Quote:
Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Hollywood actors have a tougher legal hurdle to win a privacy or slander/libel case - which is why Enquirer and other rags can report untruths without fear of ramification. The legal theory is that one who's in the public spotlight is putting themselves up for public debate/ridicule. In order to win these cases a famous and/or political figure must prove you said the untruth with malice, meaning "with the intention to hurt them."
|
I have heard this all before Timber. This is the classic example of a double standard. Can anyone imagine how much hand wringing would have occured if it was Heston saying the same about.... Oh... Carter if *he* had that illness? This is yet another typical example of a Hollywood type talking out their A$$ because their mouth knows better.
So please explain how any and all of this morons comments were not said with malice?
Quote:
|
So, if they have less rights than the rest of us regarding privacy, etc., is it fair to also take away their rights to express their politics - thereby limiting their access to the First, and most important (considering public opinion only), Amendment? Hoooooog - Waaaaaaash![/QB]
|
I agree here, bunk-holes like Clooney *need* the right to free speech, just so us normal people out here can see him for the idiot he is, and, just as is the case with other jack-a$$es (like the KKK or Black Panthers). However, the first reaction shouldnt be the limiting of his free speech, make your reactions at the box office and movie rental stores. Once this flake isnt marketable any longer, the studios will lose him like a bad habit. Thats, whats called the repurcussions from stretching the spirit of your right.
All that can be said about this instance is that it is a classic example of a pusillanimous comment, where a coward hides behind fame and politics to belittle a person with a degenerative disease. And his reasoning? Because he heads the NRA..... George Clooney, what a low life piece of amoeba scum.