Elton John comments about American censorship.

[phanatic]

Just to answer your question I why I never enlisted. I scored high enough on the ASVAB to enter ANY MOS I desired. Unfortunately, I wanted to be a pilot. I was not allowed because of my high blood pressure. I take two different meds to maintain it. It's ok if you develope this condition while you are in service, they just don't want the responsibility when you enter.

[Stu]

Originally posted by codeorama

Thiebear,

There are tons of extremeskins members that have served and I totally respect that.

I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about the ones who havent but are 200 percent for the war, they are die hard and blindly support everything regarding our country's actions in Iraq, yet for all their resolve, they don't enlist themselves, they they just talk a good game.

Code,

I left the service shortly before 9/11 and voluntarily returned after the attack to fight the GLOBAL War on Terror in whatever venue that might be. I fully support the actions of our Commander-in-Chief in hunting the terrorist ****s wherever they may hide (and I have been to those places a few times already). These actions were my choice and in no way do I feel that everyone needs to follow my lead. To the converse, I would rather America continue on as it had before like nothing happened. That in itself is victory. People going to work, posting on ExtremeSkins, eating at Baskin-Robbins or whatever they are all signs of victory on our part. We'll try to keep (and kill) the terrorist SOB's "over there" in hopes of keeping them away from the greatest country ever.

I also do my duty so that all Americans have the right to free speech. Free to support and dissent. And even though some dissenting rhetoric has been irresponsible in my opinion, I defend that as well. But just like I stood up for my convictions, I expect those dissenters to stand up for their own. Say what you want, but be prepared for the heat and take it like a man.

Sounds like Phanatic is doing his part. If you want an example to emulate, I suggest his path.

Stu

Fly Navy...The Best Always Have.

and Thiebear thanks for your service. If I remember correctly a "Semper Fi" is in order. (or was Tarhog the Devil Dog?)

[Woofer]

Wow. What a mess this thread turned out to be.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by Tarhog

Here's the crux of celebrity political speak...

These folks aren't used to being 'disagreed with'. Thats really what it boils down to. Elton John probably hasn't heard the word 'no' in 25 or 30 years. His every word is met with praise and agreement. Its that way with ALL celebrities. So when they say something controversial, and say it with all the volume and influence they possess, and are met with 'boo's' or scorn, they can't take it.

Here's a newsflash...I get crap for something I SAY damn near every week I work...and so do most other citizens. Thats just the way it is. Sometimes our insight is crystal clear and indisputable, other times we miss the mark. No celebrity anywhere in the history of celebrity, has ever admitted to doing so. No surprises there.

I don't see the controversy here. Some aging pop icon makes some grand sweeping statements about a country he clearly has only peripheral knowledge about. Who cares? I'll say it again though....why the absolute defense of someone like Elton John to speak his mind, but the desire to muffle and slap-down those here that want to speak their mind to disagree with him?

Could it be that many really AREN'T in favor of free speech? Think hard before you answer. I've asked myself this same question quite a bit lately, and the answer hasn't always reflected favorably upon myself. If you REALLY believe in free speech, you have to be prepared to hear things that really piss you off, and then try and respond without belittling yourself in the process.

I think we can all agree on one thing.

This season cannot start soon enough.

By the way, I hear it from reliable sources that Bernie Taupin thinks Elton is full of ****.

And he would know

Tarhog, you never mentioned me by name, but I got the feeling that some of your comments were directed at me, so I would like to repsond to some of them.

Paragraph 1 - You may have a point about celebs not hearing "NO". I do not know.

2 - I don't really care what Elton's thoughts or comments are. Singers should sing, actors should act, and politicians should...should...well, they should just do whatever the hell it is they do.

3 - I do believe in free speech. But when someone else's idea of free speech is to quell a different someone's right to free speech by telling them to shut up, or leave the country, or get shot with something, I am going to exersize my right to free speech by showing them how, um, "silly" they are. I do not feel that I belittled myself at all.

This is the longest off-season I can remember.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by Thiebear

Woofer?

So in your post you are criticizing me as the peasant and Elton John as the king due to my post saying:

He is making a PUBLIC statement about something that is proven to increase your income and notice of the moment...

Which part of that can you really disprove? or are you trying to censure me?

Be specific please when you mention the people that didnt gain so far from speaking out?

I'm sorry friend, but you were the one throwing accusations around. Where is your proof?

I do not have the right or the power to censure you.

Should I take it that you ARE accusing him of being greedy? That is fine. But again, where is your proof. My argument was that Elton doesn't need to make such politically charged statements to make money. All he has to do is sing.

[Thiebear]

Originally posted by Woofer Magoo

I'm sorry friend, but you were the one throwing accusations around. Where is your proof?

I do not have the right or the power to censure you.

Should I take it that you ARE accusing him of being greedy? That is fine. But again, where is your proof. My argument was that Elton doesn't need to make such politically charged statements to make money. All he has to do is sing.

People that speak out of the Norm and Fight the power almost Always profit from it. To be infamous is as good as being famous now-a-days...

keep reading the posts and tell me where i was wrong. I was also not saying really that he was being GREEDY. What i was saying was that with Sir Elton John coming out and not actually DOING anything, but speaking out about speaking out he is self-servingly bringing attention to himself... (in the twilight of thier careers you see the same thing from other performers also) See Madonna and others as examples.. She doesnt have the Sir, but she is equally as high in stature correct?

Is that a true enough statement? Like you stated.. Only the Government can censure someone... everyone else is using their right to speak out against what Sir Elton spoke out against because Whoopi spoke out...

It's really quite simple really until you put you emotions on your sleeve and make it personal.. Like the 1st page...

[codeorama]

Thiebear and Phanatic...

I think the point I was trying to make was that it's easy to say "lets go get them" yet not have to actually do it. That burden is for those that actually choose to serve and I have nothing but respect for those people, regardless of how I feel for the current administration. Both of my wife's brother's are in the millitary, one served in Iraq I and the other is over there now. Neither of them are warmongers. They signed up because that's what they wanted to do with their lives and they served when it was their turn. The current drummer in my band was a medic in Iraq six months ago. We just got up with him a month ago and listening to the stories he has to tell are saddening. He's not a warmonger either. I've said before, I base my personal views on my own experiences just as everyone does, that's why people have such different opinions. We all experience different things. Neither of my brothers in law are diehard war supporters or conservatives, the drummer in my band said in his own words "we shouldn't be over there" (his opinion), these are examples of why I think the way I do. But I fully understand the opposite point of view as well.

I've posted here on several occasions that the war isn't something that I feel strongly enough about to actually protest. Removing Saddam from power was a good thing, there are other good things that will come from it, but I just hate the unnecessary death that it brings and those that profit from it.

IMO, everyone needs to try to see the other person's point of view.

But back to the point of the thread, Elton really has no point, he can speak out if he wants to, he's just afraid of the consequences. Why? I don't know, if you feel that strongly about somthing, speak out, you may make a difference, or it could ruin your career.... Ah, the tough choices of a millionaire.

[Burgold]

Government sponsored censorship over the last few years:

This year, a nine-second rule was imposed on all recorded media. The purpose of this nine second rule is to allow for the immediate censorship of any live broadcast of something that the FCC would find objectionable (nudity, vulgarity, obsenities, etc.)

Pictures of wounded soldiers, flag draped coffins, and medical transport has been heavily censored. People have even been fired over taking photos of flag draped coffins.

Limited access, and censored news broadcasts out of Iraq. For the most part I agree with this, but it is still censorship. Information has been heavily censored in Iraq. Clearest example, go to the DoD website... they have left the number of "non-combat" injuries blank. They do not publish the number and if it is requested by an agency, it is withheld. Perhaps, this is not censorship in its purest form, but the information has clearly been censored.

Censorship is not always bad. Some of it in fact can be very protective, but the fact is during the last four years there has been a growing number of acts of information suppression. Indeed, there has been a tendency to blacklist people and label them anti-american if they disagree with the policies of the current administration. People have been fired, fined (example, the woman who mailed the photos of the flag draped coffin). Most of you have typed on this thread are aware of this and other examples. I have read what you have typed about them.

The reaction at the beginning of this thread to Elton complaining about censorship and McCarthyism was that he should be

A) shot with Rubber bullets

Run out of the country

C)STFU

D) ignored because he was a pampered celebrity or ignorant

Then there's the faction who say censorship as long as it doesn't stem from the government is cool. There is no new government censorship. In fact, the publishing of his words prove this.

I contend that censorship exists today in the form of media through the aegis of bias and purposefully incomplete reporting (by people with political agendas on both sides) And that this censorship is not acceptible simply because it originates more from the private sector than from the government. Any conservative out there want to take the opposite arguement that the liberal media isn't censoring/editing its news to only put forth one viewpoint? Any conservative out there want to further contend that if the liberal media is doing that that it is a good thing?

[panel]

One thing I never got is how when people say crazy-ass things, and when no one like or wants to hear it, it is censorship.

Just because you can say something doesn't mean you have the right to make everyone hear it accept it and consider it. Not everything DESERVES an open diolog.

Nazis don't deserve an open diolog, neither do other crazy people who have somthing wild or shocking to say.

If there is acctually presure from the government to stop certin voices (which I doubt) then that is a form of cencorship, but if it is a community preventing wild rants, that isn't censorship.

[Burgold]

Panel,

I think both are forms of censorship. It's simply that some forms of censorship are for the better of society. For example, I don't need to know how to build a nuclear bomb or to build bombs out of household cleaners... I think that info should be controled and if someone tries to publish it it should be censored. I may be wrong, but I do think people do not have the right to know everything. I do think everyone has a right to voice their opinion... that some people have a more ready platform and thus a louder voice is sometimes unfortunate, but the solution is the inclusion of other viewpoints and not threatening the speaker.

[NavyDave]

Isn't his 15 minutes up yet?

Of course he is going to donate some of his money to AIDS, he's gay as are most of his friends duh.

[Larry]

Originally posted by panel

One thing I never got is how when people say crazy-ass things, and when no one like or wants to hear it, it is censorship.

EJ isn't saying that he's being censored because people disagree with him.

He's saying he's being censored because whenever he (or anyone else) says anything the current ruler disagrees with, a well-managed, professionally-run system of retribution immediatly springs into action for the purpose of punishing him (or others like him).

(Example: Whoppi makes an off-color joke about the President's name [not even about his policies, mind you, just his name], and before the show even airs people have researched the joke, found out who her employers are, and pressured her employers into firing her. That's not people disagreeing with her, that's a deliberate act of punishment, for the purpose of shutting up dissent.)

Nobody's saying that failing to go see Whoopie's next movie because you don't like her jokes is censorship. They're saying that maintaining hit squads is censorship.

And, just for reference, I'll again repeat: There's only one side to this argument that's saying (still, and again) that people should be punished for expressing an unpopular view. This isn't an argument of one side wanting to silence Elton John, and the other side wants to silence the first side. This is an argument where one side wants to silence Elton John, and one side is saying it's wrong to try to silence someone. (Disagree with, make fun of, point out that he's a loon, I think everybody'd agree with you. Heck, just look at how he dresses. It's when your disagreement goes to "shoot him", "kick him out", "fire him", that you've gone over the line.)

Frankly, I'll even point out that NavyDave's post preceeding mine is, frankly, more reasoned and temperate than many of those on "that side". (Although, how he became qualified to speak authoritativly on Elton John's sex life, is something I'd rather not know).

[Guest Matt Kyriacou]

I have absolutely zero problems with the censorship of Whoopi's bush.

:puke:

[codeorama]

Originally posted by Larry

EJ isn't saying that he's being censored because people disagree with him.

He's saying he's being censored because whenever he (or anyone else) says anything the current ruler disagrees with, a well-managed, professionally-run system of retribution immediatly springs into action for the purpose of punishing him (or others like him).

(Example: Whoppi makes an off-color joke about the President's name [not even about his policies, mind you, just his name], and before the show even airs people have researched the joke, found out who her employers are, and pressured her employers into firing her. That's not people disagreeing with her, that's a deliberate act of punishment, for the purpose of shutting up dissent.)

Nobody's saying that failing to go see Whoopie's next movie because you don't like her jokes is censorship. They're saying that maintaining hit squads is censorship.

And, just for reference, I'll again repeat: There's only one side to this argument that's saying (still, and again) that people should be punished for expressing an unpopular view. This isn't an argument of one side wanting to silence Elton John, and the other side wants to silence the first side. This is an argument where one side wants to silence Elton John, and one side is saying it's wrong to try to silence someone. (Disagree with, make fun of, point out that he's a loon, I think everybody'd agree with you. Heck, just look at how he dresses. It's when your disagreement goes to "shoot him", "kick him out", "fire him", that you've gone over the line.)

Frankly, I'll even point out that NavyDave's post preceeding mine is, frankly, more reasoned and temperate than many of those on "that side". (Although, how he became qualified to speak authoritativly on Elton John's sex life, is something I'd rather not know).

Interesting points... I agree totally that if there is a specific campaign to punish those that speak out, that's wrong.

But if it's just negative public reaction, then oh well, too bad.

[Larry]

Yeah, my first reaction to the "Whoopi scandle" was that people named "Whoopi" shouldn't make fun of other people's names. (Especially when the other person has access to a microphone, too.)

[ross3909]

Censorship is the inablility to get your views out in the first place. Not the ability to stop people from reacting to them. If celebrities do not like it when they pick a side and speak out, than that is the world we live in and that is a choice they have to make. They will never be arrested for any comment or silenced in any way. Matter of fact, negative comments about the President are exactly what the Mainstreem Media is looking for these days.

[Stu]

I suppose everyone here was just as upset about the campaign against Dr. Laura's television show (http://www.stopdrlaura.com/home.htm) or similar antics against Anita Bryant way back when (http://www.brumm.com/gaylib/anitabryant1977_1.html).

There is nothing new here. If you stand up for what you believe there are sometimes people (or groups of people) that disagree with you that can take action. It's the normal churn of an open and free market.

I see no problem no matter what the policitcal persuasion of the speaker may be.

[Mister Happy]

Whoopi shouldn't be fired from Slim Fast for making a joke about the President.

The only reason she should be fired from Slim Fast is if she isn't getting slim....fast enough.

However, I think public figures should be careful what they say these days. It could cost them their job.

[ross3909]

The reason why Whoopie was fired from Slim Fast was not because Bush called the owner of the company and told him he was unhappy with their selection for spokesperson. Believe it or not, half of this country is very much in support of the job that Bush is doing as president and don't appreciate crude attacks aimed at him. Slim Fast did not want to cut their target consumer group in half by associating themselves with those comments so...the decision was easy.

[Woofer]

I think we have all spoken our piece regarding free speech.

So goodbye yellowbrick road, where the dogs of society howl,

where you stand at the edge while people run you through

and love lies bleeding in my hands.

But I'm still standing, better than I ever did.

Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters, Sons of bankers, sons of lawyers, turn around and say good morning to the night...

Your candle burned out long before your legend ever did.

[THE HAMMER'IN HOG]

Originally posted by panel

One thing I never got is how when people say crazy-ass things, and when no one like or wants to hear it, it is censorship.

Just because you can say something doesn't mean you have the right to make everyone hear it accept it and consider it. Not everything DESERVES an open diolog.

Nazis don't deserve an open diolog, neither do other crazy people who have somthing wild or shocking to say.

If there is acctually presure from the government to stop certin voices (which I doubt) then that is a form of cencorship, but if it is a community preventing wild rants, that isn't censorship.

Absolutly, that's what we do on this site, we all voice our opinions, and then fight the good fight, Poor elton is afraid if he takes a liberal stance and speak's out, people who don't want to be put through another 9/11, will get mad at him.

Elton donates a lot of money to aides research? I guess he want's to stop the disease before it kill's him, and all his FRIEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEND'S!

I am surprised he can't understand our desire to find a cure for the disease in the middle east, you know the one, the one that want's to infect, and kill, all American's!

How much money did elton donate to the families of 9/11? And I do mean the American families.

[Tarhog]

Originally posted by Woofer Magoo

Tarhog, you never mentioned me by name, but I got the feeling that some of your comments were directed at me, so I would like to repsond to some of them.

Paragraph 1 - You may have a point about celebs not hearing "NO". I do not know.

2 - I don't really care what Elton's thoughts or comments are. Singers should sing, actors should act, and politicians should...should...well, they should just do whatever the hell it is they do.

3 - I do believe in free speech. But when someone else's idea of free speech is to quell a different someone's right to free speech by telling them to shut up, or leave the country, or get shot with something, I am going to exersize my right to free speech by showing them how, um, "silly" they are. I do not feel that I belittled myself at all.

This is the longest off-season I can remember.

As I mentioned before, I honestly didn't see the 'rubber bullet' and 'stfu' references. Although some would equate telling someone to shut up with shouting fire in a crowded theater. I think thats a stretch. STFU may be rude, it might even get you a timeout on an internet message board, but its speech nonetheless.

Where we differ is that anyone has tried to quell anyone's speech. Its not easily done. Even a 'STFU' clearly isn't very effective. And I think the point that a number have made, that the same celebrities that constantly complain they are being 'oppressed', 'silenced', 'intimidated' sure seem to get themselves heard pretty well. I haven't heard a response to that point.

I'm not upset by anything Elton John's said. Ultimately, who cares? I wouldn't care if it were Dennis Miller or Charlton Heston either.

[Woofer]

Originally posted by Tarhog

As I mentioned before, I honestly didn't see the 'rubber bullet' and 'stfu' references. Although some would equate telling someone to shut up with shouting fire in a crowded theater. I think thats a stretch. STFU may be rude, it might even get you a timeout on an internet message board, but its speech nonetheless.

Where we differ is that anyone has tried to quell anyone's speech. Its not easily done. Even a 'STFU' clearly isn't very effective. And I think the point that a number have made, that the same celebrities that constantly complain they are being 'oppressed', 'silenced', 'intimidated' sure seem to get themselves heard pretty well. I haven't heard a response to that point.

I'm not upset by anything Elton John's said. Ultimately, who cares? I wouldn't care if it were Dennis Miller or Charlton Heston either.

I'm not upset.

The Point was this:

Elton said free speech was gone. He was free to say so.

Others "tried" to quell him by telling him to shut up, leave the country, and get shot with rubber bullets.

I tried to show those others what they sounded like. Perhaps I did not do I good job, and perhaps some took exception to my method.

Oh well.

My only beef with Elton, or any celebrity, is when they use their celebrity to reach the media in a fashion that 99.9% of the rest of the population can't. We have access to "Letters to the Editor", Cable access channels (are they still around?) and the internet. We do not, however, have access to national or international press.

Now, I am not saying that celebs should not have or voice opinions. But again, a singer should sing and not politic.

If they want to voice their politcal opinions, they should make up a funny name, log on to a message board, and type just like we do. (Not that I think "Tarhog" is a funny name .)

Can we please play football now? pwetty pwease?

[stevenaa]

With Freedom of Speech comes responsibility. Why is it that some believe a person should be able to say whatever they want without any fear of consequence? Our forefathers and many after have sacrificed their lives defending our rights, including Freedom of Speech. Their are consequences in defending our rights as there are consequences in excercising them. Celebrities are in an unusual position. Many have unlimited access to large media markets. They can voice their opinion to hundreds of thousands of people who idolize them. They cannot be voted out. They, in most cases cannot be fired. Whoopi wasn't fired from her job, she lost an endorsement deal. Big difference. The consequence to their words could and should be consumer action. Celebrity is a marketed commodity. If you don't agree with a celebs actions, your only recourse is to stop paying for their entertainment. A celebrity is not entitled to success. If they are going to put themselves in the cross sights with political statements, they should expect to be called to task over them. Eltons statements show his true ignorance of the situation in the states. The Dixie Chicks weren't slammed because they questioned the Policies of this administration or made a political protest. They took a shot at the president while on tour in another country. Many of their fans considered it unamerican behavior and exercised the right to not buy albums or go to concerts. Freedom of Speech can be expensive. I can loose my job for speeking my mind to my boss. Why should celebrities be any different.

[rockANDallstar]

oh i hate elton john