Yes, in my opinion, they should keep their mouths shut. I didn't say they shouldn't be allowed to speak. This whole thing is so dumb. Getting mad at people for choosing not to spend their money a certain way or watch what they want? What the hell? Maybe this is the 1950s afterall.
I would definitely agree with that Cohen. I don't fault him for expressing his views, but if entertainers whine or begin to whine about being "closed out", I really don't have a ton of sympathy for them. Taking a far right or left stance will clearly turn a lot of people on the opposite side off to that entertainer. These men and women generally make millions because they appeal to large audiences. If you isolate any of those people, you are not maximizing profit. In the case of Sheen, he plays a political figure on a popular TV show. He's the "Perfect President". TV networks or movie producers have every right to worry about the financial success of their productions when it comes to casting. NBC is about the bottom line - they're not saying they disagree with his views. They just don't want anything to keep the show from being as popular as possible, translating in to as many commercial dollars as possible. The public has every right to spend their time and money how they want to. If they're suddenly turned off to that entertainer because of their political views, I don't see why they're not allowed to change their viewing/spending habits. Keeping that in mind, I agree - entertainers have every right to voice their opinions. Alec Baldwin on the other hand should just shut the hell up.
Well, if you're going to watch a movie and all you can think about is "man, I hate this ****ing guy," then yes, it does effect the enjoyment one gets out of the movie. I mean, if we're just talking about people choosing whether or not to spend their own money on a form of entertainment, then who's to say what's right or wrong? In my opinion, it's definitely <b>not</b> wrong. Now, I don't neccesarily think it's right for those who are actually actively campaigning for the boycott of actors, but it's perfectly legal, just like any other boycott. I mean, I didn't think it was right when that girl turned her back on the flag, because she thought there were "some good and some bad things" about America, but she can do it. Then that's a problem. Unfortunately, yes, I do have to go. Like I said before, I don't think people can be judged on what they choose to spend their own money on. So, if the restaurant is getting ready to go bankrupt because of this one worker, then you either let him go or you lose your restaurant. I imagine that public perception is important in the restaurant industry just like it is in the movie business, though not to the same degree. I think you just have to file this one under "life's not fair," because I don't think people who decide not to give their money to someone they don't like is wrong, I don't think someone expressing their views in public is wrong, and I don't think firing or not hiring someone who will affect the success of their business is wrong. BTW, I understand the anology you were trying to make with the restaurant, but it's still not the same as movies. Just about every celebrity marriage, piece of clothing, interview appearance, etc. is predicated on giving their public image a boost. If a good public image can help them make money, then a bad public image can help them lose money. That's just the way it is.
As an aside, from a political, religious, or legal standpoint, there can be no doubt that Jesus was what would today be termed 'anti-establishment', and his stances on almost every issue would be charecterized as 'liberal'...
I seriously doubt that, since he believes in morality in the areas of family, sex, etc. Besides, liberals can get upset at too much religiosity, they would think Jesus was just a God worshipping nut. A lot of religious people are 'anti-establishment,' just not in the liberal way.
