Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
Originally posted by: BatmanNate
Originally posted by: cheapbidder01
link
Voters rejected their nomination for 3 academy awards because of their views? Com'on people, what happened to freedom of speech? What do their political views have to do with how good they sing?
I can understand them gettting rejected from the award for "Being proud of Bush", but these awards have nothing to do with him.
Their freedom of speech held true; there were no legal reprecussions for what they said, and rightly so. However there is no protection from social reprecussions, and that's the price you pay. I agreed with them for what it is worth, but they should have known that publicly holding those views would make them unpopular in their sector.
That's the same excuse racist people use. "You're black and thats legal but you'll have social reprecussions from it." What's the difference here?
I personally have no problem with their views nor with their expression of them. Considering their audience, it wasnt the brightest move on their part. Where you argument breaks down though is that they can use discretion in where they speak, but you cannot choose when and where to be black.
They chose to state their opinion. Fine, that's not the best thing to do, but for people to say they're not good singers anymore because they don't agree with Bush? Since when did people start thinking that singing and Political views were the same thing?
