The thing is that no one's speech was threatened. You only have freedom of speech when it comes to Government intervention. AT censors speech here on a daily basis. There are certain words that cant be used when making a post.
If you want to walk up and down the street with a sign protesting whatever it is you want to protest, that is your right. It ends when you step in my yard.
For the record, I dont care what Whoopie said, I've never found her funny anyway. But the fact is that Slim Fast did care and she got canned.
BTW, didnt Savage get fired from something a year or so ago? He's an idiot anyway.
If you want to walk up and down the street with a sign protesting whatever it is you want to protest, that is your right. It ends when you step in my yard.
For the record, I dont care what Whoopie said, I've never found her funny anyway. But the fact is that Slim Fast did care and she got canned.
BTW, didnt Savage get fired from something a year or so ago? He's an idiot anyway.
Right, the very premise of this thread was that (A) Yes, everyone was well within their rights to do what they did -- i.e. no freedoms were necessarily abridged, yet (B) When there are consequences for what you say (regardless of who you are), it has a chilling effect on free speech.
That was my only point.
Now, taken out of context, this one incident is not the end of the world. Yet, taken along with other similar incidents (Dixie Chicks, CBS/Reagan, etc.), a trend develops which seems to suggest that if conservatives or conservative groups don't like what you're saying about the President, they're going to organize against you and figure out an aggressive way to penalize your actions.
I still have yet to see anyone point out similar behavior on the left. Some mention of a Rush boycott -- does anyone have specifics on this?
I did a quck google search and found a few Limbaugh Boycott sites. Now, I havent read through them but there are sites out there. Some of them are old, but nonetheless.
I dont have a problem with either group doing this. It is the nature of things to push politics and beliefs on others. I am a conservative, and most of the time I vote Republican. However, I generally do not like Limbaugh, Savage and Hannity. Sometimes I agree with some of their points, however I find them to be zealots. And IMO, zealots of any type should be looked at with skepticism.
Anyway, here are the links. I dont claim that they are the best, but go here are a couple.
ESPN
Another one
Todd33 said:
I don't know about Savage and whoever the etc you are referring to are but I've never heard Limbaugh say anyhthing like what Goldberg said.
I don't know about Savage and whoever the etc you are referring to are but I've never heard Limbaugh say anyhthing like what Goldberg said.
Actually, there is a distinct difference between the two, that Whoopi was not in a Slim-Fast advertisement at the time she made her comments, but Rush was on ESPN, on the job, if you will.
It really comes down to what her contract states, and to which groups were placing the pressure on Slim-Fast to remove her ads.
CADsortaGUY
Lifer
:roll:
If you can't see this is about money then it is you who is blind. Cripes. How hard is it to understand that having a "spokesperson" who stirred up a negative controversy willingly can cause loss of revenue. Do you have any clue how business and advertising works? How old are you? Have you paid attention to anything regarding "celebrity" endorsements - and how they get dropped after situations like this?
Again - it's pretty silly to look at this only through a political lens. Take your blinders off - just because it's an election year doesn't mean anything and everything is determined by politics.
CkG
I agree with him Cad. How can you be so naive to suggest this has nothing to do with politics? The speech she's being punished for IS political speech (criticism of the administration/Bush). The groups going after her and pressuring Slim Fast to drop her are political groups associated strongly with the GOP. Of course this has to do with politics.
Thump553
Lifer
- Jun 2, 2000
- 12,839
- 2,625
- 136
Whoopi was being paid for her "celebrity" status to be a spokesperson for Slim-Fast. When she spoke out on political issues it antagonized potential customers so the company made a commercial decision to replace her. I don't fault them for that. And I think Whoopi handled this situation with class and honor. It does, however, serve as one more example of the meanspiritedness and intolerance of the organized pro-Bush supporters and reflects badly upon them.
This cuts both ways. Some years back Anita Bryant got very publically sacked by the Florida orange juice council because of public outrage over her homophobic statements.
If you are going to be paid to be a "celebrity" you have to play by the rules of the game. I don't feel sorry for them-most of us get paid for working, not for being.
This cuts both ways. Some years back Anita Bryant got very publically sacked by the Florida orange juice council because of public outrage over her homophobic statements.
If you are going to be paid to be a "celebrity" you have to play by the rules of the game. I don't feel sorry for them-most of us get paid for working, not for being.
i guess libs will never figure out "freedom of speech" is not a requirement for people to listen to them.
I have no idea what groups specifically, only the original article that suggests "Some conservative groups and GOP supporters had threatened to boycott Slim-Fast products if it did not take action."
Haven't had time to research it further.
Why must companies have values and opinions? What's next, an announcement that the Slim-Fast company endorses a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage?
Companies exist to sell products or services and make a profit. To see this kind of story yet again is sickening.
Companies exist to sell products or services and make a profit. To see this kind of story yet again is sickening.
OK, Jack, what is different about what you said 5 hours after what I said:
Jack, you tell me "I think you miss the whole point" and then proceeded to rewrite my point that I wrote 5 hours before you. I agree with you that "it makes absolutely no difference why they threatened to boycott" in terms of whether they had the legal right (aka freedom) to do it. I never claimed that "boycotting because of your political views" is wrong in any way. What I was arguing was some retarded person's (CADKindaGuy's) opinion that the boycotters weren't politically motivated. He said with full volitional blindness,
Of course, to every company that has had a boycott directed at it, boycotts are about money - but money has nothing to do with the reason people get together to boycott a certain company - the reason these particular boycotters directed a boycott at Slim-Fast was purely political, and nothing more, and CADKindaGuy pretends it has nothing to do with politics. And then you tell me I missed the entire point, pretty comical stuff.
And you say it makes no difference whether the boycott and quick firing of whoopi was politically motivated or not. I have not yet seen how many people threatened to boycott Slim-Fast, nor do I have any way of knowing whether any of the people who wrote/called Slim-Fast threatening to boycott were in actuality people who ever buy Slim-Fast. Also, it's possible that the entire "boycott" story was made up by an employee of Slim-Fast who, like Riprotten and CADKindaGuy and others who would do anything to silence those who are opposed to or critical of Bush. Right or wrong, lawful or unlawful, this story does send the message that while it is not legal or PC to fire someone for their skin color, or religion or a list of other reasons, it is acceptable to fire people for being Democrats or for criticising a Republican President.
A while back after seeing Micheal Savages name here I googled him to find out who he was. I found a page listing all the companies that had been coerced into pulling thier advertising for his show. This thing goes 2 ways I guess.
Myself, If I see a company employing someone popular with opposing political views I might not buy that product. Why support the opposition?
How much you want to bet those "conservative groups" and the "GOP Supporters" were no where near the democratic fund-raiser when Whoopi said what she said? How do they become so offended then? Via proxy? Vicariously? Did they go out of their way to be exposed to her direct quotes before getting on the phone with Slim-Fast?
elton john upset at 'cencorship' in the US
ugh. people just dont seem to get that it's the people acting out their will and silencing the fools, not the government censoring them because of provacative speech.
ugh. people just dont seem to get that it's the people acting out their will and silencing the fools, not the government censoring them because of provacative speech.
Red Dawn
Elite Member
- Jun 4, 2001
- 57,529
- 3
- 0
Yep a minority, probably not even a large minority are causing Companies to censor or fire celebrities who speak out against the war and the Dub. Whose fault is it? Well it's the "Silent Majority" that don't say anything ..well with the exception of those who supported the Dixie Chicks with their wallets by buying their albums and going to their concerts in record numbers despite those on the Right trying to hurt them financially for speaking their minds
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter