by Beth anderson
September 2, 2004
This is to those entertainers who are complaining that their opinions and the reaction to those opinions are infringing on their 1st amendment rights and their potential personal earnings. The 1st amendment protects american citizens against retribution by the government, not private citizens. I am not aware of any legal or other action being taken against these entertainers by the government because they have chosen to exercise their 1st amendment right to speak their minds or protest. It is the public's right to support or not support corporations or individuals of its choosing. The silent majority does not have to voice opinions by standing on the street shouting and shoving signs in people's faces. apparently they have found a better way for their voices to be heard, by hitting these individuals in their pockets.
These entertainers are accusing executives in their industries of "black listing" them and "McCarthyism." This is not true. If there are executives choosing not to employee some of these outspoken individuals, it is due to the negative feedback of private citizens choosing not to pay money to see these people. These executives are first and foremost business people; they are put in positions to make decisions that will earn their corporation's profits. If the general public voices an opinion, our 1st amendment right also, that we will not support films, concerts or certain individuals, the executives of those corporations have an obligation to their board of directors and shareholders to make decisions in the best interest of their companies. I am quite sure these same entertainers complaining make business decisions everyday that is in their best interest.
What these entertainers need to understand is that nobody is going to stop them from voicing their opinions. However, they should realize that there might be ramifications, i.e. negative public sentiment. Every person must take responsibility for his or her actions. These entertainers need to stop blaming everyone who does not agree with them and accept the fact that their opinions could have adverse effects professionally. I seem to recall a statement made by a senior senator that ended up outraging the public. Even though there was an apology for the remark, it ended up costing him a key position.
Free speech does not come without individual responsibility.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2024 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2024 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement