Don't get me wrong, I think the HOF is totally in the wrong here. Mr. Petrovsky is obviously a political opportunist. However, Robbins' reply that the HOF is compromising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech is just as ludicrous, IMO.
Here are the things that he's really talking about. This is just stupid. This one is for jonheath, you know he's the type of person who probably engages in this regularly. Freedom of speech is a two way street, I see that you think threats and intimidation are a-ok in your book since these are the things I complain about. Did anybody else just hear the sound of millions of blinders snapping into position? So reiterate that it's one thing to disagree, but intimidation, threats, and extending hatred towards the families of people you disagree with is just wrong. Your either against that kind of crap, or for it
The old adage, "what goes around comes around" comes to mind when Marxists Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins cross the mind. Words spoken only reminiscent of Stalin's prosecutor Andrei Vyshinsky years ago when Tim Robbins exclaimed, "We are bringing Hurley to trial", and "She will not get away with it." Elizabeth Hurley in 2000 filmed a commercial with a company she had obligations to, during a time her union was on strike. A strike Robbins and Sarandon were strongly supportive of. Its one thing crying about people using their position in society as a soapbox to make a political statement its another to tell people where they can and cannot work. They tried to end this womens acting career despite her unwareness of the situation. Eventually she sent 25 grand to the cause in a desperate attempt to save her career because of juvenile threats by pinkos. Welcome to reality Robbins. I rarely, if ever, voice my support of the war in public places for the obvious amount of emotion people have dedicated to their opposition/support of the war. I choose to do this for unwanted and unneeded repercussion of my support of the conflict. Of course, when Robbins enounters repercussion of his open support he is quickly blacklisted. Much like Robbins and Susan blacklisted an actress a few years ago. Go figure. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/entertainment/DailyNews/hurleysag001010.html
I just noticed Oski's sig, which I believe was taken from his response letter to the HOF, and thought is solidified the contradictory tone of the majority of Robbins' arguments. 'Long live democracy' - The democratically elected representitives of the US, ie Congress, gave the president, also elected democratically, the authority to use force in Iraq. An overwhelming majority of Americans support both the justification of the war and the president himself. Yet, in Tim Robbins' eye, democracy is being oppressed because not everyone agrees with him. 'free speech' - In addition to the gross misuse of the First Amendment protection in reaction to the HOF's cancellation of his appearance, he is now appearing on nearly every media outlet, from news programs to talk shows to SportCenter. That is some suppression of his free speech when I can't turn the channel without seeing him speaking somewhere. 'the '69 Mets' - Anyone who lays claim to the Mets, regardless of whether it was the miracle '69 season or not, cannot be trusted at all.
Yeah that was pretty harsh on Robbins part. I didn't see anything about 25 grand on her part. If that 25 grand was a fine by SAG, how can that be Robbins's doing if he doesn't run the union? I don't see where Robbins claims that democracy is being repressed, you pretty much came up with this on your own. As for free speech, I already pointed out death threats, harassment, and intimidation. I don't think he's claiming that the govt is restricting his freedom of speech, though he points out what happened to Helen Thomas. Hmm, he was on Outside the Lines and he gave this speech at a funtion he was invited too, yeah, he is everywhere. I think your confusing coverage with appearences. Did you notice that all the channels he was on, he had the same suit, same podium, and same speech
The quote in your sig was in direct response to the HOF's cancellation of the Bull Durham celebration, and has nothing to do with Helen Thomas. His point was that the decision flew in the face of democracy and free speech, which is ridiculous. Also, thanks for the lesson in cognitive reasoning. Before, I didn't know the difference between a live interview and a pre-recorded speech. Now I do, and the world is a whole new place.
Well I hope you know I was kidding with the appearence thing since you were making it seem like he was on some media blitz around the country. Again, he never claimed democracy was being trampled when talking about the Hall of Fame. You should quote Petrosky and break down the things he said in his letter to Robbins and Sarandon like claiming that they are putting are troops in more danger.
If you read my earlier post, I admitted that I thought that Petrosky was the one who was clearly wrong in this case, but it doesn't mean that I can't like the way Robbins has used it to grandstand.
Well, I have to bug you about this because I was in the middle of looking for a new quote for my sig when you made the post about what Robbins signed his letter with. Now I can't change it for a month or I'll look like a beyotch.
Sorry about that. BTW, I obviously meant to say 'dislike the way' instead of 'like the way' in my last post. Edit, Edit, Edit!!!
Baseball Hall Head Apologizes on Event Petrosky issues an apology: Ever the class act, Robbins responds: Again with the First Amendment? I would like to ask Tim Robbins exactly what his definition of free speech. I would imagine it's nowhere near what the First Amendment guarantees.
Hammer, did you actually READ the "apology?" It WAS a non-apology apology. He basically said he apologized for sending a letter instead of phoning first. And admits that by trying to avoid politicizing the HOF he himself politicized it. How is that an apology? And, aside from your bitter hatred of all lefties, what exactly was wrong with Robbins' response?
He apologized for the way he handled the situation. I don't know what more you would want. Please, "bitter hatred of all lefties"? Just the ones that are so blinded by their own illogical thought processes that they can't see reality. I also dislike those on the right who fall into that category. If you think Tim Robbins response was justified, please explain to me how the First Amendment or freedom of speech worked into this event.
1) Your democracy point would be a legit one were the matter strictly internal...We do have the right to democratically determine our own fate. But this is an external matter; we do not have the right to democratically determine the fate of others...at most that is a global matter, and there you run in to numbers that just don't support your argument. Democracy is not something we have on which we have a monopoly, nor does it apply to the US alone when it involves the US' involvment, especially militarily, in other nations affairs. 2) Freedom of Speech is not something you restrict whenever you like; it has only been restricted when it is deemed to directly endanger the lives of others. To say that Robbins' restrictions not being universal somehow justifies the times it has been restricted is illogical. Suppose your freedom of speech were only restricted on Tuesdays...would your freedom the other days of the week make that practice all right? 3) Ok...there you got me.
Let's be clear. He apologized for sending a letter instead of calling. Not exactly an apology. I'm pretty sure Robbins (and the many others who apparently emailed to complain) wasn't compaining about protocol. To his credit he admitted that out of fear of the possibility of the HOF being politicized, he made sure it was politicized. If people are upset about the POSSIBILITY of the HOF being politicized, maybe they shouldn't put a prominent political figure in charge of it. It was a partisan abuse of his power and it was a mistake. That's what he should have apologized for. Not just to baseball fans, but to Robbins and Sarandon. They'd given him no indication they would use the HOF as a platform for politics. He made a mistake and he did not apologize for it any more than Shaq apologized to Yao when he said he was sorry that some of his jokes weren't funny. On the other thing, wow, you really got me there, genius. No, the HOF actions were not against the law and they did not violate the constitution. But they absolutely violated the spirit of the constitution and they were part of a disturbing trend which Robbins eloquently described in his speech to the press club. I'm confident you've read at least some of my posts on this matter and I can't say any of this any better than Robbins did in his speech. You don't have to agree with him, but if you honestly believe that Tim Robbins doesn't "understand" free speech or that his reaction was somehow outrageous you're just being stubborn.
So let me get this straight. The 'spirit of the consitution' now covers private organizations? That's a pretty big addition that you're proposing exists. Of course Tim Robbins understands free speech, but the true meaning of it wouldn't suit his self-promoting agenda in this case, so he screamed 'First Amendment Violation!!!' anyways. And if you honestly think that they would not have used the HOF platform for making a political statement, you are the one who is being stubborn. They use every potential outlet as a political platform. As usual, your personal name-calling and insults are always welcome.
