"The shallow idiot, the one who really saw him as more than just an entertainer, was the man who killed him, not him or his fans. Shame on you, Gbaikie, for denying Lennon the right to make his political statements through his art, while you exploit forums like this to disseminate yours."

I said:
"Too bad there was so many shallow idiots who thought of him as something other than a entertainer. And worse, imagined he was some kind of god."

The person who murdered Lennon was a Lennon fan [which if you think about it for a bit, might add something here].

And I did not deny "Lennon the right to make his political statements".

But now I will say something that has a better chance of being construed as denying his right to make political statement: I think a good moral rule is that movie star, rock stars, and ball players should avoid getting involved in politics "as a hobby". Sing all you want about things which are political, but by using the stage as a soapbox you "are meddling in something you ought not meddle in".

And to be clear, if you want to be a politician I have no problem with this. To have a combination of rock star at same time being a politician might be fun and I don't see any problem with this [nor am I aware of this ever happening, though doing so at same time as being movie star has happened, but again, this is different].
BUT if a rock star/movie star/ball player does make political statement they shouldn't be surprised if people criticize them for making these statements and this is NOT in any conceivable way "denying his/her right to make political statement".

Here another way to look at this, if a singer sings a song which political, the only real way to *really* counter this is by someone else singing a different song. Now, a political debate in songs might interesting, but once a singer begin talking, this then can be countered with other talk- in a sense the singer by talking is entering another realm.