"Hollywood" doesn't understand the First Amendment

Whoopi Goldberg was on MSNBC's "Hardball" on Friday, January 14, demonstrating her lack of understanding of free speech and the First Amendment. Asked why celebrities threaten to leave the country if their candidate of choice -- usually the Democrat -- doesn't win an election, she responded:

"Because you get the feeling, as we've seen—I mean, look at what happened to Linda Ronstadt. Linda Ronstadt said she liked a movie. And the people who came to see her went berserk. They have taken to task many people for saying how they feel about different situations in the country. And the general feeling, I think, with a lot of people who are outspoken about what they think and feel is the idea that, somehow, we're going to be shut down, that it's no longer the American way to be able to express dissonance against your country, against the policies. And that's always been one of the great things that we have been able to do, is to say what we feel or what we think without fear of reprisal from the government. And it's—we‘ve gotten to a place in the country where people are not sure that that‘s still the case."

Whoopi apparently understands that it is fear of repisal from the government that the First Amendment protects against, but she chose a poor example to make her point. It was not the government who tried to stifle Linda Ronstadt after she dedicated an encore to Michael Moore, but the patrons who reacted with passion, and her immediate employer who took swift action. The casino had to gauge what was in its business interests, and chose to terminate Ronstadt's engagement. Michael Moore responded to the incident with the same lack of understanding of free speech, brandishing the First Amendment and calling the casino's actions "un-American." But the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Nothing these people complained of was related to government action to suppress their speech.

So it is with many celebrities. They confuse a negative reaction by the public at large to their political statements as suppression of their right to free speech, when that is not at all the case. Celebrities have every right to say what they wish, but the people who ultimately pay their bloated salaries -- regular citizens -- have the same right to criticize the celebrities for those statements, and even organize boycotts if they choose. That is not suppressing free speech; it is free speech at its most vibrant.

Tim Robbins spoke in April 2003 at the National Press Club, and said, ironically, that "allow[ing] those rights [to disagree with and criticize politicians] 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." Limit access in the news media? He's at the National Press Club, for crying out loud!

Robbins' wife, Susan Sarandon, occasionally wears her squelching of speech with which she disagrees as a badge of honor. This article notes that "[i]n 2000, Sarandon was actively involved in getting Dr. Laura Schlessinger's TV program canceled, due to Dr. Schlessinger's conservative agenda." Sarandon is quoted as saying that while Dr. Laura has a right to her opinions, Sarandon is "totally against wasting the airwaves to giving visibility to a person who is clearly in dire need of compassion, education, and a good shrink herself." Apparently Dr. Laura does not have the same right to express her views as Whoopi Goldberg and Michael Moore believe is due to celebrities, namely, expression without consequence in the free market.

Ah, free speech. It allows people to be ill-informed in public.