The only thing new about a politically-oriented speech being given on the Oscars is the degree of hostility with which such endeavors are met in this country.
One would think that spirited discussion of the current state of affairs would be greeted with an air of appreciation that we live in a country where such things are not only accepted, but encouraged and protected by our Founding Fathers. But no. Opposition instead is drawn in the most stark and distorted of terms: If you’re opposed to Bush’s actions, you’re in favor of dictators. If you’re opposed to the war, you’re against the soldiers risking their lives. And heaven help anyone in the entertainment industry who speaks out: They’re risking watching their livelihood spiral down the drain.
What a shame we don’t live in a country where criticism of the government carries stiff penalties. Where the citizens know better than to speak out. Where the residents fall into line…or else. A country like…I dunno…Iraq.
PAD
• 
I think he should be the new host for “jáçkášš”
Well, you certainly described Moore correctly.
A speech is not “open discusion”. The crowd cheering Moore is free speech. The crowd booing Moore is conservative america pressing their boot on his neck? or is that free speech too? It’s one way or another.
PAD you are not opening a discussion, you made a statement. Two differnet things. One is welcome the other is forced upon anyone with in earshot. (webshot?)
Discuss. 🙂
It’s worth pointing out (again) that Moore’s speech was word for word the same as the one he gave Saturday at the Independent Spirit Awards. It was pretty obvious he was going to win, and it was obvious what he was going to say, and the production folks were ready.
Artimoff: PAD gets to make statements..it’s his site…we come here to read his opinions. That’s why his name is up there in the address bar.
And trying to drown out something you don’t like to hear isn’t free speech. It’s simply an extension of putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la la la…except you’re trying to do it for other people as well.
I understand the concerns expressed by people who feel that complaining about the BBs (Boos & boycotts) comes as close to trampling on one group of people’s rights to free speech as the BBs themselves come to trampling another groups but consider that the courts frequently take into account the “chilling effect.” Suppose you work for a company and your benevolent boss says he doesn’t want to be surrounded by yes-men so everyone is encouraged to speak their mind. Your buddy says, “Hey wouldn’t it be helpful if the company started making widgets to go with our gizmos.” Boss turns to him and says, “You’re fired.” Now granted your buddy wasn’t shot or dragged out of bed in the middle of the night. And granted the boss didn’t promise there would be no consequences to speaking your mind. But would you believe that you still had free speech in that environment?
To the person who said how could you be against the war but for the people fighting it, one group of people says, “I want to send you far from home into a place where you’re not wanted so people can shoot at you.” and the other group says, “I don’t want to send you there.” Who’s got your best interests at heart?
Stockwell said that taking the DC off the air was corporate america being timid but if the “people” are against the band, why are their album sales going up? And why are we even talking about a mediocre country act when the Congress is about to pass a budget that’s cutting taxes for the richest one percent of the country which means huge cuts in programs that serve the other 99 percent of the people in this country… Hmmm, why would corporations want to distract us with trivial concerns like what the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks is saying at a time like this…?
One of the problems I have with this is the refusal of conservatives to be honest about this. I mean, c’mon, let’s imagine that Bruce Willis had won an Oscar (I know that takes a lot of imagining…) and during his acceptance speech, he started voicing his support for the war. Then he gets booed off the stage. Is anybody really going to claim that talk radio and Chris Matthews and FoxNews wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder about how the “Hollywood Liberals” wouldn’t let the “voice of America” be heard?
>Robert: Yeah, “fictition” was >pretty unfortunate (shades of >Fred Durst’s “agreeance”)
Yeah, but the BEST ones are when Mike Tyson said “I’m gonna fade into bolivion” after losing a fight, and Michael Jackson’s father, in response to Michael, said “I think he meant ‘gurgitating’…well, he gurgitated all the way to the bank.” Those were way bester than anything Moore said.
Ok, there is NO PROOF what-so-ever that “The majority of the American people support/don’t support this war.”
POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS unless they actually ask all 270+ miliion of us. A “scientific poll” of 1 million even is still less than 1/2% of the population…
So to whoever made the rather assinine comment above about “the majority of people support this war” is so off-base it’s not even funny….
“those stations refusing to play the DC’s songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech”
Since when is exercising freedom of the press the same as “showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech”?
davidh
‘”I want to send you far from home into a place where you’re not wanted so people can shoot at you.”‘
If anyone *actually* did say that, they certainly wouldn’t have your best interests at heart.
But if that’s a straw-man argument, which one side of a debate claims is the other side’s position, then all you really know is that the straw-man arguer is making stuff up.
davidh
My point about “fictiction” was not to denigrate Michael Moore, but to point out that had such a word come out of President Bush’s mouth it would have been seen as more “proof” of his intellectual inadequacy.
I mangle words sometimes. Sometimes it’s because I’m tired, and sometimes it’s because I’m conflating what I’m currently saying with what I’m planning to say next. Nobody who knows me would consider me unintelligent because of it.
Booing can be done for many reasons. One reason, as Mr. David mentioned above, is to squelch the right of another to speak freely. The other reason, and the one that I think applies here, is that it is the ONLY or best means of showing that you support an opposing viewpoint. If the naysayers wanted to express their dissent in the same manner then they would have had to wait until they recieved their awards and spoke from the Oscar stage. In this case the Oscar’s would be one celebrity after the other voicing their opinions on public policy. This is perhaps not the most appropriate forum to hold such a debate.
Unfortunately, not everyone was going to win an Oscar that night, so they expressed their viewpoint in the form of a “boo”.
Booing, or cheering, is the recourse of the person that does not have the stage. Which leads us to the problem with celebraties using the stage to voice their political beliefs. It is a misuse of a stage to speak about things that are unrelated to the reasons fo which you were given the spotlight in the first place. (Michael Moore may be be the only person at the Oscar’s that can argue that he was given the stage for his political beliefs, but I digress.)
If people boo celebraties it is not only to stop them from speaking, it is because they do not have the forum to express thier speech AS FREELY as the celebrity who gained the spotlight by virtue of his or her talent. Booing, for this reason, will end when everyone has the same forum to speak. Meaning, when everyone is a celebrity, or no one is.
It’s a matter of forum, its misuse and respect.
I cringed during the second half of Brody’s speech. And Moore’s, sigh, had I not been so in shock I would have turned the channel. The Oscars (as have many other similar venues) has more and more ceased to be a forum to acknowledge talent and become a pulpit.
I have nothing but respect for Brody or Moore’s opinions no matter how much I might disagree with them. But I cannot agree that recognizing Moore’s ability to produce a documentary or Brody’s acting is justification for them to preach their political or social views. There are hundreds of appropriate forums for that – their actions were simply taking advantage of a situation. Were I there, I would have booed not their positions, but their hostage taking of an audience and microphone for their own agenda.
I am a Washington DC resident. I cannot describe the amount of times other people’s free speech has meant double or triple my commute. I have difficulty respecting war protest when the act of protest impacts me personally. When I get to sit in traffic for 2 hours while war protestors bike for peace in my way or some actor takes and award and preaches – I am likely to be more hostile toward them than if they are on c-span or crossfire.
Jim wrote:
“No one wants war. But the world will be safer with Saddam gone.”
That’s not necessarily the case. Saddam is a horrible, despicable tyrant who should pay for all that he’s done but the fact is that before this whole thing started he wasn’t a threat to the World at large (yes, he tortures and kills his own people, but so do at least a dozen other heads of state. I don’t see us trying to depose them); he knew he had too much to loose if he started another war. Now, however, no matter what happens he knows that the US will never let him be, so what’s to stop him (once he’s convinced that he’ll loose) from contacting terrorist organization and giving them any weapons of mass destruction he may have? This would be his way of getting revenge from the grave. Also, even if Saddam doesn’t do this, between the ravages of war and the power vacuum that will ensue, Iraq will be left in such chaos that it isn’t a stretch to say that at least some weapons and equipment will find their way into the black market, and from there into who knows whose hands. This has happened before, when the Soviet Union fell in 1991.
And let’s not kid ourselves that this whole thing will end up in a democratic Iraq. There are too many factions there that view each other as mortal enemies, the most likely outcome is that one of these factions will end up in power and then proceed to oppress the others; the reconstructions of Germany and Japan after WW II were successful because the citizens of those countries weren’t at war with themselves. You might say that this won’t happen because the US won’t leave Iraq until all these problems are solved, I say that that’s highly unlikely. It would take years to get the job done, and the longer we stay there the more we’ll be resented by the locals who’ll view us as invaders (this might have been less of a problem had there been a real international coalition there). I’m not making this up, the leader of Iraq’s Shiite opposition faction has already said that if the US doesn’t leave reasonably fast after Saddam is deposed, then they’ll throw us out by whatever means
Jim wrote:
“No one wants war. But the world will be safer with Saddam gone.”
That’s not necessarily the case. Saddam is a horrible, despicable tyrant who should pay for all that he’s done but the fact is that before this whole thing started he wasn’t a threat to the World at large (yes, he tortures and kills his own people, but so do at least a dozen other heads of state. I don’t see us trying to depose them); he knew he had too much to loose if he started another war. Now, however, no matter what happens he knows that the US will never let him be, so what’s to stop him (once he’s convinced that he’ll loose) from contacting terrorist organization and giving them any weapons of mass destruction he may have? This would be his way of getting revenge from the grave. Also, even if Saddam doesn’t do this, between the ravages of war and the power vacuum that will ensue, Iraq will be left in such chaos that it isn’t a stretch to say that at least some weapons and equipment will find their way into the black market, and from there into who knows whose hands. This has happened before, when the Soviet Union fell in 1991.
And let’s not kid ourselves that this whole thing will end up in a democratic Iraq. There are too many factions there that view each other as mortal enemies, the most likely outcome is that one of these factions will end up in power and then proceed to oppress the others; the reconstructions of Germany and Japan after WW II were successful because the citizens of those countries weren’t at war with themselves. You might say that this won’t happen because the US won’t leave Iraq until all these problems are solved, I say that that’s highly unlikely. It would take years to get the job done, and the longer we stay there the more we’ll be resented by the locals who’ll view us as invaders (this might have been less of a problem had there been a real international coalition there). I’m not making this up, the leader of Iraq’s Shiite opposition faction has already said that if the US doesn’t leave reasonably fast after Saddam is deposed, then they’ll throw us out by whatever means necessary. If you don’t believe me just read this article that came out today:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030325-093356-7311r
Rob wrote:
“As for some guy who got arrested for a peace t-shirt? Rest of the story, please. That isn’t all there is to it. CLEARLY.”
The only thing that’s clear here Rob is that you’re commenting on something without checking the facts first. The whole story is that this lawyer was in the mall with his son and they bought peace T-shirts (with the saying “Give Peace a Chance”) and put them on. A little later while they where in the food court 2 security guards came and told him to take the shirt off or leave the mall, when he refused to do so they called the police and had him arrested. Here’s an article about it:
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2326548
Pack wrote:
“I don’t even like the Dixie Chicks but has anyone seen the article in the NYT (it was today or yesterday) that said there was reason to believe that the “boycotts” and “demonstrations” were organized by radio conglomerates that had strong business and financial ties to George W. going back to his days as governor of Texas?”
I read that Op-Ed too, here’s a link to it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html
These are just my opinions which I’m more than willing to debate, just don’t call me “unpatriotic”, or threaten me, for having them.
Raphy
Not sure why the one and a half post thing happened. Sorry about that.
Raphy
Michael Moore should be applauded for having the balls to say what Susan Saradon, Barbara Streisand, Bono, and other so called activist/celebrities failed to. Was it the wrong forum to discuss this? Probably. But Moore’s rant was more effective than Chris Cooper and Adrian Brody’s PC calls for peace. Our Emperor has no clothes, Moore just pointed out the obvious.
>>>And trying to drown out something you don’t like to hear isn’t free speech. It’s simply an extension of putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la la la…except you’re trying to do it for other people as well.<<<
If booing is trying to drown someone out, what is clapping over a speech? It amounts to the same idea, just in reverse. Positive Vs negative. Moore has every right so say what he wanted, just as the audience has the right to react in a positive or negative manner. I dissagree with everything Moore said except the line about the Dixie Chicks. 🙂
I am sick of Peter David’s website. I am sick of Peter’s website being one of the few places where someone points out that you can’t use free speech to tell people to shut up.
It must be very convenient for some to label an alternate point of view as being “unpatriotic” and therefore not worthy of consideration or examination. In high school, you do that by calling someone a fág and insisting that they’re gay and thus, undeserving of their views being taken seriously. In the real world, it’s done by calling someone anti-American. I can’t wait to grow up.
So you think the Oscars is the best place to have an open, lively discussion about US involvement in world affairs?
“No, I’m saying… that those stations refusing to play the DC’s songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech…”
Free speech? If and when the DC’s songs are played on the radio it isn’t an example of free speech. What gets aired on the radio is a personal and business decision and has little do with vast abstract principles.
No, what is going on isn’t related to a hatred of free speech but a hatred of the Dixie Chicks. To what end I do not know. Obviously there is and will be a cost for that to someone.
But nothing on the radio is on because of free speech so much as it is because a white-collar decides that something will be good for business.
I mean, you’re writing as if there is a general obligation to play country groups’ songs on the radio. There isn’t.
I agree with PAD on this one. A lot of people don’t want to hear this right now, but our
civil rights are under attack from many fronts right now. There are many American
citizens that fully support the banning of many of our civil rights like free speech. I have
heard many citizens claim we should not have the right to speak out against our
government. There are many groups who believe we should embrace EVERYTHING our
government does unilaterally and to do anything else is unpatriotic and un-American.
People are being labeled traitors, terrorists and Hussein sympathizers for doing nothing
but speaking out against this war. That is not patriotism that is nationalism. We should
always question our government. Our founding fathers wanted us to question and not to
mindlessly obey so lets do so. I love my country and that’s why I am so appalled by the
current movement saying we should shut our mouths and obey.
I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because they were harboring international
criminals who attacked us without provocation. I do not support the war in Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is an evil man and I believe he should be ousted from power, but we
should have used all this evidence we claim to have to prove to the world without a
shadow of a doubt that he has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Our
government has been claiming it has irrefutable proof of both that and his connection to
Bin Laden and yet this proof was never supplied to us or the United Nations. I believe
that if we could have supplied this proof then we could have persuaded a majority of the
United Nations to join us in an assault, but our government either wouldn’t or couldn’t. As
a result I do not trust our government’s motives for this invasion. I don’t pretend to know
what the true motives are, but our government has managed to convince me through their
own actions that the reasons they have given are not the main motivations. I’m left
wondering who is next? North Korea or Iran seem like the most likely candidates. France
and Russia are starting to look more likely as time goes by.
Now that this war is irrevocable, I hope and pray that it ends swiftly with minimal loss of
life. I hope our troops make it home safely and that it ends there.
A point of order:
A sampling of 1.5% of the 270 million people in American IS pretty dámņ scientific; in fact, it’s vast overkill as any stats person will tell you. You can get a very accurate poll with a sample of 10,000.
Oh, and another thing:
The Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts. I assume Michael Moore is a member of the Academy. How illegitimate is it for a member to take a stand at a fuction of a group he’s a member of? (It might be improper, but how illegitimate?).
I just want to say is I agreement with want Michard Moore said, but I don’t fell he should have say it at the Oscar. I do have more respect for him for doing it. I don’t support what the Bush Admination did, I will support our troops over there.
Peace
Things have gotten pretty venomous on both sides of the debate, sad to say. It’s just a matter of time before somebody starts bringing up the Nazis.
Peter David wrote:
“No, I’m saying those who feel that Michael Moore should be shot are showing naked hatred for him personally, that those stations refusing to play the DC’s songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech, and that those attempting to punish the lead singer of the DC’s for stating her opinion by organizing boycotts are just plain idiots.”
Well, though of course anyone would agree with your sentiment, no one claimed Michael Moore should be shot in the street, so that’s certainly a non sequitur. That radio stations play or don’t play Dixie Chicks isn’t relevant to the discussion of freedom of speech, because radio stations aren’t run by the government. And are you arguing boycotting makes one an idiot, or just when one boycotts for a reason you don’t like?
Roger Tang wrote:
“A point of order:
“A sampling of 1.5% of the 270 million people in American IS pretty dámņ scientific; in fact, it’s vast overkill as any stats person will tell you. You can get a very accurate poll with a sample of 10,000.”
Being a stats person with a degree in Mathematics, I was rushing to the end of this political discussion to point that out, but you beat me to it. There are a few formulas (when aren’t there in Mathematics?) that allow one to gauge how effective one’s poll is, and of course polls can be tainted by bias, but numberically, a tiny sample can give incredibly accurate results.
I respectfully disagree. Mr. Moore has the right to make a boneheaded, stupid, blunderbuss of a speech and his audience has the right to boo him. I suspect that, if anything, this will only improve his standing among backslapping liberals who think every joke about George Bush’s syntax is somehow an act of bravery and keep standing around waiting for the revolution.
I’m all for free speech and expression. But part of that is a vigorous give-and-take; people who disagree with Moore or the Dixie Chicks or whomever have every right not to buy their products, or ask their local radio station or movie theater not to play their work, or organize boycotts. Free speech is there to facilitate dialogue and discussion, and that means people can and will disagree with you or call you an idiot or agree or whatever. The people who do so are in no form whatsoever trying to censor you.
And if the Dixie Chicks record sales (which the conglomerates can’t control) go up even when their radio airplay (which the conglomerates do control) goes down, what does that say?
It says that their right to free speech is not actually being abridged.
Peter,
<<“What I’m saying–and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn’t–is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be.”>>
Thank you for helping me sort out what I felt is wrong with the current anti-war/pro-war rhetoric. It seemed to me that we have been becoming more polarized in our politics in recent years (the pendulum swings back to 1969), but I could not put my finger on the primary symptom.
The issue of boycotts, etc., goes to the heart of your point. While Rob says, “organizing boycotts, banishing people from playlists, et al, are equally protected rights,” they are far from being the same thing. That is like saying that if I do not agree with you that I have the (moral) right to take money out of your wallet. The gangster mentality that says, “You dissed me, so I’m going to hurt you” has worked its way into the mainstream of American society.
An eye for an eye. Let the punishment if the crime. These are concepts that are (or should be) at the heart of our society. We do not escalate conflict and justify it by saying, “They started it.” We do not condone excessive force. Yet because we have the legal rights, an increasing number of people believe they have the moral right to jeopardize someone’s livelihood because they disagree with something they said. They can rationalize it all they want (“The Dixie Chicks can afford it.” “I am only one person.”) But we are talking about organized boycotts with no one’s hand on the brake. Like you said in a later post, it is no longer about free speech, it is about punishing the speaker.
Finally, to the person who said, “PAD you are not opening a discussion, you made a statement.” I have a question. How else do you start a discussion besides making a statement?
Thanks again for your observations, Peter. As Harlan Ellison said (I don’t know if he was quoting someone else), “Everyone is entitled to their *well-informed* opinion.” While I am too realistic to take this position literally, I appreciate your clarity of language and your refusal to indulge in verbal shorthand. I may not always agree with you, but I can always see that you have done your homework before you say something.
Jesse
My only question, for everyone saying it is wrong to boycott someone because of their opinion. Do you feel the same when people boycott in response to a right wing issue? How about all the stations refusing to play “Do You Remember?” Or if a company supports pro-life groups, or when groups boycott Rush Limbaugh sponsors. Do you disagree with that as well? If so, I commend you. If not, you’re just a hypocrit.
To Raphael: Thanks for the link regarding the T-shirt story. I’d assumed it was common knowledge.
To Rob: There’s a big difference between libel and satire. And Cheney’s wife is a public figure. Comes with the territory when your arterially-challenged husband and the rest of his cabal of right-wing empire builders are busy playing a game of Risk with real countries.
And to the earlier poster who expressed his dislike for this website, am I correct in assuming that nobody is twisting your arm to be here?
So much to comment on, so little time. I have to add my 2 cents, though, to balance out what I’ve read that I disagree with… (Free speech – yay!)
First, and most importantly… I am strongly and vocally opposed to this war we started, and that is NOT in ANY WAY an attack on the troops. Several posters have had a hard time with that concept. Why? It makes perfect sense… the TROOPS didn’t start the war, they are simply doing their duty to their country. That is admirable. The President and his advisors started the war (for whatever reasons – and they have plenty, I’m just not convinced they were persuasive), so it’s THEIR WAR I’m opposed to. Not the troops. How tough is that?
Second, unrelated topic. Unless I was watching a different broadcast than everyone else, Moore was hardly “booed off the stage” as several posters have suggested. The boos and applause seemed maybe equal, with the boos being very loud but from only a few voices. Listen again. Most of the audience seemed to just be listening to the sort of speech that they were expecting from Moore anyway. “Booed off the stage” is a revisionist view of things.
OK, and last – the Academy Awards has often been a forum for making political statements. The last several years people have been playing it safe, but there’s a lot of that going around. Anyone here remember Marlon Brando sending Sasheen Littlefeather up to the podium to turn down his award for political reasons? And as I remember, she was applauded! Times sure have changed..
You know, if the winner of the best song were to go up there and sing for 45 seconds as their acceptance “speech”, we’d love it.
Michael Moore is acclaimed because of his ability to present political statements in an attention-getting (if not always accurate) manner. He responded to praise for this by doing just what people praise him for.
The bringing up and invoking the other documentarians was a great stroke, but the statement itself was done in a manner that wouldn’t convince anyone of anything. By using some fo the harsh language and by focusing not just on the war, he made a statement that would get cheers from some of his supporters and anger those he disagrees with. That’s what he’s good at, but I can’t see that it helps advance the situation of politics in this nation one whit. It may be profitable to be a left-wing Limbaugh, but it doesn’t help matters.
Isn’t it great that we CAN have this discussion freely? Compare this forum to Iraq.
As far as actors vs consumers, I agree with the earlier comment about consumers using their pocketbooks. John Denver was a good singer. However, at one point he publically stated that drunk drivers were persecuted in this country and weren’t as bad as made out to be by MADD. I refused to buy any of his items after that while he was alive. I wasn’t about to support that position with my money. The ONLY weapon I have against someone with a microphone is to not financially enable them to use the microphone. Ted Turner publically belittled a CNN employee who just happened to be wearing a cross at a Christmas party (I’m sorry – Holiday party). I’m not going to reward Turner’s network by watching it regularly anymore (I know it’s not really his anymore, but I quit watching it at the time and have seldom gone back). MSNBC and Fox do pretty well at the job.
PAD, you seem to imply that it’s not American to do something like this. Well, I’d happily debate Ted Turner given a chance, but that’s not likely. I don’t want to silence Turner, but if my not financially contributing to his success gives him a little less influence to so publically spread that view, then I don’t see anything un-American about it.
Lastly – a side comment. I’m really annoyed with the rather trite phrase “I support the troops”. I mean, come on. Is there any American out there who wants our own troops to fail? to be killed? The troops enforce policy decisions, they don’t set them. To say that “I support the troops” is like saying “I love the flag”. It’s easy to say, but doesn’t add a lot to a debate. The debate is the policy, not who’s implementing it.
For the record, I hate the Dixie Chick’s music most of the time. I like the direction they are trying to take country, both back to their roots and forward, but I hate the lead singer’s voice.
However, I have called my music station daily expressing my outrage for their surpression of the Chick’s free speech, and am about to listen to the radio to find out who the sponsers are to write them and let them know why they won’t reach me on that station. (Capitalism at work)
As for the war, the most jaded part of me is wondering if we use Civil Right abuses as a justification, why aren’t we attacking China next?
It’s not wrong to boycott someone because of their opinions. I boycott Todd McFarlane and Kevin Smith because they’ve been mean to PAD. It was a decision I made on my own. (I’m fairly certain that PAD has never encouraged his fans to stop reading the titles of these people. He’s got too much integrity for that.) This has nothing to do with the quality of their work. I was enjoying Spawn before I decided to drop it.
I boycott reality TV shows, because I disagree with them on a moral/ethical level. I find them uncreative and back-stabby and not representative of what I have come to know as “reality.” Not my cup of cola.
Did anyone even see Chicago? Who do you think made it possible for two murderers to become celebrities? It was the audience. The audience ate the crap that the media fed them, and they enjoyed the crap. It’s not the media’s fault for feeding us the crap–it’s our fault for eating it. The media was only feeding the audience crap because they knew the audience would take it. But what they don’t understand is that the audience needs more nutritious meals too. Keep feeding us junk food and we’ll *become* junk food. We need to take responsibility for our entertainment.
So, yes, if there is an honest disagreement with the minds behind entertainment, then I believe it’s okay to boycott. But this whole thing with the war is not so cut-and-dry. A lot of people honestly believe that Bush has failed us in some way, and we can’t condemn these people for their beliefs just because we’re trying to put on a patriotic show for the rest of the world. When people have opinions, they should feel free to voice them without violent protestations.
This is America.
Remember?
Personally, I don’t think anyone’s ravings count. The loudest people for or against the war are speaking by their personal opinions, whether influenced by their upbringing, religious beliefs, or what have you. And opinions are like áššhølëš.
That being said, here’s mine: God forbid someone other than George W. Bush humiliate George W. Bush before the world.
And, in my opinion, no conservative had any problem not showing support for the last morally bankrupt president, so this brouhaha over not challenging the president or his policies seems heavy-handed and arrogant. If people couldn’t bìŧçh, we’d live in a totalitarian state.
Still makes me smile that Michael Moore is given a standing ovation and a chorus of boos within 2 minutes for doing the SAME THING – being Michael Moore and making folks uncomfortable with his opinions. Don’t worry about free speech NOW, worry about it when we are victorious in Iraq and then start to contemplate what else “needs to be done to win the war on terrorism”.
Now THAT was un-American.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Well, this is all nice.
I didn’t watch the Oscars because award shows are boring and the guy you want to win almost never does (someday Jay and Silent Bob, someday).
I’m just guessing here, but maybe Peter’s just upset that Moore faces social condemnation for his views. It really has been stressed recently that if you speak out against the government, the war (Operation Iraqi Freedom, suuuuure, just look at all those refugees pour into the refugee camps, they really wanted to be free), or Bush, that you are being anti-American or anti-soldier. I think that is what PAD is a little upset about.
And whoever said that you shouldn’t do something (like speak out against your government), even if it is legal, is retarded.
Anyway, could we go back to talking about comics and TV and other stuff that is less infuriating than a war and a government we have no control over? I like talking about comic books and Buffy and Angel. They’re infinitly more fun.
PS: I’m hoping no one will care enough to respond to this, but if you feel the need, bûggër you.
Scavenger said:
It’s worth pointing out (again) that Moore’s speech was word for word the same as the one he gave Saturday at the Independent Spirit Awards.
I may be waaaaay off about this, so I’ll preface this by saying that “I read somewhere…” so if someone can confirm this, or disprove it, please do!
But, I read somewhere that he also made an anti-Academy crack as part of his (otherwise) identical speech at the Independent Spirit Awards…does anyone know what he said?
One last thing.
Our troops aren’t defending our “responsiblity” to shut up and let our elected or appointed officals miterate wherever they want. They’re defending our RIGHTS. If one is not defending those rights, the least they can do is use them. And that goes for people against anti-war people, too.
The notion that unpopular opinions should be silenced is the notion of a fascist. It’s notions like that which could destroy the country.
I guess there’s one thing I have to say about this.
If the government was cracking down on what people were saying…if the government led a boycott on Michael Moore…if the government decreed that radio stations can not play the Dixie Chicks…then there’d be a problem. But it’s not. It’s the common man at the base, really.
The stars know it. That’s why they looked like statues when the cameras swung on them. Their agents told them to sit on their hands if something like this happened. Do you think they fear a government blacklist? No, they (and I know “they” is far too general, but I think I’m safe in assuming that the vast majority of stars the camera looked at agreed with Moore)know that if they applauded, they would upset people and might lose money. Because that’s capitalism, and that’s America.
I just don’t remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura’s show off the air.
Stephen Robinson: Michael Moore publically insulted the president of the United States at war time and then took his Oscar, rode home in a limo, and kicked back in his mansion.
Luigi Novi: Moore lives on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. Not a lot of mansions there, I think.
The million plus value of his home was widely publicized on Hannity and Colmes a while back. Why does being rich make you weird for being a democrat, or, for that matter, being poor or a member of a minority make you weird for being a republican?
Handling several questions at once:
>>My only question, for everyone saying it is wrong to boycott someone because of their opinion. Do you feel the same when people boycott in response to a right wing issue?<<
Well, I don’t boycott Domino’s Pizza, if that’s what you mean. I’m just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don’t comprehend why anyone would.
>>I boycott Todd McFarlane and Kevin Smith because they’ve been mean to PAD. It was a decision I made on my own.<<
Really? I don’t. I mean, I’m flattered that you feel so strongly on my behalf. But I buy McFarlane toys when it’s something I think is cool, and I see Kevin Smith movies. Their opinons and how they treat me are of no consequence to me when it comes to supporting the projects they make if those projects are of interest. I just don’t have that kind of mental filter that inclines me to walk away from a project I’d otherwise patronize simply because of the attitudes of the creators.
>>I just don’t remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura’s show off the air.<<
If I’d had this forum then, I’d have condemned their actions.
PAD
“The bringing up and invoking the other documentarians was a great stroke”
I only bring this up to note that the use of the word “other” is in this case inaccurate. That would imply that Michael Moore is one of those that he invited up there. The statement should be that he invited the documentarians. He is not a documentarian because he does not do documentaries.
The basic definition of documentary, put forth by the very freaking Academy, is that it be a work of nonfiction. Moore did not do a work of nonfiction.
He’s also a liar and immensely irresponsible despite what his interview said (which is on the Oscar.com website).
“The basic definition of documentary, put forth by the very freaking Academy, is that it be a work of nonfiction. Moore did not do a work of nonfiction.
He’s also a liar and immensely irresponsible despite what his interview said (which is on the Oscar.com website).”
Michael Moore may present a slanted opinion in his documentaries, but I can’t think of too many unbiased documentaries. Most documentaries are made with the intent of showing a particular point of view.
I’m curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument.
My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.
Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 – 1965), Speech in Detroit, 7 Oct. 1952
I’m with Peter all the way on the Dixie Chicks. And Adrien Brody. There were other anti-war mentions which also drew cheers. I had no problems with any of those.
What Michael Moore’s scene said to me was that if you act like an ášš, you’ll get treated like one. The Oscars may often be called boring, but to the Hollywood in-crowd, they have the force of ritual. Rituals have rules. Break those rules at your own risk. It’s not wrong for me to express my doubts about God, but if I shout them in the middle of my friends’ confirmation, I’d better be ready to accept the consequences.
(For what it’s worth, I think Moore recognized that he was breaking the rules, and that he felt the negative consequences would be worth it. Call it social disobedience.)
Now what struck me as truly cowardly was the loss of the red-carpet walk. I thought that was an obvious attempt to keep the stars from speaking directly to the cameras outside the formal ceremony. I bet several of them have interesting things they wished they could have said…
Peter, I happen to disagree. The fact that Moore’s speech was not that well received is beside the point, the fact that he chose to say that stuff on national television is. As my grandmother taught me, “there is a time and a place for everything”, and forgive me for saying this, but the dámņ Oscars is not the right place to say things like that.
Further more, the fact that he was booed off the stage, and ridiculed by the news and the general public, in outlined under freedom of speech. The people that booed him off the
stage are simply expressing their opinions, much the same way that he expressed his.
Finally the fact of the matter that people are boycotting the Dixie Chicks music, is in the part of our laws that says that people have the right to peacefully protest whatever they feel unjust, to the point that it interferes with other peoples’ rights, and I hardly call that “naked hatred of the concept of Free Speech”(as you put it). By the way their comments that caused their little problem all gets back to, “there is a time and a place for
everything”.