PDA

View Full Version : Deconstructing Whoopi – a Republican Responds



John Ashcroft
07-23-2004, 12:38 PM
In response to being fired by Slim-Fast for her lewd and outrageous anti-Bush diatribe at John Kerry’s exclusive, closed-door fundraiser on July 8th, the now-infamous Radio City “Hate Fest,” Whoopi Goldberg stated that “America's heart and soul is freedom of expression without fear of reprisal.” A close reading of Ms. Goldberg’s remarks divulges Hollywood’s fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment and the freedom of expression.

The First Amendment is not the exclusive property and privilege of the Hollywood elite; but, perhaps more pointedly, the First Amendment absolutely does not shield people who exercise their First Amendment rights from the consequences of the resulting expression. Unlike the idyllic bubble-world that is Hollywood, in the real world – including portions of fly-over country that elite celebrities like Goldberg would never dare set foot in – actions have consequences.

Of course, the authorities cannot stop a speaker from exercising their freedom of expression for fear of the audiences’ reaction – the so-called “heckler’s veto” – but, on the other hand, the speaker has no right to suppress that reaction. Goldberg averred that “The fact that I am no longer the spokesman for Slim-Fast makes me sad, but not as sad as someone trying to punish me for exercising my right as an American to speak my mind in any forum I choose.”

Someone should point out to Ms. Goldberg that the First Amendment only protects her from government reprisal; it does not insulate her from the ire of ordinary Americans who she might have actually insulted with her remarks. Apparently, the fact that people might actually disagree with her never crossed her mind; whither the favorite phrase of the entertainment elite “dissent is patriotic.” For Ms. Goldberg, dissent is patriotic, as long as it is not her remarks that one is dissenting from.

In fact, the First Amendment is not the exclusive privilege of the denizens of Beverly Hills; regular folks – ordinary consumers – had every right to express their own ire by demanding that Slim-Fast drop Whoopi. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, America is a marketplace of ideas. Ms. Goldberg’s overt belief that her ideas are superior to John Q. American who expressed his idea – i.e., “I choose not to buy products that Whoopi is associated with” – to Slim-Fast merely evinces her sheer arrogance.

Predictably, instead of accepting responsibility for her actions, Whoopi blamed the Republican Party for her dismissal – a pathetic cop out. Her automatic assumption that every single incensed person who contacted Slim-Fast was a Republican Party operative is preposterous. One needn’t be a registered Republican to be insulted by what is known of her remarks. In her defense, perhaps her remarks were taken out of context by reporters. If that is indeed the case, Americans will never know – the videotape of the event has been shrouded in secrecy, and the Kerry campaign has refused to let America see it. Perhaps it has been secured in Al Gore’s “lock-box”?

The bottom line is that if vociferous celebrities choose to carelessly, and publicly, emote with inflammatory rhetoric, which is their right, the ultimate audience of that rhetoric has every right to react with expression of its own – including boycotts. In case Ms. Goldberg hasn’t heard, boycotts are one of the most time-honored forms of expression. And, for Ms. Goldberg to call the indignation expressed by Americans participating in the boycott “disingenuous” merely adds insult to injury. The implication is that that the elites have a monopoly on genuine expression, which is asinine and deprecating.

Other reactions to Ms. Goldberg’s dismissal from Slim-Fast have been quite laughable, albeit predictable. Asa Khalif, head of Racial Unity USA in Pennsylvania, and self-proclaimed “diversity promoter,” released a statement relating to Goldberg’s firing. He stated that “I smell racism from beginning to end. . . . SlimFast must realize that black women have every right to voice their views.” Well, the race-baiters are out in force. Now it is just a matter of time until Jesse Jackson is marching, with his trademarked grim expression, on Slim-Fast headquarters.

In all frankness, Khalif’s absurd remarks should not merit media attention. However, it won’t be long until the misery merchants and masters of discord capitalize on the opportune firing of – gasp – a black woman. Perhaps Mr. Khalif glossed over the fact that people found the content of the remarks objectionable, not the person delivering them. I can guarantee Mr. Khalif that if lilly-white Michael Moore had delivered those remarks, the reaction would have been identical.

Like Mr. Khalif, I too smell something… but it isn’t racism.

Link: here (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/23/91925.shtml)

FORD
07-23-2004, 02:25 PM
No it's anti-semitism. Corporate America is telling this proud Jewish woman to be silent :mad:

ODShowtime
07-23-2004, 02:58 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by John Ashcroft

Someone should point out to Ms. Goldberg that the First Amendment only protects her from government reprisal; it does not insulate her from the ire of ordinary Americans who she might have actually insulted with her remarks. Apparently, the fact that people might actually disagree with her never crossed her mind; whither the favorite phrase of the entertainment elite “dissent is patriotic.” For Ms. Goldberg, dissent is patriotic, as long as it is not her remarks that one is dissenting from.[B]

I wish more people could understand this fact. The Consitution is under enough fire from the Bushites that we don't need anyone else helping out.

Samsonite
07-23-2004, 03:01 PM
I'm a democrat and I agree with you guys.

Pink Spider
07-23-2004, 03:13 PM
While it's constitutional, I still find it to be bad taste to fire someone for voicing their objections about fearless leader.

I would have that same opinion if it were a Republican criticizing a Democrat. This kind of stuff shouldn't happen here, even to celebrities.

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 03:18 PM
Do you even know what she said ???

Pink Spider
07-23-2004, 03:26 PM
Yes, I do. Why do you want to know?

John Ashcroft
07-23-2004, 03:29 PM
Where do you get your crack?

Pink Spider
07-23-2004, 03:44 PM
Ah, you've lost the argument already I see.

;)

John Ashcroft
07-23-2004, 03:48 PM
Heh heh heh... I couldn't resist.

Big Train
07-23-2004, 03:52 PM
I don't think any of this has much to do with the Constitution or free speech or any of that. "America is marketplace of ideas", as one poster described it before. Whoopi was hired on the idea that "Whoopi is popular with Americans who might buy this product". She said some things she had a right to say, but affected said popularity. This in turn changed the idea to "America doesn't really like what Whoopi has to say", which naturally, made her unpopular. So a business decision was made to remove her, as she was no longer the best candidate to hawk the product.

What any of that has to do with her RIGHTS to say something or not, I have no idea. She was never stopped from loading the gun, aiming or shooting herself in the foot.

knuckleboner
07-23-2004, 04:21 PM
yep, this was purely a business decision. slim fast thought it would make money initially with whoopi, so they hired her. then they figured they'd lose money with her, so they canned her.

perhaps, if she wants to be a SPOKESMAN for a company, she might want to watch her speech...

(and for the record, it drives me CRAZY when people bitch about their 1st amendment rights being trampled in situations like these.)

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
This kind of stuff shouldn't happen here, even to celebrities.

What are you talking about...

A foul mouthed has-been shoots of her X-rated mouth and Slim Fast decides her services were no longer needed...

Not to mention that Kerry is keeping the so called performance under tight wraps...

You just argue for the sake of arguement...

Pink Spider
07-23-2004, 06:44 PM
I don't argue for the sake of argument. If that were true, I would respond a lot more around here.

It doesn't matter what fucking content she used while saying what she said. It was a personal comment that had nothing to do with the company. If she wasn't shooting a commercial while doing it, then I don't see why she should be fired.

BTW, do you have a problem with the comment being anti-Bush or being "X-rated"? Would you prefer that Slim Fast get some religious right nut like Jerry Falwell to be a spokeman? If anyone needs it...

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 06:49 PM
I don't have a problem with it at all...

The people at Slim Fast obviously do.. and I'm sure Kerry isn't too impressed with her drunken inappropriate behavior...

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 06:50 PM
Slim Fast should get someone at least slim...

diamondD
07-23-2004, 06:53 PM
I don't have a problem with her being anti-Bush because I fully expect it from most celebrities. It's not like most people that get fired from their endorsements are done so for their political jabs. When you endorse a product, you are allowing your image to be associated with it, and if your image doesn't reflect what you were originally hired for, anyone has a right to can you IMO.

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 06:55 PM
..and you're exactly right...

Pink Spider
07-23-2004, 06:57 PM
If there were any truth in advertising, you would have someone throwing up after drinking that sludge. That's how you really lose the weight. :D

But, that would offend some of you too. I guess you can't please everyone.

freak
07-23-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
I don't argue for the sake of argument. If that were true, I would respond a lot more around here.

It doesn't matter what fucking content she used while saying what she said. It was a personal comment that had nothing to do with the company.

Wrong answer, naive one.

She is paid big bucks to *represent* the company. She is there to project an *image* to consumers.

If the image she presents for the company includes sexual references and mean-spirited hate talk, they have every right to disassociate themselves from her.

Spokespeople aren't hired to turn off consumers.

Whoopie is just too damned stupid for her own good.

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 07:02 PM
How much do you weigh Pink ??

Post a pic...

Pink Spider
07-23-2004, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by freak
Spokespeople aren't hired to turn off consumers.

I guess you're right.

That means that Slim Fast has done the marketing research and found out that there are more overweight Shrub supporters than vice versa. Makes sense. ;)

Pink Spider
07-23-2004, 07:13 PM
Originally posted by ELVIS
How much do you weigh Pink ??

Post a pic...

Where's your pic?

I'm not ashamed to say that I weigh around 130 at the most. Haven't checked in a while, but it's somewhere around that.

I did away with most junk food a long time ago.

freak
07-23-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
I guess you're right.

That means that Slim Fast has done the marketing research and found out that there are more overweight Shrub supporters than vice versa. Makes sense. ;)

Actually, most conservatives are indeed older and thus more prone to spare-tire syndrome.

Those tending towards liberalism after reaching middle age are exceptions to the rule.

FORD
07-23-2004, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
Where's your pic?



It's in his avatar. But that was before all the peanut butter & banana sandwiches (fried in bacon grease)

freak
07-23-2004, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by FORD
It's in his avatar. But that was before all the peanut butter & banana sandwiches (fried in bacon grease)

Explains the Hell out of dying on the toilet doesn't it :D

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
Where's your pic?

I'm not ashamed to say that I weigh around 130 at the most.


That's not bad, let's see...

I've post many pics of myself...

pete
07-23-2004, 08:46 PM
Originally posted by Pink Spider
While it's constitutional, I still find it to be bad taste to fire someone for voicing their objections about fearless leader.


It's a form of protest from a personal standpoint.

It's a marketing decision in this sense i think.

I wouldn't hire stalin to sell my granola bars.

FORD
07-23-2004, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by pete

I wouldn't hire stalin to sell my granola bars.

But would you hire him to sell vodka? ;)

ELVIS
07-23-2004, 10:55 PM
I would...

That's a better idea than Cabo Wabo Tequila...

freak
07-23-2004, 11:00 PM
I think Karl Marx would have made a better vodka spokesman.

He had that crazed drunk look to him. Let's the masses know that it'll get the job done.

monkeythe
07-24-2004, 12:15 AM
What really has me upset about this Whoopi situation, that no one mentions is corporate america and how companies pick outrageous personalities for their products and then fire them for doing what they are famous for.
In the case of Whoopi, what did Slimfast expect from someone that went to a roast with her then boyfriend, Ted Danson, dressed in black-face. Her comedy has always been "dirty". Why is this company firing her for doing what they hired her for.
Another examples of this includes Rush Limbaugh being hired as a football analyst because of the controversy he might bring to the table and then being fired for being controversial. I chose to highlight this incident because it shows that the Corporate hypocrasy works against both liberals and democrats.
The worst case of this recently was ABC using Jimmy Kimmel at an NBA game and then suspending him because he made an inappropriate joke.
I hate this corporate BS more than the Democrats and Republicans combined.

ELVIS
07-24-2004, 12:22 AM
Rush was an asset to the group of boring sports analysts...

FORD
07-24-2004, 03:47 AM
Rush would have been fired two days later anyway, even if he hadn't made the racist comment about McNabb, because the story broke about his oxycontin addiction.

John Ashcroft
07-24-2004, 12:35 PM
How was his comment racist?

FORD
07-24-2004, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by John Ashcroft
How was his comment racist?

To say that a quarterback only got media attention because he was black. Hell, the guy's no Joe Montana, but he won enough games to get the Eagles to the playoffs.

BigBadBrian
07-24-2004, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by FORD
To say that a quarterback only got media attention because he was black. Hell, the guy's no Joe Montana, but he won enough games to get the Eagles to the playoffs.

Rush was right but everyone else is afraid to say it. McNabb is an above-average QB. Nothing more. He can't close the deal. :gulp:

wraytw
07-24-2004, 10:17 PM
Yeah, that's definitely a racist comment, FORD.

Give me a fucking break. :rolleyes:

BrownSound1
07-25-2004, 02:20 AM
I've actually tried a fried peanut butter and banana sandwich...it is pretty good. The bad thing about it is I could feel my arteries close after two bites, and there ain't no way in hell I'm going to die on the shitter. :D

ELVIS
07-25-2004, 04:24 AM
That does sound like it might be good...:D

John Ashcroft
07-25-2004, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by FORD
To say that a quarterback only got media attention because he was black. Hell, the guy's no Joe Montana, but he won enough games to get the Eagles to the playoffs.

And yet somehow, the term "White ******" is just fine and dandy with you on the left...