I read the article Honey referenced above and I have to admit that this is one of the few times I am in agreement with Martin Sheen. The right to speak out publicly on controversial issues has a price tag. If you are unwilling to pay that price, you abdicate your right to speak out. It's that simple. Just as Honey must temper her public statements in keeping with her professional position, they must assume equal responsibility for their words.

Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandan, Janeane Garafolo and Mike Farrell are whining now because they made public statements that have brought a backlash against them. They whimper that the opposition to their beliefs are "threatening the ability to earn a living" for those who take unpopular stands. They don't like being labeled "unpatriotic" or "traitors for their publicly stated beliefs. As is the case with extremists of all stripes - both right wing and left wing - they have no concept of what "freedom of speech" as set forth in our Constitution really means.

To them, and all extremists on both ends of the political and social spectrum, "freedom of speech" is the right to speak (or act) without challenge. That's pure hogwash! That's not what it means at all.

Our Constitution provides for the right of all citizens to speak freely on any subject, to express any belief or thoughts, however unpopular or heinous those beliefs and/or thoughts may be without GOVERNMENT retribution for expressing those views by act or law. That is all the First Amendment guarantees. It does not say that anyone expressing a contrary opinion to the popular beliefs is given a free pass from reaction to those thoughts, beliefs and/or statements by other equally free citizens who have an equal right to express their opinions of what they said or did... without governemnt interference by action or force of law.

I have often said here that "freedom is the most expensive commodity on the face of the earth for it must be purchased anew every day." Those "freedoms" come with a price tag attached. It is the same as going into a department store and seeing an article of clothing you like. There is a price tag attached. If you don't wish to pay that price, then you must choose to forego that article of clothing or attempt to find it elsewhere at a price you are willing to pay. These cry-babies want to have the clothing without having to pay the price. That's called shop lifting or theft and it is a no-no.

Nathalie Mains of the Dixie Chicks stood on a stage in a foreign land and proclaimed that the members of the group were ashamed that George W. Bush is from Texas. That is her right and I support her right to say it, whether I agree with her or not. It is also the right of former Dixie Chicks fans to reject her groups' musical efforts as their free speech right to express their opinions of what she chose to say. If she wants "free speech" for herself, if the Sheens, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon, if Mike Farrell, Ed Asner, Janeane Garafolo, Alec Baldwin, Barbra Streissand truly believe in, and want, "free speech" for their ideas, then they must support the rights of others to speak out freely as well, even if that speech means they will personally suffer economic harm. They always have the right to look at the price tag on their right to speak freely in these matters and see if they are willing to pay that price. If not, then simple discretion says they should hold their tongues. If what they believe is truly important enough to them that they feel it is important that they speak out, then as Martin Sheen has correctly stated, they have to be willing to pay that price and stop whimpering about it.

I will admit that I was a bit undone by the actions of Casssius Clay (Muhammed Ali) in the 60s when he refused to accept the draft on what he considered to be "moral grounds." I changed my mind rather quickly however when he acted with moral conviction and integrity. He refused to be drafted, but he did not run off to Canada or anywhere else. He was willing to face a possible prison sentence rather than "volunteer for the draft." I disagreed with him on his stance, but I had to respect his convictions and integrity in how he stood up for his beliefs. He was willing to pay the price for his beliefs. Had he been sentenced to prison for his position, I would have had no problem with that. It was the price for his actions and beliefs. It all became mute when he could not pass the basic IQ test to get into the military with a mimimum score that the average hatrack could handle. Nonetheless, I changed my position. I began using the name he chose for himself rather than the one he was born with. As far as I am concerned, he earned the right to choose what he wanted to be called and I will honor that choice. It is the same for me with Martin Luther King, Junior. I disagree strongly with many of the things he supported, but I admired his willingness to pay the price of civil disobedience to change laws he felt were wrong. You don't see Jesse Jackson or any of the others of that ilk so willing to do that now.

We see a microcism of the Tim Robbins mindset here from time to time. There have been those who consider "free speech" here to be the right to make any statement in this forum, however absurd or unsupportable it may be, and not have others challenge that position or belief. Anyone daring to attack their thinking or statements is somehow "attacking them personally." Balderdash!

That is not "free speech." That is "license," pure and simple and no one here is guaranteed license to do or say anything without being called upon to defend that belief, ideal or position.

If anything, I get particular joy when others challenge me or something I say. For, if I am unable to defend my beliefs, ideals or thoughts with solid factual evidence, hard documentation or basic common sense, then those statements, beliefs and ideals NEED to be challenged. The fault lies not with the challenger. It is squarely upon me. I take an admittedly perverse pleasure in shooting down their objections with those hard facts and cold realities upon which I always try to base my beliefs.

Michael Moore has absolutely no right to complain when people challenge his Academy Award for a "docuentary" that was clearly anything but a documentary. It was propoganda, pure and simple. He said as much and said it proudly! He abused all the viewers and attendees of the Awards program when he made such an assinine statements as an "acceptance speech." He needed to be drowned out by the music and the boos and catcalls of those in the audience and he was. He needs to be willing to face the challenge to his award from those who really do make "documentary" films that are factual, dispassionate studies of realities and who may disagree with his political views. Some may even agree with his political views and still believe his "film" was doggrel and propoganda. The extremists of the left would hold that any challenge to him is wrong and based entirely on dislike of his political views.

I feel no sympathy for Farrell, Robbins, Sarandon, Garafolo, Asner, Maines or any of the others who are being "punished" by free Americans speaking their beliefs freely, just as they chose to do themselves. If they truly are concerned about "freedom of speech," they ought to celebrate the right of others to classify what they said in any way those others choose. Freedom for one viewpoint over another is not "freedom."

That is "privilege."

The very people they despise so greatly and deride with their hatred of America and its ideals or a blatantly obvious knee-jerk partisan hatred for a particular political candidate or party are willing to fight, even die, for the right of people like that bunch to say stupid things that cost them personally. Would any of them be willing to pay the same price for their detractors' rights? It doesn't appear that is the case, does it?

Being "famous" or well known is not sufficient price to pay for "privilege." We don't support "privilege" in this nation. A lot of our forebears fought and died to prevent that from being the case here and in a lot of other places around the world.

It is acceptable among a free people to yell out that the "emperor is buck-assed nekkid!" But, if he isn't, then you have to pay the price for that perfidy.

We have freedom of religion, speech, assembly, association, to petition for redress of greivances by the government, to keep and bear arms, to be free in our persons, property and homes, to have legal counsel and face our accusers and many other "freedoms," but there ain't no such thing as a "free lunch" for any of us. Mr. Farrell, Mr. Robbins and all of you other whiners, if you're not willing to pay the price of your meal, get the Hell out of the lunch line.