Dems Refuse To Release Tape Of Hatefest

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@16 July 2004 - 17:28
This does infringe on her Rights of Free Speech.

No it does not.

1. She said, and may still say, anything her little heart desires.

2. It could be argued that her speech was penalized, but the law does not preclude this, and neither did the "law" penalize her: SlimFast did.

3. Her right was not violated; she was not legally estopped from speaking-she was not "muzzled".

4. In any case the Constitution says the "Government shall not abridge...etc.", and that is as far as the law goes.

5. SlimFast is not the Government.

6. Like everyone else, Whoopi is free to sue for breach.

End of story.

[hobbes]

I believed we had have discussed this topic before in World News.

At the time I said:

As for the celeb's themselves, they must realize that they are a product of society. On the upside, they can use their notoriety to rally people around their pet causes. Charleton Heston draws a lot more attention than J2K4 would, after all he is Moses.

On the other hand, as a commodity, they must be aware that public opinion or perceived opinion by movie financiers or owners of products they endorse is important. If Catherine Zeta Jones decides that a babies should be branded on the ass, she is welcome to voice this opinion on the "Tonight" show, but job offers might just fall of a touch.

But, as I said, I don't care what stars have to say, but I will stand behind their right to say it.

I don't think her freedom of speech has been violated. Notoriety is a double edged sword.

[vidcc]

J2

First of all, you rightly peg Ms. Goldberg as an individual expressing her views, but then wish to grant her unencumbered leeway to say whatever she likes, insofar as you seem to wish to disqualify any answering expression as discriminatory, or unfair.

She tried to make a point, a point that was (in relevent quarters) rejected.

Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. Had her remarks been about slimfast "being crap" it would have been connected.

do you feel that it's appropriate the GOP should be involved in the way they have influencing a private company as to who plugs their product?

Slim-Fast tumbled to the conclusion that to retain Ms. Goldberg could potentially cause them financial harm, and, out of a well-placed sense of responsibility to it's stockholders, decided to sever with Ms. Goldberg.

again i repeat that i am going by the story i have seen reported and i am basing the point on this.
Q: why did slimfast come to this "conclusion"?
A: because conservative groups and the GOP put pressure on them to drop her because they didn't like her remarks, threatening a boycott.

Again i repeat had it been reversed and whoopi made anti democrat remarks at a republican fundraiser and a witch hunt had been conducted in the same way by the democrats it would be just as unacceptable

more succinctly, if you were shopping for a new car, would you buy one from a company who had a spokesman named George?

I doubt it.

you might be confusing me with a whole other person.. do you think i am 8 years old or something? I would buy whichever car i felt served my needs best and offered the best value and reliability.

I buy products because i like the product, not because of who is used in an advert.

i am a grown up with a mind of my own and not so childish as to boycott a product because i don't like the man in the advert. It takes a special kind of stupid to be swayed into buying something on the basis of the person in the advert....LOOK AT THE PRODUCT NOT THE MOUTHPIECE.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by vidcc@16 July 2004 - 20:55


i am a grown up with a mind of my own and not so childish as to boycott a product because i don't like the man in the advert. It takes a special kind of stupid to be swayed into buying something on the basis of the person in the advert....LOOK AT THE PRODUCT NOT THE MOUTHPIECE.

Vidcc,

You may think that way, but the business world certainly doesn't.

Did you know that Michael Jordon made most of his money in endorsements, not from his basketball salary.

Why was he paid hundreds of millions if people bought stuff based on the product and not the mouthpiece? Companies knew that to associate his name with their product would make big money. That's how the business world works.

Sex and celebrities sell products.

Look at all the endorsements OJ Simpson lost, and he, according to a court of law, did nothing wrong. Public opinion of the spokesperson is often more important in selling an item than the quality of a product.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@16 July 2004 - 17:55
Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. .

One more time, vid-

The GOP had nothing to do with the break-up of Whoopi and SlimFast, though some conservative groups did.

My point, though, and the one you seem bound to overlook, is this:

The boycott, or pressure, as you put it, is nothing more than....Free Speech!

Kobi Bryant was dropped as the spokesman for Coca Cola, for example, because he is on trial for rape; it has nothing to do with any GOP plot, I assure you.

More free speech, there.

[Rat Faced]

Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. Had her remarks been about slimfast "being crap" it would have been connected.

I quite agree.

If Slim Fast had acted without pressure from outside organisations, I wouldnt have a problem.

[vidcc]

some post have been posted in the delay i had replying. i would like to address a couple.

i didn't say any laws were broken and free speech rights had been infringed...i said i felt it was ANTI free speech, because you have the right to say what you want but if we dissagree we will hound you down with malice, which is also where the discrimination comes in.
As pointed out slim fast may be in breach of contract and liable for a lawsuit but it appears that ms goldberg isn't going to go down that road. ( in fact the reaction she got probably gave better publicity to her cause than she would have if the conservative groups and gop just shrugged it off )

We may never know if slimfast would have acted the same way if the pressure hadn't been applied but if it hadn't been for the pressure i probably wouldn't be typing any arguement against the termination.
just because something doesn't break the technical word of law as it stands doesn't mean it's just or we wouldn't have amendments to laws.
Discrimination and infringements of rights have wide sweeping definitions and implications

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4+16 July 2004 - 16:05--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 July 2004 - 16:05)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@16 July 2004 - 17:55
Had they just condemed the remarks or rebutted them that would have been fine, but they actively put pressure on her unconnected employer to dismiss her. .

One more time, vid-

The GOP had nothing to do with the break-up of Whoopi and SlimFast, though some conservative groups did.

My point, though, and the one you seem bound to overlook, is this:

The boycott, or pressure, as you put it, is nothing more than....Free Speech&#33;

Kobi Bryant was dropped as the spokesman for Coca Cola, for example, because he is on trial for rape; it has nothing to do with any GOP plot, I assure you.

More free speech, there. [/b][/quote]

Some conservative groups and GOP supporters had threatened to boycott Slim-Fast products if it did not take action.

source

I concede this point..... it was "supporters" In the tv report it said GOP but reading the internet report it clarifies it

[vidcc]

@ hobbes

I agree that sponsership is big money but the question was about would "I buy"... and i wouldn&#39;t be swayed one way or the other for the reason i spouted.
That said the product needs to be worth buying and not just have a "name" to it

[SuperJude™]

In my not so humble opinion celebrities don&#39;t know a goddamn thing. The bigger they get the more isolated they become. We watch them and listen to them cause they are entertaining, but that for me doesn&#39;t mean I give a crap what they have to say.

I download tv shows just to avoid commercials personally, and my opinion of actors and musicians pretty much goes like this: Entertain me, it is what you get paid for. When I want them to start having opinions about anything other than entertainment will be when I talk to them irl, likely or not to happen.

They live in another world, and because the media hates Bush, all these people are getting insane media attention at the moment. Like Richard Gere or Adam Yauch have any opinions that matter to me. Or Whoopie or Kobe or any of them. It&#39;s all entertainment anyway.

-SJ™