Exercising free speech requires more physical courage than does all of the other constitutional Rights combined. Movie industry Lefties are the most vocal defenders of the principle while they have the least courage when it comes to practicing free speech. I always wrote them off as con artists trying to get everybody else to speak up while they concentrated on grabbing the dough. Now I know they are simply cowards:
April 24, 2012. . . it seems there are places even Roland Emmerich will not go - the German film-maker has revealed he abandoned plans to obliterate Islam's holiest site on the big screen for fear of attracting a fatwa.
For his latest disaster movie, 2012, the 53-year-old director had wanted to demolish the Kaaba, the iconic cube-shaped structure in the Grand Mosque in Mecca that Muslims the world over turn towards every day when they pray and which they circle seven times during the hajj pilgrimage.
But after some consideration, he decided it might not be such a smart idea, after all.
"I wanted to do that, I have to admit," Emmerich told scifiwire.com. "But my co-writer Harald [Kloser] said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right."
The Film Industry's Selective Bravery
A cottage industry
Hollywood Lefties, and liberals in general, made a cottage industry out of attacking a dead senator, Joseph McCarthy (1908 - 1957). Based on that decades-long demonstration of verbal bravery liberals still claim it takes courage to be a liberal, yet the people and politics liberals attack are not nearly as violence prone as the Socialists/Communists liberals defend. Fear of a fatwa proves that liberals only attack when no courage is required. You can paraphrase the old saw and say “Liberals are guilty of every political crime that does not require courage.”
Naturally, liberals insist they are on the side of justice and right when they defend the actions of violent black racists, Communists, and murderous Muslims, yet liberals come out of the woodwork screaming “Hate speech” whenever a well-known conservative exercises his or her free speech Right.
Aging actress Susan Sarandon is a classic liberal:
It took real courage for Suzy to expose the government’s brutality on that one even if it was her Democrats who did it to her.I've had my phone tapped.
It gets worse for Suzy who revealed:
I have to admit it did take courage to speak out about losing her White House security clearance.. . . she was denied White House security clearance
If SS thinks Pope Benedict is a Nazi what must she think of Hussein? So he had every right to bar a notorious Nazi hunter from the White house as a matter of self-protection.Most recently, she was forced to apologise after describing Pope Benedict XVI as a 'Nazi' in October.
SS is also a pacifist —— the most cowardly political posture of all:
SS opposes all war but as far as I know she never criticized mass murders done by Communist governments, nor have I heard her object to violence and threats initiated by Muslim fundamentalists.. . . addressing thousands at a rally in Washington, D.C. in October 2002.
'Let us resist this war,' she shouted. 'Let us hate war in all its forms, whether the weapon used is a missile or an airplane.'
In January 2007, she appeared with Robbins and Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally in Washington, D.C. to support a Congressional measure to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq.
Here’s the link to the article that includes some photos in case you are not a movie fan:
'I've had my phone tapped': Susan Sarandon claims 'government is watching her'... and reveals she was denied White House security clearance
By Lydia Warren
Free speech and media
Bernard Goldberg is the subject of my final observation on free speech. Please click on the link and move the cursor to 4:50 to hear his brief remarks about the necessity of a free press:
First let me say that BG is usually pretty good. His 2001 book —— Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News —— was earthshattering at the time even though it basically defended the media as he did last night on The Factor.
I have two major objections to Goldberg’s media:
1. The media does not defend free speech it defends freedom of the press. The two are incompatible.
2. There is not one legitimate reason to have a free press if it does not attack government; all government —— liberal and conservative. Fair & Balanced is the fraud Goldberg’s beloved FOX Network is perpetrating.
I can ignore media mouths pumping up their profession and incomes, but Goldberg really let me down when he said “We need to trust them. We need to believe them.” By “we” I assume Goldberg means “everybody” because a substantial number of Americans do believe whatever the media tells them. The people who now believe the media are the same people who believe everything people like Susan Sarandon say. That alone should make every respectable journalist’s flesh crawl.
As for me, I’m not going to believe anybody that works for the Ministry of Propaganda (FCC). If talking heads want me to believe them they have to start criticizing their bosses for this:
http://www.rense.com/general17/quote.htm"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years."
He went on to explain:
"It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries."
-- David Rockefeller, Speaking at the June, 1991 Bilderberger meeting in Baden, Germany (a meeting also attended by then-Governor Bill Clinton and by Dan Quayle
That’s six decades of media lies of omission; 67 years if you start the clock in 1945.
Finally, print press has First Amendment protection as Goldberg well-knows; so what does that make television? Answer: An instrument of government propaganda because print press can void its promise at any time, while television will forever be the government’s lap dog wearing broadcast licenses for dog collars.