A Strange View from the Limo

April 20, 2003

To paraphrase a good friend of mine: The bird has been served. Bird? Why crow, of course...slow-roasted over burning American flag and presidential effigy, blended with the egg gently separated from the face of Hollywood and baked into a fine souffleé garnished with Beluga Malossol 000 and accentuated by a vintage Château Pétrus. And for dessert? Rotes Würzkompott, naturally. That's the banquet being served by Bush, Rumsfeld, Franks, and millions of grateful Iraqis...and there’s plenty of room at the table. Chairs wait to be filled with the asses of the histrionic celebrities, armchair generals, and various "quagmirists" throughout the media. As for Michael Moore et al. who support our troops "when they shoot their officers" well, once they master the use of utensils, they're invited too.

But while it truly warms the soul to watch a brutally oppressed people celebrate a new freedom (for those younger than 30 it is a first-time experience), and is loads of fun rubbing Alec Baldwin's nose in his own mess, this column is not about the war (the work of which is, of course, far from over) per se but about freedom, particularly freedom of speech and expression.

I've noticed a disturbing notion gain a foothold in the popular debate about the war, namely the idea that the First Amendment is "under attack" by those who would advocate a boycott of the anti-war protestors' products. Acts such as staying home from the movie theater, avoiding products being advertised indirectly by Peter Jennings and rolling over ones own Dixie Chicks CD with a leased steamroller are being likened to "censorship." Likewise, when the Entertainment Industry notices these patterns and chooses to invest its cash in celebrities less likely to be boycotted, it is labeled "blacklisting," with references to "McCarthyism" following closely behind. At first I thought this simply another display of Hollywood’s lack of education, but when I heard the very well-educated Bill O'Reilly (I know, I know...) suggest that those in the anti-war crowd "shouldn't be punished" by economic loss based solely on their political opinions, I became worried. Surely he must understand the fundamental difference between "censorship," which may be at odds with the First Amendment, and "boycott" which is a celebration of it, even if the results are similar.

Here's an example: As a physician I want to see the entire tobacco industry shut down--completely wiped out. Do I favor a totalitarian state like, say, Mayor Bloomberg apparently does? Hardly. In fact I defend Big Tobacco against the "Smoking Nazis" every chance I get. The difference is that I want to see the industry destroyed by quitters re-directing their cash as the result of healthy lifestyle choices; not by Jacoby, Myers and the Legislature. Likewise, when I freely choose not to spend $9 to see a Sean Penn flick because his views offend me, it's not an infringement on his freedom of speech, but an exercise of my freedom of expression. And if I form a "movement" with those who agree with me and we collectively choose not to spend $9,000,000 to see Sean Penn, it's still not "censorship" but collective freedom of choice. And when, having noticed this, the movie studios decide not to hire Sean Penn for fear that his movie might loose money (starting with our $9,000,000), it's not "blacklisting," it's wise investment. This is a far cry from McCarthyism (with all due respect to this argument) or any other authoritarian coercion. This is freedom.

The problem is that Sean Penn and his ilk feel they are above the free market, too important to be easily discarded by the slobs who pay for their lavish lifestyles. "Sure, it's alright to ruin peoples' careers for offending a minority group," they think to themselves, "but we shouldn't have to float on last year's yacht just because we gave support and comfort to the enemy in a time of war...with which 70% of the public agreed." Sorry folks, but the First Amendment guarantees your freedom of speech, not freedom from the market-oriented consequences which follow. And Bill, you should know better.