Hollywood B Team in D.C.
| Fri Feb. 2, 2007 9:40 AM PST
In the past week, Hollywood celebs have been spotted in Washington, D.C. discussing politics, the state of broadcast television, and the American constitution. No, they are not scientologists, but a group called the Creative Coalition, in town to meet with Congress to address issues of importance to the "creative community."
Members include Alan Cumming, Heather Graham, Wendie Malick (remember the show "Just Shoot Me"?), and Joe Pantoliano of "The Sopranos" (currently serving as co-president). The group's main advocacy issues are the protection of First Amendment rights, funding and support for arts in education, and the prevention of "runaway productions," films made for cheaper outside of the United States.
Free speech and arts in schools are integral to building a strong culture, no doubt about it. But there is something about this coalition that reeks of that special designer brand of misplaced concern so easy to associate with Hollywood stars.
This on the First Amendment from their website:
In the wake of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl 'wardrobe malfunction,' Congress has been considering the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004 […] We believe the bill has potentially dangerous impacts on free speech—particularly for individuals.
And just when you thought you would never see the words "wardrobe malfunction" in any serious context again. What about those "runaway productions"? If they were to prevent this getaway film making, I expect that many movie stars would revolt. This would mean missing out on parking their trailers at faraway beach paradises or enjoying the reputed free-love atmosphere of Vancouver, a.k.a. Hollywood North.
--Caroline Dobuzinskis
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
It always amzes me how anyone can construe the guarantee of the right to speak freely about religion and politics as a right to put filth and smut in "arts?". I guess it's because we have become a sociopathic,phycopathic society.
Submitted by Greg Forest (not verified) on Sat Feb. 3, 2007 8:19 AM PST.
What the anti-smut, rightwingers seem to forget is that this is a CAPITALIST society. Money talks and ideology walks. Like illegal drugs, there is a huge market for smut because, WE AMERICANS LOVE OUR SMUT!!! Dish/Direct TV and other broadcasters wouldn't be offering smut to their customers if it wasn't a zillion-dollar-a-year industry. I would venture to guess that more money was spent on adult entertainment than Bibles last year. Biblical advice "If thine nipple offend thee, cut if off."
Submitted by Albatross (not verified) on Sat Feb. 3, 2007 2:02 PM PST.
Made to choose between the two, I'd rather my kids saw bare breasts on TV instead of real or fictional portrayls of war and violence. Much of what purse-lipped conservatives call "smut," is what most of humanity calls simple nudity or appreciates as natural sexuality. Meanwhile E/R and Grey's Anatomy show nauseatingly realistic injury, and '24' features murder and torture, and that's considered acceptable by the self-appointed arbiters of righteousness.
When are we as a culture going to stop cowering with fear before every windbag who threatens us with their version of God, or shames us with their version of righteousness?
Well, well we have here in under the guise of 'Ranselar VanDerpoel' someone who without at any time reading the Constitution or being aware of what it says trying to make a 'constitutional' argument, and [deleted by moderator]. I challenge him or anyone esle to show the restriction on free speech to only the subjects he lists and no others. It really peeves me when silly folks like him make things up then fling it at the walls in the hope that others [deleted by moderator] go off and keep the mis-information flowing.
Tony, you might take the time to read it and while your at it, read some of the writings that the framers wrote at the time leading up to it. They were only conserned with important things, like controlling religion and politics, they didn't have TV, you know!
