchill quotes ;) :" The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter". Reporters have the duty to inform the people with the information they need to base their decisions on them. If one viewpoint gets beaten up, there's a whole piece of the needed information lost.

There's a legal saying:" agere in fraudem legis". It means something like:" Follow the words of the law, but break it's spirit".

The 1st amendment speaks about interferrence with free speech through the goverment. Maybe the goverments today have more subtle means to interfere free speech then they had in the 18th century.

Just a pure fictional fairy-tale (I really mean fictional, I don't want to imply anything. Just play with a possibility), based on Dick Cheney: The Vice-President is the former ceo of a huge company. A news-channel is dependent on the advertisments it gets from this company. The company now demands, that the news-channel only reports "good" about the goverment. The management of the news-channel decides, they will from now on support the goverment 100% and will never disagree with it. Reporters who do so, get fired.

So, the goverment has found a hidden way to interfere with freedom of speech. Vice-President-Company-News-Channel. It has followed the wording of the 1st amendment, but broke it's spirit.

Funny little example, there! But like everyone else, the government and those in it are entitled to the assumption of innocence. In other words, as Darkwolf said, proof is necessary, and there is no proof, just assertions that the rights have been broken. Tim and Susan and the Dixie Sluts can all walk free -- there are no police tailing them, they have not been thrown in jail for their comments. There has yet to be an assault on them that they have reported to the proper authorities that has been ignored. They have not been lynched or tarred and feathered. If they can find a free citizen or corporation who wishes to let them use broadcasting equipment, they will be able to say what they want, as they have up until now, without a governnment agent censoring what they say. They can whine about the fact that a good chunk of the population doesn't agree with them, but public disagreement does not equal infringed rights.

So until they can prove criminal behaviour on the part of either the government or any private citizen, they should shut up.

As for reporters having a moral duty to report all sides, you must be joking! There are left and right wing newspapers -- I'm sure that the "Village Voice" will be giving Tim and Susan and all the rest lots of coverage. The primary goal of all reporters and news companies (not just American ones) is to sell papers (or ratings in electronic media -- you get my point) and if you think they will ever get rid of slant, well, you're wrong! They'll write from a perspective that appeals to their audience. And they have NO LEGAL REQUIREMENT to print what Tim says just because he is an actor.

I've written lots of letters to the editor that didn't get published. They chose not to. My freedoms were certainly not infringed by that -- making that argument dilutes the severity of those people who have had real infringements of their rights occur.

[ April 17, 2003, 23:17: Message edited by: Depaara ]

As for reporters having a moral duty to report all sides, you must be joking! No, I am deeply convinced that this is a duty of a reporter who deserves to be called a "reporter".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/editorial/prodgl/chapter2.shtml

Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it. All BBC programmes and services should show open-mindedness, fairness and a respect for truth.

The BBC is committed to providing programmes of great diversity which reflect the full range of audiences’ interests, beliefs and perspectives.
In order to achieve that range, the BBC is free to make programmes about any subject it chooses, and to make programmes which explore, or are presented from, a particular point of view.

The BBC applies due impartiality to all its broadcasting and services, both to domestic and international audiences.

In achieving due impartiality the term "due" is to be interpreted as meaning adequate or appropriate to the nature of the subject and the type of programme. There are generally more than two sides to any issue and impartiality in factual programmes may not be achieved simply by mathematical balance in which each view is complemented by an equal and opposing one.
Concerning papers: Yes, there is something like a yellow press. Let's say, the pictures are nice sometimes. And I think the concept of a newspaper with a right tendency or a left tendency ok. But these tendencies shouldn't be permitted to distort truthful information. I think the quote above states my opinion about and conception of a good newspaper. If it does not fit it, it's not worth buying it. And when I am confronted with a newspaper that does not reach the standard of reporting I expect of a newspaper, I say it sux.

Sprite, I understand where you are coming from but I completely disagree that the spirit of the First Amendment is being undermined. The concern of the founders was to protect against governmental intrusion and that was it. They were tremendously concerned about the power of the government and sought to limit it. The ability to publicly criticize the government, and others, was cherished.

Also, I do think that there is selective outrage. For example, when John Rocker was disciplined by his workplace, in a harsher manner than any of the celebs discussed above have been, the people who are outraged now were nowhere to be found then. As a matter of fact, they seemed to jump on the anti-John Rocker bandwagon.

Still, I can't help but feel a great deal of the outrage at the publics reaction is largely due to the fact that the public is protesting statements that those upset agree with or advance and has little to nothing to do with concerns over free speech. Free speech for me and not for you.