Blacklist Hollywood? Yes? No? Maybe so?

As we are all well aware, there have been a sizable number of celebrity's that have taken up political and social views over the years, and things are really starting to boil over now with a pending war in Iraq.

IN fact, probably the ones doing most of the fighting right now on this issue are Celebrity's in the public forum, and as such, this is causing many to fight back.

To the point now, that as this NewsStory shows, that things have only gotten more political and more fractious with the issue of Celebrity's and politics.

What do you all think?

FOr the record, I maintain an active list of actors and producers and directors whose work I will not see, and whom I will not support any sponsorship of any products they are associated with. If half the country feels the same way and choses to do so, that is our perrogative. I don't see it as a black list on my part, I see it as my refusal to support any such activists, or give them any form of a soap box to stand on to trumpet their issues.

I will post the entire story once someone else does, to get around the "No using News Story's to lead a thread" rule.

 

It's just a way for many actors and entertainers to attack people who disagree with them.

No one is seriously maintaining that they cannot speak their mind.

 

A personal blacklist is one that I have no issue with. However, doesn't a blacklist instituted by the government like the one implemented in the 1950's ruin the concept of America's oft mentioned first amendment?

Getting half of America to ignore them wouldn't make a smack of difference. You'd have to get more then half of the entire world's movie and television viewing public to ignore them.

Then you'd be hurting other people who would also lose their jobs because these major stars would be gone (personal assistants and so forth).

It's not possible simply because the media thrives on visible controversy and actors speaking out against the current government fills that slot nicely.

Instead why don't you use your freedom of speech rules. You'd hate it if someone banned you from speaking in public because of the views that you expressed and isn't that essentially what you want to do to these people? Instead why don't you let them talk and just ignore them, as most of the world is doing.

Kithera

Edit: Spelling and I don't mix.

 

Rush addressed this on today's broadcast:

I think one of the things that's at work here is that SAG is trying to set the stage to cover their bases and protect people in case of the almost certain negative fallout from their comments.

For example, the West Wing...is not doing all that well in the ratings, not nearly as well as it has done, and I suspect, given the frequency with which Martin Sheen speaks out, it's going to continue to lose audience. At some point, NBC is going to start taking a look at this and wondering whether or not they want this guy to serve another term.

I agree with this assessment. I think a lot of these celebrities are starting to realize that there's going to be some consequences for their careers and so they're trying to create a self-fulfilling prophesy by warning of an imaginary "blacklist" of anti-Bush entertainers and then saying "See, it's just like we said would happen!" when their movies and TV shows tank as a result of the public not liking them.

 

I agree with that, Kit.

I think what annoys most people (and me) about actors, is not that they speak their mind...but that they are SO MONOLITHICALLY in favor of the Democrat Party.

I mean...is there something in the water in Hollywood?

 

I've never really take a celebraty serious outside their art form.

They have their right to voice their opinion just as I do mine. However with that being said I think most of the celebraties who are voicing out against this war are mis-informed, and a bit borderline moronic when it comes to some like Madonna.

However we don't need another repeat of the blacklisting that was going on in the 1950's in hollywood. Lots of peoples lives were ruined over that whole paranoia mess. I've researched it and it's mind boggling what people considered a Communist to be back then.

However I want to take a cheap shot at one celeb and that is Jane Fonda. First Vietnam and I believe Iraq as well. Her actions during the Vietnam war was totally un-American.

 

"However we don't need another repeat of the blacklisting that was going on in the 1950's in hollywood. "

I agree...but there is very little, if any, evidence that this is taking place in the present day.

 

Isn't this thread redundant? There's another Hollywood thread (with Madonna's name plastered on it) floating around here somewhere... I'm sure of it.

Blacklist/boycott whomever you deem [un]worthy. That's your loss. I'd be curious to see how loyal you would remain to that list if George Lucas came out against your opinions.

Bottom line is this: If they (as celebrities) have an opinion they feel needs to be conveyed, they should be (and are) free to give it voice. Likewise, if you believe that this person's opinion conflict with your way of life to the point that you refuse to have anything to do with them, you are free to do so.

However, consider the reasons behind your actions. Do you really think your boycott is going to change their opinions? Are you boycotting them in the hopes of cause malaise, perhaps even financially, because of what they believe?

Isn't that a little petty?

 

The fact is that many leftist celebrities have suffered in their careers due to their political agendas.

See Jane Fonda.

See Alec Baldwin.

See George Clooney.

See Barbara Streisand.

 

However, consider the reasons behind your actions. Do you really think your boycott is going to change their opinions? Are you boycotting them in the hopes of cause malaise, perhaps even financially, because of what they believe?

Isn't that a little petty?

Most boycotts that come from philosophical reasons aren't to cause harm, but to keep the organization/person being boycotted from having the resources to support the disliked idea.

If an artist is using money that they have earned (in part because of my patronage) to support a cause I dislike, then the best way I can cut off that suppoy of money is to stop providing that money to the artist. Hence, the purpose of a boycot. It is not "petty", but an attempt to cut off indirect funds for such a cause.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I wouldn't say Clooney's suffered in his career; he got $20 million for Solaris. The others, I agree with. Particularly Jane Fonda.

 

Yeah...Clooney has not been particularly outspoken over the long haul, either...just a little bit over Iraq.

Schumacher's direction in Batman and Robin did more to harm Clooney's career than anything he has said.

 

Cheveyo, the public at large cannot blacklist celebrities -- only entertainment executives and producers can do that.

We moviegoers and TV viewers can only boycott.

Is it petty for me to not watch a TV show starring Martin Sheen or attend a Sheryl Crow concert because of the political beliefs of these people? Maybe, but I think shame can be a good thing.


Remember what baseball player John Rocker said that incensed the nation? I'll refresh your memory:

"The biggest thing I don't like about New York are the foreigners. I'm not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get in this country?"

He apologized -- and quickly -- and nobody has followed in his footsteps. Know why? Because he was booed in every stadium he entered.

Note that, because the government wasn't involved, this wasn't censorship. Also note that the people were well within their rights to use exercise their own free speech in shaming Rocker's stupid use of his right to free speech.


Would it be wrong to give Sheryl Crow the Rocker treatment? Is the anti-war position somehow sacrosanct?

I don't think so. If the public at large gets tired of this often thinly veiled distrust of our country, we will "vote with our feet."

And unless you want to support government subsidies for celebrities with controversial opinions (would that include Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent?), there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

 

Another reason for the whole blacklist admonition is that it appeals to the celebrities' egos. If you're blacklisted, then it must mean that you're somehow dangerous.

If you're dangerous, you're influential.

If you're influential, you're relevant.

So far, these people have not proven themselves to be dangerous, influential, relevant, or even existing on the fringes of mainstream society's radar screen of awareness.

That's what upsets these folks. No one takes them seriously. No one pays attention to them. These twits are upset that military affairs are being undertaken by...the military. And how dare the State Department engage in foreign relations and the Executive Branch build a coalition of nations to further America's self-interest. Just who do they think they are?

The Sheens and Streisands don't exactly have reality in a vice grip here, folks.

 

Do you believe that your blacklist/boycott, and their subsequent lack of funds will or has in any way deterred their opinion?

Or their ability to voice their opinion publicly, for that matter?

 

A celebrity with whom I disaggree doesn't bother me THAT much.
You realize how rigid, flat, grey and crusty your life would be if you spent your time figuring out who to boycott next.
You might as well advocate cloning full humans to keep everyone homogenous.

 

Do you believe that your blacklist/boycott, and their subsequent lack of funds will or has in any way deterred their opinion?

Or their ability to voice their opinion publicly, for that matter?

Does it matter whether it changes their opinions? Not at all. The purpose of a boycott is to remove support either directly or indirectly for an organization or idea. If I don't want group A to receive any of my money, why should I give money to person Z who I know gives money to group A? I choose with my wallet not to directly or indirectly support group A. That means that I will avoid providing financial support to person Z.

They are free to have their opinion (even when I disagree with it), but I am also free not to provide them the means to support their opinion.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Alec Baldwin= Sweaty balls.

Other than Beetlejuice, Hunt For Red October, and my personal favorite Malice Alec really hasn't done much as of late which I liked.

I know he is the laughing stock in Florida after he ran his mouth over and over again about Bush becoming President and speaking out against Jeb.

I wouldn't really boycott someones movie unless I had good reason to. Like if O.J. showed his murdering butt on screen again I would boycott it.

I'm a bit ticked by what Clooney said about Hestons medical condition. That was in bad taste.

When I was a kid I wasn't allowed to watch any Roman Polanski films because of his troubles with the law in the U.S. I've grown very fond of Chinatown and Rosemary's Baby.

However the one person I have no respect for and I will boycott till I'm blue in the face of is Mr. punk himself Enimem. That guy is a joke, and if he wins an Oscar for his stupid song from 8 mile then I will never watch the academy awards ever again.

 

Wow. The Ghost of Joe McCarthy has returned - and through TripleB no less! I'm shocked.

Ignore them, they'll go away. Any celebrity with an agenda - esp. that buffoon Charlton "Guns Don't Kill People - APES with Guns Kill People" Heston, Babs and the like - we're merely talking an idiot with a forum (literally true in Chuck's case).

But George Lucas is a self-confessed liberal. What if he speaks out against war in Iraq? I will not support your damning Star Wars!

E_S

 

The choice to boycott a person or product is just as much an expression of free speech as anything else.

The object is to send a message to whomever or whatever that you disagree with their actions and don't wish your money to support them in any way.

I doubt anyone is naive enough to believe that if the ratings for The West Wing drop enough that Martin Sheen is suddenly going to reverse his opinions and statements.

 

I doubt anyone is naive enough to believe that if the ratings for The West Wing drop enough that Martin Sheen is suddenly going to reverse his opinions and statements.

Certainly Sheen won't change his ideology, but his career will suffer just like all of his other outspoken liberal friends in Hollywood.

 

On one hand you say that these celebrities are irrelevant...and on the other, you want to blacklist and boycott to silence them. Are you afraid of their opinion?

Win the debate in the public forum. Don't try to silence the other side. That's wrong.

 

I don't know anyone who advocates 'silencing' their right to free speech. These pinheaded celebs have the right to mouth off whenever they wish as guaranteed by free speech.

The results of their ideology merely have very negative effects upon their careers, that's all. Celebrities who seem anti-American to the public, such as Jane Fonda, Sean Penn, Martin Sheen and others, will see their careers suffer. They are using their power and priveledge to an extent that the American public really doesn't give a crap about - people put up with them for their entertainment value. Ratings mean everything in the entertainment business.

People also have the right to choose whether or not they want to support these guys with their hard-earned money at the box office. The American public isn't exactly stupid, either. They see the hypocracy that is evident with these celebs' protests as they were silent during the Clinton Administration's actions in Bosnia, Iraq, Haiti, Somolia, etc. These celebs simply can't stand GWB, and people know it.

 

But I bet that asinine fool Chuck Heston should be allowed to speak, right? Or Mel Gibson? Bruce Willis? Tom Selleck?

Celebrities think they're informed, and they're not. Well, Harrison Ford is but he doesn't play party politics. As far as I'm concerned, they're idiots, ignore them. When you see someone like Heston or Babs interviewed, they spew ignorance like a ruptured boil. So you should ignore them. (Granted, Heston's making less and less sense...)


E_S

 

E_S, please tell me where I specifically said that people should or shouldn't be allowed to speak.

And that's really a underhanded and disgusting swipe at Charlton Heston's illness there Ender. Disagree with the man if you will, but don't ridicule him for something he can't control. Even though I disagree with Christopher Reeve on human cloning and stem cell research, his injury is not funny nor should it be the basis of crude jokes.