Those are two totally different things. Nobody is boycotting because of someone's political view. If that were the case, all of Hollywood would be boycotted. What people have a problem with is the using of celebrity status as a platform to spout off, in effect coming into peoples' homes and preaching to them. If I were to do that I would expect that some people may not approve.
I kind of understand what you're saying, but I think that's a bit of reach. You're comparing hiring practices to paying for entertainment. As JayZ mentioned in his post, he doesn't like watching movies made by or starring people he has low opinions of. Why should he continue paying an absolutely ridiculous $9.00 for something he's not going to enjoy?
So, are these same people boycotting Law & Order, starring Fred Thompson who just made a "pro-war" ad?
A post worth repeating: No one (as far as I can tell) is saying consumers should not determine what they want to watch based in part on their personal feelings about a particular actor. It's kinda silly but everyone prerogative. What is problematic is if someone like a movie producer makes a hiring decision based on an actor's politics irrespective of the potential profit/loss of that decision. If you don't hire Penn because doing so would earn you less money than hiring no-talent Matt Damon, then that is smart business. If you'd make the same amount of money either way, as far as you can tell, but you avoid hiring Penn because you don't like his politics, you're doing something wrong (but not illegal). This is what happened in the 50s. When producers make casting decisions, do they have Gallup do some surveys to predict their profitability with this or that actor? More likely, they hire who the want to hire and blacklist who they want to blacklist.
I think the arguement could be made that movie studios and television networks fear lots of money will be lost. It has nothing to do with Hollywood rejecting these people because they sympethize with the far left. For the most part the people who run Hollywood are liberal. Is that a bad thing? No. But they aren't idiots. They don't want their actors/actresses out boasting about their political stance because it could detract the potential earnings of whatever project they are affiliated with. I believe in years past liberals have dominated the political spectrum in Hollywood but there are some conservatives there too. (ie. Mel Gibson, Joe Pesci, Dennis Miller, The Rock, Bob Hope, Tom Beringer, Fred Thomas, James Woods, Jay Leno etc) It has nothing to do with who you support but who you offend. I was listening to a conservative radio talkshow the other day. The host of the show brought up a few celebrities who were protesting against possible action taken in Iraq. The host along with callers agreed they would never see another film these people would star in. But the media is not to blame for the backlash against these celebrities. If anything else they have helped and encouraged these people. Anyone remember the mass demonstrations a few weeks ago that were broadcast on tv? I remember C-SPAN carrying one in Washington in its entirety. Every channel that broadcasts news covered these demonstrations. Last weekend there was demonstrations for the action that will be taken in Iraq. Were they given the attention the others before it did? No. The attention they were given was little to nil. RM95 is one of the more respectible posters in this BBS but I'll have to disagree that the celebrities are victims of some present day McCarthyism. Did anyone see Charles Barkley on Talk Back Live yesterday? He said he was against the war, and if anyone wants to tell him he's unpatriotic, he'll ask for the 72 million dollars he's paid in taxes for the past 20 years and move someplace else. I don't agree with him but I'll make the obvious exception for Charles. Hilarious.
You just said that: That's why I asked my question. If they're protesting or boycotting for that reason, I wonder if they're boycotting Law & Order as well.
"My fellow Americans, I'm Martin Sheen. I'm not the President of the United States / Commander in Chief of our nation's military, but I play one on TV. I also played the role of 'President's b****' in the movie <b>The American President</b>. And from the things I've learned first-hand from reciting words written by Hollywood writers, I can tell you that without a doubt our President is out of his ****ing mind." Unless Sheen stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, I really don't care what he has to say. I liked his brief cameo in "Hot Shots Part Deaux" though.
Nobody's telling people that they have to go see a movie with someone in it that they don't care for. But there are people espousing a boycott of actors who are speaking out against the war. That is punishing them for publicly expressing their views, which is something that none of us would appreciate being on the receiving end of. DCkid, You questioned what would your public image or private views have to do with flipping burgers? I imagine an actor would have the same question for you: what does their view have to do with how well they can act? If your response is: well, some people may not care to watch them act if they don't like them because of their views. That may be accurate, but is it 'right'? What if your manager said that he doesn't want someone working there with your views....he doesn't 'like' you anymore? Or maybe people won't buy his hamburgers because customers saw your picture in the paper, sorry, you gotta go. Again, some of the actors may be annoying at times, but what they're doing is within their rights. To intentionally try to punish them by denying them their livelihood is wrong.
I agree, his opinion means no more to me than some stranger's on the street. But he has every right to express it, no?
I'd be mad, but I'd probably feel pretty relieved. It'd be much better than getting the job to only later find out that I'm in a freaking impossible working environment due to the fact that everyone thanks I'm a wacko for my opinion, and for expressing it so vehemently. Besides that, it's something that is much much less likely to happen to me. One, because I am not in the public position these people are in. Two, because I would never ever use my public position (if I was in one) to influence people about causes I'm not the most knowledgeable person about. Maybe some of these actors have spent hours and hours researching Middle East history, the Isreali-Palestinian tensions, the rise of Saddam Hussein, his relationships with the U.S. and other countries, the Gulf War, Iraq's weapons history, etc, etc, etc. I do respect Penn, in the least, because I know he has visited the area, which is more than can be said for a number of politicians whose views are suppossed to be more expert. What makes the situation even that more a non-issue, Sean Penn & Co. undoubtedly knew beforehand that their actions would have an immediate, driect effect on their businesses. Your hypothetical paints less of a direct effect picture, but more of a you were young and in college kind of thing and you did something you still think you should have done and believed in but didn't realize it would have such an effect later on. They know exactly what they're getting into.
When did I say they shouldn't be able to speak their opinion? In the message I quoted: Maybe that just shows how unimportant these people's views are, and further proof that they need to keep their mouths shut. You're saying that their views are unimportant, and that it is proof they should keep their mouths shut. If they shut their mouths, how would they speak their opinion? Thus, I inferred that you were saying they shouldn't speak their opinion. Unless you think they should talk out of their ass instead, of course.
