Deconstructing Whoopi – a Republican Responds

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • John Ashcroft
    Veteran
    • Jan 2004
    • 2127

    Deconstructing Whoopi – a Republican Responds

    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
  • FORD
    ROTH ARMY MODERATOR

    • Jan 2004
    • 59648

    #2
    No it's anti-semitism. Corporate America is telling this proud Jewish woman to be silent
    Eat Us And Smile

    Cenk For America 2024!!

    Justice Democrats


    "If the American people had ever known the truth about what we (the BCE) have done to this nation, we would be chased down in the streets and lynched." - Poppy Bush, 1992

    Comment

    • ODShowtime
      ROCKSTAR

      • Jun 2004
      • 5812

      #3
      [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.
      gnaw on it

      Comment

      • Samsonite
        Head Fluffer
        • May 2004
        • 221

        #4
        I'm a democrat and I agree with you guys.

        Comment

        • Pink Spider
          Sniper
          • Jan 2004
          • 867

          #5
          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.

          Comment

          • ELVIS
            Banned
            • Dec 2003
            • 44120

            #6
            Do you even know what she said ???

            Comment

            • Pink Spider
              Sniper
              • Jan 2004
              • 867

              #7
              Yes, I do. Why do you want to know?

              Comment

              • John Ashcroft
                Veteran
                • Jan 2004
                • 2127

                #8
                Where do you get your crack?

                Comment

                • Pink Spider
                  Sniper
                  • Jan 2004
                  • 867

                  #9
                  40 minutes of exercise a day, and...

                  Ah, you've lost the argument already I see.

                  Comment

                  • John Ashcroft
                    Veteran
                    • Jan 2004
                    • 2127

                    #10
                    Heh heh heh... I couldn't resist.

                    Comment

                    • Big Train
                      Full Member Status

                      • Apr 2004
                      • 4013

                      #11
                      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.

                      Comment

                      • knuckleboner
                        Crazy Ass Mofo
                        • Jan 2004
                        • 2927

                        #12
                        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.)

                        Comment

                        • ELVIS
                          Banned
                          • Dec 2003
                          • 44120

                          #13
                          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...

                          Comment

                          • Pink Spider
                            Sniper
                            • Jan 2004
                            • 867

                            #14
                            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...

                            Comment

                            • ELVIS
                              Banned
                              • Dec 2003
                              • 44120

                              #15
                              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...

                              Comment

                              Working...