According to your rationale, I have the perfect right to use my professional position to censor public access to materials authored by people whose personal politics I find personally objectionable. I can do this in a variety of ways, including not purchasing the materials, non-display (putting them "in storage"), or cataloguing them in such a way that no one on God's green Earth could find them without a divining rod.
That is the equivalent, in my world, of what happened at the Baseball Hall of Fame.
When the president of the Baseball Hall of Fame refused to screen Bull Durham, he used his public position to deprive the community of a performance of a fine piece of art pertinent to that institution, based on his personal opinion of the personal opinions of two actors who appeared in the film.
If he was worried about what they would say at the event, the board of the Hall of Fame (and not the president personally) was perfectly free to invite them not to speak, or even not to attend. The movie's performance is not dependent on the physical presence of its stars. It's on film.
Bush and Blair put their careers on the line because they were elected, and the condition of their work is to get votes next election.
No one elects actors. They keep their jobs based on how well they do them, that is, by how well they execute their art.
If you don't like the amount of press actors get, complain to the press.
Regards--
Mary Anne
Current Events » in reply to Oh Yes We Do
Read it again.
The whole thread (47 posts)
- Stupid Hollywood Tricks
- Second Aspect Of Backlash
- Re: Stupid Hollywood Tricks
- For Robbins and Sarandon,
- Re: Freedom of speech
- I had fogotten about Dr Laura and the way her show was killed.