Peter Claver wrote:

The OP specifically said he wishes that they wouldn't.

you misunderstood...I didn't say they shouldn't be able to express their opinions. Doing so, however, has consequences. I said I WISH they didn't, as it colors my decision on spending money.
Frankly there's a difference between publicly loving Obama the way Oprah does versus the near treason Jane Fonda provided during the Viet Nam war.
Tarrantino's anti police rhetoric is on par with the same idiocy.
It's funny though that many of the people here who are liberal advocates tend to get really butthurt when an owner of a fast food chicken restaurant expresses an opinion.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
It's funny though that many of the people here who are liberal advocates tend to get really butthurt when an owner of a fast food chicken restaurant expresses an opinion.

Nah.. it's all the same to me.  If you don't like something tarantino says and you don't like it enough that it outweighs how much you like his movies.. then you make the sensible choice and stop patronizing his movies.  And you're certainly within your rights to try to encourage others to do the same.  The more the merrier.

I'm for *more* free speech.  I've always said that bigots and racists and homophobes and all the rest should speak more, not less.. I WANT them to speak their views. That way they reveal themselves and let me know that I have a decision to make as to whether or not I care to continue whatever relationship I may have with them (be it business or personal or otherwise).

People should always be unafraid to speak their minds.. so long as they are unafraid of the consequences of doing so.

The crux of my original post is that I'm confused about why you would want it to be otherwise?  Surely it's better to know more about the person you're giving money to.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

you misunderstood...I didn't say they shouldn't be able to express their opinions. Doing so, however, has consequences. I said I WISH they didn't, as it colors my decision on spending money.
Frankly there's a difference between publicly loving Obama the way Oprah does versus the near treason Jane Fonda provided during the Viet Nam war.
Tarrantino's anti police rhetoric is on par with the same idiocy.
It's funny though that many of the people here who are liberal advocates tend to get really butthurt when an owner of a fast food chicken restaurant expresses an opinion.

It's no stranger than a person using the phrase 'butthurt' to describe someone's reaction to anti-gay sentiment, and then saying that Jane Fonda committed treason.

We all value the opinions that we agree with more highly than the ones we do not.

JQuest wrote:
I'm friends with many people whose politics I disagree with. Celebrities are no different for me, I can appreciate their work without having to appreciate their personal political or religious views.

I'm very much of the same mind as you.  People are complicated creatures, with no two alike.  I know some people have judged me based on my opinions, but I'm anti-labeling, or numbering of people.  I don't like to be put into boxes or categorized into demographics. 

For example, I do not follow religion, but I am spiritual.  I do not call myself a liberal or conservative, as I find good aspects from both sides.  There are people from all ethnicities that I call family, and I am absolutely positive that there is only one race, and that is the human race.  In listening to the debates, I find things I can agree with with most all the candidates, but NO ONE candidate has struck me as the one that I think is perfect to vote for.  If I could split them into pieces, taking the best from each, then I'd have a candidate I like ... but no one person is perfect!    Bernie Sanders come closest so far.  Does that make me a "liberal" or a "socialist?"  I think not! 

There are people who happen to have celebrity status that I like, and agree with.  Then there are those I disagree with, but still admire their work.  I don't care much about what religion or political beliefs a model has when working with her/him as so to hopefully not effect our working together.  I'm respectful of opinions.  However personality and working as a team is more important than religious or political agendas.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Bernie Sanders come closest so far.  Does that make me a "liberal" or a "socialist?"  I think not!

You'd be wrong, LOL

Zack Zoll wrote:

It's no stranger than a person using the phrase 'butthurt' to describe someone's reaction to anti-gay sentiment, and then saying that Jane Fonda committed treason.

We all value the opinions that we agree with more highly than the ones we do not.

actually Jane Fonda did help the enemy during a time of war. It was considered a treasonous act by MANY in this country. Once again, there's a clear difference between freedom of speech and committing a crime. A recent example of a criminal act via speech is the city councilman calling for citizens to throw rocks and bottles at cops. http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/us/missis … e-comment/

Peter Claver wrote:

The crux of my original post is that I'm confused about why you would want it to be otherwise?  Surely it's better to know more about the person you're giving money to.

Frankly when I listen to music or go to a movie, I do so to escape or relax for a little while. I have no need to get to know Tarrantino. I also know the Dixie Chix were actually very popular until they took to the airwaves with their anti Bush rhetoric. You may agree with their thoughts but it cost them business big-time.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

Frankly when I listen to music or go to a movie, I do so to escape or relax for a little while. I have no need to get to know Tarrantino. I also know the Dixie Chix were actually very popular until they took to the airwaves with their anti Bush rhetoric. You may agree with their thoughts but it cost them business big-time.

Such is life.  It's as simple (and as hard) as tuning it out if you would prefer to enjoy tarantino's movies.  If you don't want it to matter to you then don't let it matter.

But it's on you to change yourself.. not on Tarantino.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I never pay attention to celebrity opinions.

Me either, but I never pay attention to celebrities at all.

Click Hamilton wrote:
Does anyone think Kim Kardashian, Justin Bieber, or the girl with the tongue should be governor of a state because of their name brand recognition? If not, then why should we care who they choose to vote for?

How could you disrespect the Bieber?

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
actually Jane Fonda did help the enemy during a time of war. It was considered a treasonous act by MANY in this country.

While "many" in this country may have erroneously regarded her statements as acts of treason, "many" in this country make similar mistakes on a frequent basis, and yet their opinions are just that.... opinions, which don't matter in any way.

Meanwhile, no actual authority ---or anyone who actually matters--- ever regarded her statements as anything but free speech, which is why no action was taken in any way. She went on to have a very successful movie career. Her activism still managed to get her on Project MINARET's surveillance list, though...

Zack Zoll wrote:
It's no stranger than a person using the phrase 'butthurt' to describe someone's reaction to anti-gay sentiment, and then saying that Jane Fonda committed treason.

We all value the opinions that we agree with more highly than the ones we do not.

As I said, I am all for free speech.

But, I am curious. When does free speech become something more? When a guy gets up in front of a crowd and tells them they should be rioting in the streets, or throwing rocks at cops, does that cross any kind of line for you?

I TOTALLY admit bias when it comes to Fonda. I was in Thailand launching flights over Vietnam while she enjoyed her photo op on North Vietnamese artillery. Hard to have warm fuzzies for her. I wont say I hate her, but I will drink a toast when she is gone.

Peter Claver wrote:
Such is life.  It's as simple (and as hard) as tuning it out if you would prefer to enjoy tarantino's movies.  If you don't want it to matter to you then don't let it matter.

But it's on you to change yourself.. not on Tarantino.

Yup, precisely. I still enjoy Clint Eastwood's movies exactly as much as ever, even after Clint's sad chair-talking fiasco a few years back. I still see him as The Man With No Name in his spaghetti westerns, or as Dirty Harry in that franchise's films, or as Frankie Dunn in Million Dollar Baby (just to name a few career highlights). I respect and enjoy the man's work and won't allow his political statements or performances to ruin that, because I am 100% in control of managing my response to any and all media artifacts.

kickfight wrote:

Yup, precisely. I still enjoy Clint Eastwood's movies exactly as much as ever, even after Clint's sad chair-talking fiasco a few years back. I still see him as The Man With No Name in his spaghetti westerns, or as Dirty Harry in that franchise's films, or as Frankie Dunn in Million Dollar Baby (just to name a few career highlights). I respect and enjoy the man's work and won't allow his political statements or performances to ruin that, because I am 100% in control of managing my responses to media artifacts.

It wasent a sad fiasco, it was quite brilliant to most. The left tried to make him out to be senile talking to an empty chair...

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Is it just me, or do you wish celebrities would just keep their political opinions to themselves?
It's one thing if Udor publicly bashes Bush or I publicly bash Obama here...but when a celebrity does it, they stand to lose half their audience.
Jane Fonda is an example...the most recent other negative example is Quentin Tarrantino and his "just call the murderers the murderers" rant at the BLM rally.
I'm a huge Tarrantino fan, but this just called an end to paying to see his movies for me.

Same here. Hollywood is full of uber liberals so I've just grown to accept that, but there is a line that gets crossed when they start blabbing on about topics they CLEARLY do not know about, such as Jenny McCarthy and her idiocy with immunizations or Quentin and his Black Lies Matter nonsense. I've always been a huge fan of his movies but I'm officially refusing to pay to see his latest film because of his big mouth. I'll watch it when it comes to Netflix or someone loans me their DVD. And when it comes to concerts, I'm sorry, but using the stage to spew your political drivel is just the wrong place for it. Nobody wants to hear your opinion on some agenda, just shut up and play.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
It wasent a sad fiasco, it was quite brilliant to most. The left tried to make him out to be senile talking to an empty chair...

Well, that's just another opinion, just one amongst many. To me, it was an extremely bizarre and awkward appearance, but I still respect Clint's work despite how bizarre and awkward it was. The right is certainly free to enforce a proper doctrinal response to that event upon its ranks.

Peter Claver wrote:
The crux of my original post is that I'm confused

Fair enough.

That's an important first step. Eleven more to go.

Best wishes from San Diego.

Laura UnBound wrote:
I'm perfectly fine with it. Celebrities have a huge advantage to getting things heard and seen that the less famous do not have, when a celebrity uses their position to shed light on important issues I think thats wonderful.

If theyre going to use their position to spread views I disagree with or be awful people then I just stop giving them attention/money. I don't expect or want anyone to be less than human, I have no wish to tell them to stop having thoughts and feelings because Im not interested in anything but their day job.

I'm just fine with celebrities speaking out as well , except for the ones I disagree with spewing awful things I disagree with, makes it hard to watch a lot of movies now days...

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
Is it just me, or do you wish celebrities would just keep their political opinions to themselves?

This whole thread reminds me of the early years of MM, when I was a moderator.

Considering that all mods were volunteers, selected from the membership, who were dedicated to make MM a great community... and we were part of the community, voicing our opinions, not just in OT on politics, but in all aspects of the MM fora... and there were quiet a few people speaking up, demanding that the moderators should not be allowed to participate in ANY of the forums, including industry...

Celebrities shouldn't be censored about voicing their own opinions on politics and often, especially musicians are politically engaged in their lyrics... the public is lapping up every little pimple that the yellow press reports, every cellulite bump on the ass and every spoon of breakfast cereal... they live in the glass house already... and should have the right to have an opinion and voicing it.

There was an actor or two whose performance I liked... then both came out of the closet with views that are identical to the neo nazis in Germany... From that moment on... it was harder to enjoy the movies for me... As a teenager in Germany... I knew about Ted Nugent, because I had friends who were fans... and I just knew about his extremely loud music... just in recent years, I learned about his views that are completely diametrically opposite to my own existence...

Ted has of course the right to speak his mind and he should not hold back, just because he is a celebrity... and I appreciate that, and it also tells me with whom I should not wasting my time with.

It's all about choices and the freedom to chose.

udor wrote:
I knew about Ted Nugent, because I had friends who were fans... and I just knew about his extremely loud music... just in recent years, I learned about his views that are completely diametrically opposite to my own existence...

Ted has of course the right to speak his mind and he should not hold back, just because he is a celebrity... and I appreciate that, and it also tells me with whom I should not wasting my time with.

Another excellent example. I still listen to and enjoy the shizzit outta the Amboy Dukes stuff, because that was some truly seminal rock-n-roll right there. It would utterly suck if I allowed Ted's political opinions to ruin that for me.... so I don't allow those opinions to have any effect on my enjoyment of his work. Ted is, after all, famous for being a musician... which is good for him, because he's a really mediocre pundit.

rfordphotos wrote:

As I said, I am all for free speech.

But, I am curious. When does free speech become something more? When a guy gets up in front of a crowd and tells them they should be rioting in the streets, or throwing rocks at cops, does that cross any kind of line for you?

I TOTALLY admit bias when it comes to Fonda. I was in Thailand launching flights over Vietnam while she enjoyed her photo op on North Vietnamese artillery. Hard to have warm fuzzies for her. I wont say I hate her, but I will drink a toast when she is gone.

Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution, and I don't believe it has been altered.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

There is still some room for interpretation. We might say that Fonda gave the VC aid and comfort by speaking so well of them. The original meaning is probably closer to 'feeding and housing them', but the authors are too dead to ask. Either way, the US government clearly did not try and execute her for treason, which was the preferred method when written.

So at least according to the alleged treason victim, it wasn't treason.

It was still a shitty thing to do, from a person that was way too ignorant and self-involved. If you won't say it, I will:  she was a shitty person(who has since become a little less shitty), and was fortunate to be held in fairly high regard when she spoke out.

But it wasn't treason. Not legally, anyway. And to use it as an example of what we can and can't say is no better than calling g someone names because we disagree.

Inciting a riot(as linked to above) however, is actually illegal.

Click Hamilton wrote:
The Bed Time for Bonzo guy was the best President we've had since Abraham Lincoln.

Ah humor.  I love it.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Treason is the only crime defined in the US Constitution, and I don't believe it has been altered.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

There is still some room for interpretation. We might say that Fonda gave the VC aid and comfort by speaking so well of them. The original meaning is probably closer to 'feeding and housing them', but the authors are too dead to ask. Either way, the US government clearly did not try and execute her for treason, which was the preferred method when written.

So at least according to the alleged treason victim, it wasn't treason.

It was still a shitty thing to do, from a person that was way too ignorant and self-involved. If you won't say it, I will:  she was a shitty person(who has since become a little less shitty), and was fortunate to be held in fairly high regard when she spoke out.

But it wasn't treason. Not legally, anyway. And to use it as an example of what we can and can't say is no better than calling g someone names because we disagree.

Inciting a riot(as linked to above) however, is actually illegal.

I never said a word about her being a traitor. Above my pay grade to call that one. I will never believe she had the best interests of the US in mind, I believe her motives were much more self serving. But- none of that means anything any longer, she did what she did, its repercussions have echoed thru history for a long time.

In the context of the times her actions were well  beyond those of other very vocal anti-war folks.  I spoke earlier about my generation actually changing the course of the country, and I believe the anti war movement did exactly that. It did it by getting people involved in politics, and those involved people spoke up- a lot of them. I believe that was a good thing. The will of the people is important.

But as a guy who was in uniform, its hard to have much warmth in my heart for those who exalted the men who were trying to kill me. Posing on an anti-aircraft battery with the enemy --- waving the NVA flag while burning the US flag---tough to think about while mopping blood out of an aircraft. Sorry--- I guess I fail as a human being, just dont have enough forgiveness in my heart I guess.

D a v i d s o n wrote:
I'm just fine with celebrities speaking out as well , except for the ones I disagree with spewing awful things I disagree with, makes it hard to watch a lot of movies now days...

/shrug entertainment is a luxury I can miss if it means not supporting horrible people saying and doing and promoting horrible things that impact other peoples real lives, not just their ability to see a movie. Its disappointing sure, but it teaches you not to hold celebrities to untouchable hero status either.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I've not spent a dime on anything Jane Fonda has been in.

Dang, you sure know how to hold a grudge.

Koryn wrote:
There are celebrities whose politics vary greatly fromy own, yet I continue to enjoy their films, shows and work.

On that same note, there are a few actors who share a very similar political viewpoint with me, but I don't necessarily care for their work.

About the only genuinely useful thing I learned in four years of college was to stop tying people's personal identities in with their art or creative work. You have to look at that stuff as a separate, living entity, totally divorced from its creator.

If you see a movie or buy a book of someone you disagree with you are rewarding them financially.

Koryn wrote:
About the only genuinely useful thing I learned in four years of college was to stop tying people's personal identities in with their art or creative work. You have to look at that stuff as a separate, living entity, totally divorced from its creator.

stop making sense.

Koryn wrote:
There are celebrities whose politics vary greatly fromy own, yet I continue to enjoy their films, shows and work.

On that same note, there are a few actors who share a very similar political viewpoint with me, but I don't necessarily care for their work.

About the only genuinely useful thing I learned in four years of college was to stop tying people's personal identities in with their art or creative work. You have to look at that stuff as a separate, living entity, totally divorced from its creator.

What Fun Productions wrote:
If you see a movie or buy a book of someone you disagree with you are rewarding them financially.

When I was a kid my grandmother was always fond of telling her grandchildren to be careful about cutting off your nose to spite your face. I never really understood it as a seven year old, however this thread seems to have brought great clarity to that old saw now.

JQuest wrote:
When I was a kid my grandmother was always fond of telling her grandchildren to be careful about cutting off your nose to spite your face. I never really understood it as a seven year old, however this thread seems to have brought great clarity to that old saw now.

Not really sure of your point?

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:
I'm a huge Tarrantino fan, but this just called an end to paying to see his movies for me.

I would be more concerned about his admission that he likes to sexually haze his cast.

http://teamcoco.com/video/quentin-taran … QiOjU3NDR9

Koryn wrote:

Dang, you sure know how to hold a grudge.

Some grudges are worth holding and what Hanoi Jane did is not worthy of forgiving IMO. It's like most of the hypocrites in Hollywood...they all hate America but they sure do like our money!

What Fun Productions wrote:

Not really sure of your point?

Doesn't surprise me at all.

What Fun Productions wrote:

If you see a movie or buy a book of someone you disagree with you are rewarding them financially.

My parents are on the totally opposite end of the spectrum from me politically. I still bought them a Christmas present.

I'm personally grateful to live in a world filled with many different people, who have many different types of thoughts, opinions and political viewpoints.

There are obviously some people who suck so hard at life, I wouldn't buy their books or pay to see their movies, should they have created books or movies. They include individuals such as Pol Pot, Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacey, Idi Amin. I probably wouldn't pay to read a book written by Osama Bin Laden either.

If you torture and kill people, I wouldn't make a habit of buying your books or movies. If you think differently from me, and I like your creative work, I might.