Apple Censored Robert De Niro's Gotham Speech 282
An anonymous reader shares a report: Who censored Robert De Niro? The "Killers of the Flower Moon" actor was gearing up to slam Donald Trump at Monday's Gotham Awards, but when he took the stage he discovered that the speech he planned to give had been altered at the behest of Apple, the film's producer. The company was responding to feedback from the filmmaking team that wanted the actor's remarks to be centered on the movie, according to a source.
The actor said he had not been informed of the changes, which took out any mention of the former president. De Niro, who was on hand to present "Killers of the Flower Moon" with the Gotham Historical Icon and Creator Tribute, criticized the awards show and Apple. "I don't feel like thanking them at all for what they did," he said. "How dare they do that, actually." A revised version of the speech was delivered to the teleprompter less than ten minutes before the event started, according to sources with knowledge of the show. A woman who told the teleprompter operator to upload a new speech was overheard identifying herself as an Apple employee.
The actor said he had not been informed of the changes, which took out any mention of the former president. De Niro, who was on hand to present "Killers of the Flower Moon" with the Gotham Historical Icon and Creator Tribute, criticized the awards show and Apple. "I don't feel like thanking them at all for what they did," he said. "How dare they do that, actually." A revised version of the speech was delivered to the teleprompter less than ten minutes before the event started, according to sources with knowledge of the show. A woman who told the teleprompter operator to upload a new speech was overheard identifying herself as an Apple employee.
They should have told him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:They should have told him (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing is, De Niro is an actor with a pretty large profile. If he says something, people do listen.
Beats me why people give a fuck about some celebrity's opinion about politics, but hey, people have even elected actors and TV personalities as president, so yeah, people do care about their opinion about politics.
Re:They should have told him (Score:4, Interesting)
There's no simple answer here - usually, if you hire someone to give a speech, you're doing it precisely because you want THEIR take on something. You might be paying them big money to do it - but you still don't get to tell them what to say. At best you might get to "give feedback" on the speech to maybe tone down bits you don't like, but the speaker's integrity matters, and they're not (usually) just a mouthpiece.
If you don't like a speaker having integrity, you can of course write your own speech and have an actor read it out. That's a completely different gig though, and you wouldn't ask the actor to write anything, or spend any time thinking about the writing - you'd only ask them to read what you'd provided to them. Unless you'd given them a tongue twister or something, you wouldn't expect them to ask for many changes.
I guess the contract here is what matters - assuming it doesn't preclude such things, DeNiro is big enough that he could just publish the speech he wanted to make (possibly in the newspapers) and make apple look a bit silly. If they made him say something he specifically doesn't agree with, then maybe he could sue them, but I suspect they didn't make him say "Trump is the greatest!" or anything too controversial, so I doubt that's really feasible.
Either way, if I had submitted a speech in plenty of time, I'd expect to read it out verbatim. If the organisers changed it at the last minute, I'd definitely be annoyed by that - depending on how it got changed would define "how annoyed".
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a very simple answer here.
It is your platform! You have an absolute right to exercise prior restraint. There is nothing wrong with at all with insisting that a hired speaker provides their speech to you in advance. There is nothing wrong about you choosing to edit or censor portions.
There is a problem when your don't inform the speaker ahead of time of said edits and permit them work out agreeable revisions and/or back out of the engagement.
De Niro, for his part should have stuck the topic at han
Re: (Score:2)
This is a Hollywood event. Political soap boxing is pretty much mandatory, but it does require approval as the right kind of soap boxing, and even Disney is admitting, publicly, that there's something to "Go Woke, Go Broke". [hollywood-elsewhere.com]
Um... Yeah it is (Score:2)
Let me guess you're one of those guys who thinks the X-Men went woke...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes a long storied history of people being pretentious and awful.
If you think it is totally fine to alienate a large portion of the audience at an event where you have only a minor role. It makes you a sack of crap!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They should have told him (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not racist/sexist/antisemitic/whatever to simply want to not have political protest shoved into every domain of life.
That said, it's way better to be upfront about it. Last-minute changes to a speech that surprise the speaker are awful. They should've been upfront about it and if he didn't like the policy, he could leave. Tell him upfront that if he goes on a rant his mic will be cut.
Re: (Score:2)
So have him sign a contract that hits him with a hefty fine if he does it, of course with the option for him to just shrug, refuse to sign the contract, and then not getting to give a speech.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is just stupid to think that other people with influence should shut up so people do not have to hear a opposing thought
I find that people who do not want this sort of things "shoved" on them love to "shove" it on others.
Re: Downmod this too, cuckservatives (Score:3)
Whites don't want to claim me because I'm Hispanic.
Hispanics don't want to claim me because I'm white.
In the end I don't try to suck off either group for passing popularity.
Re: (Score:3)
Whites don't want to claim me because I'm Hispanic.
Hispanics don't want to claim me because I'm white.
In the end I don't try to suck off either group for passing popularity.
Heres a fun fact about whiteness. Many Asian peoples see themselves as white. As far as they are concerned, Europeans are yellow.
White or whatever, its just rubbish. No one is white. No one is black. Its all just people. And using terms like 'white' and 'black' to describe people is, frankly ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
White or whatever, its just rubbish. No one is white. No one is black. Its all just people. And using terms like 'white' and 'black' to describe people is, frankly ridiculous.
I agree, but they are dominant terms, however ridiculous they are. I only really get incensed when someone pairs those words with "race". Not only do races not exist, but even if they did, white and black REALLY wouldn't be races.
Racists are simply people who believe that race is a meaningful way to evaluate another person. When I learned about 'critical race theory' and how its a real thing in the USA, well... very disturbing that a marginalised group of people should embrace the means of their marginalisation.
Re: (Score:2)
Because someone is a white male t hey must support white supremacy?
Re:They should have told him (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That's what racists always say when someone protests [wikipedia.org].
If so, that's because racism is the status quo in your circles. [scribbr.com]
Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Is De Niro even capable of giving a speech that somehow doesn't mention Trump?
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
If you know that, and if you don't want him to give one slamming Trump, maybe don't invite him to hold a speech?
Re: (Score:2)
instead of blowing off hot air de niro could take some of his considerable wealth and do something about it, but i suppose its easier and still fools most idiots if you just chat shit
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
risking career blowback
bashing trump in hollywood is about as risky as bashing MLK at a klan rally
Or do something, like the 18-ish charities listed here that he supports?
yeah thats really shown trump hasnt it
Just because you don't like his message doesn't mean he's not doing anything.
its not an A/B binary choice, and I dont follow US politics. I just simply dont like virtue signalling by millionaires actors. If all my time wasnt occupied by working to survive, Im sure Id be a lot more idealistic as well
Re: (Score:3)
He is trying to get people to notice and speak out before it is too late
before it is too late
before it is too late
listen to yourself
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He supports a number of philanthropy organizations. https://www.looktothestars.org... [looktothestars.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah Im dubious about that site, no sources, Im expected to take it at its word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alex Jones - would firstly not take such a job. However if he did he would respect the venue.
I have never seen Alex Jones go off script on other peoples platforms EVER.
He is a loon on his own show, and he says similarly loony things on other peoples platforms like LWC, where he is invited, expected, welcomed to do so, but otherwise he stays on topic.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, maybe a bad analogy. I don't watch Alex Jones, or follow what he's been up to beyond getting his ass handed to him in court. I guess when you're a one-trick-pony you only get hired to do dog and pony shows.
But the point still stands. Hiring someone who is known to pontificate, and expecting them to not pontificate is pretty dumb. And changing their speech without telling them is just a braindead move. (We'd have to assume that they did that, based on how it went down. If they did tell him, and he agre
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He tried to overthrow the U.S. government by lying to his supporters who then attacked the Capitol on January 6th. Just remember, Charles Manson never killed anyone.
He explored his legal avenues for contesting an election where there were tons of shenanigans as far as election laws and other irregularities.
Show your evidence, because every single time attorneys were asked point blank if they were saying there was fraud in the election they all sai
Re: (Score:3)
Democrats are literally worse than Nazis.
sure thing, clown! You felt so strongly about it you posted as an anonymous coward. Stand behind you words with your actual person, or keep being a clown hiding behind bullshit used just to stir people up. Your orange jesus lost and will lose again, prolly from jail.
Price Tag? (Score:2)
Trump is polling at 44% right now and would win an old-fashioned election if held today according to the polls.
So Apple might stand to lose, say, a third of their profit by letting Bobby spout off about his opinions on that venue. One can understand them not wanting to pay $n million for his feelings.
That said, it was a dick move to surprise him like that.
That said, he's a professional actor - why does he need a teleprompter? A five-minute extemporaneous speech is trivial if heart-felt.
yeah Trump's the worst... but (Score:2)
That said, he's a professional actor - why does he need a teleprompter? A five-minute extemporaneous speech is trivial if heart-felt.
Well that would have been the anti-Trump rant. Hence the need for the teleprompter to attempt to keep De Niro on topic.
1984... (Score:5, Insightful)
Censoring that comes from the firm that brought you the 1984 ad back in the day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
The irony is more than palpable, it is quite thick.
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading all the comments to see if anyone made this allusion. If they didn't I was gunna. Good job, Gold star.
Stop abusing the word "censorship" (Score:4, Insightful)
It is impossible for Apple or anyone else "censor" their own work-for-hire. If you are thinking about personally saying something as yourself, and then you change your mind, you are not "censoring" yourself; you're just choosing a different thing to say.
When people use "censor" for things like this, they are just desensitizing others to the threat of actual censorship. Nobody had a gun pointed as De Nero's head, saying that he had to work for Apple and say whatever they wanted him to say. He voluntarily agreed to this work (whenever you see De Nero on a stage publicizing a movie, he is at work ), and I bet he was well paid for it.
Furthermore, I bet whenever De Nero's is off Apple's stage, he's allowed to talk about whatever it was that Apple's corporate mouth did not want to say. How dare you compare this to censorship!
It has always been this way. When I worked in the newspaper biz (2007-2020), the process I saw was that every writer's work was edited in some way. It was usually just for space (e.g. "we need to get these 200 words down to 100 words"; ah, the constraints of physical paper, where you can't just put up a scrollbar), but not always.
Re: (Score:2)
Also stop trying to redefine censorship. It's like you thought someone said "First amendment" or "free speech", wrote your comment about how only the government can do that, then saw they just said censorship, so changed that word but went ahead and posted t
How is this any different from any other job? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously you are hired to make a program for a company. They want features X Y and Z. You decide to put in Features for A B and C that they didn't ask for nor do they want. So they have you remove it.
Imagine going to a play and one of the performers decide they want to talk about something other than the play in the middle.
De Niro was hired to promote a movie. He is free to expel whatever words from his mouth on his own time. Apple wants him to represent them not Robert De Niro
Re: (Score:3)
It's celebrity culture, and the rules are a bit different than for you or I.
They hired DeNiro, and his fame is part of that package. If you stop him from being him, you're damaging his brand. DeNiro decided to take the contract, because of the money and also to keep his brand going.
The only thing actors aren't supposed to do is bad mouth a project before the last cent has been wrung from it.
Re: (Score:3)
That's the same argument used to justify ending this person's career [wikipedia.org]. It's kind of bullshit, IMHO, and it's rarely made by people who agree with the political views that are being singled out for punishment. The crowd that wants to beat on Colin or De Niro is weirdly silent when Clint Eastwood or Drew Brees' start running their mouths on the "company dime"
I'll also point out the sheer insanity of this toxic asshole [wikipedia.org] getting a second chance. I weirdly thought puppy abuse was something that would transcend
The real lesson (Score:2)
Never store your data in just one location.
somebody please remind me... (Score:5, Insightful)
what was the last Apple-related censorship scandal? something about China, if memory serves, and not so long ago. just about a couple months maybe.
control is what Apple is all about.
https://wordsimade.wordpress.c... [wordpress.com]
Has Less to do With Politics Than You Think (Score:2)
Non issue (Score:2)
Unfortunate (Score:2)
It's too bad they censored him. It would have been good for all the world to see what an asshole he is.
The reason (Score:3)
Apple's Take: We don't want the crazy old fool going off the rails and rambling on about things with no relation to the actual awards. Ain't nobody got time for that.
I surprised the summary doesn't mention this (Score:3)
But De Niro actually gave his unaltered speech. He had the text on his phone, and once he realized the teleprompter text was wrong - he announced what had happened and switched to reading the speech off his phone.
Topic (Score:3)
>"The company was responding to feedback from the filmmaking team that wanted the actor's remarks to be centered on the movie"
Imagine that. How dare they try to restrict the speech to THE TOPIC OF THE PRESENTATION. Instead of his endless personal/ranting opinions on unrelated topics.
Thank you Ricky:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re:ADHD (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, what's Trump's Derangement Syndrome - is that when he attacks the judge and clerk of the court? And calls on his supporters to attack and threaten them?
Re: (Score:3)
At least Trump's high profile supporters have to be paid by him or some affiliated organization, which keeps the noise down to a minimum from that side.
I can't tell if that was sarcasm or not. You're saying that all high profile supporters of his are paid by him or one of his organizations to voice their opinion? There is no way you were serious with that. You call it TDS, I call your comment TDDS.
It's their money funding the whole thing, after all.
Yeah, I'll agree with you there. The way it was handled was stupid. They had his speech, if they didn't like it they should have worked with him to "fix" it, not just change it without saying anything. If they couldn't come to an agreement on content, then cancel
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ADHD (Score:5, Informative)
That was, perhaps, the point of censoring the speech: to not bring the former President (and de Niro's hatred of him) into something where it's irrelevant.
Re:ADHD (Score:5, Interesting)
And the tradition where this sort of thing has been done for a century? If other actors could whine about some mild infractions of a president, why can't someone also do the same for a massive screwup of a human being who's likely to be found guilty soon enough?
The REAL story here is not that the academy of motion pictures did this, but that the censorship was done by APPLE. This was an inherently political movie as well. So Apple has some suits that decide to nix it, which they did at the last minute without even the courtesy of notifying the speaker. Piss of the government, it's allowed, hint at a blemish on a corporation and the ban hammer comes down fast. This is why you don't want corporations acting as governments because they focus too much on image and profits.
Re:Stick to reading/performing what others write (Score:4)
Right, but what about the censorship aspect?
Re:Stick to reading/performing what others write (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought Slashdot approved of "my network, my rules"!
Re:Stick to reading/performing what others write (Score:4, Insightful)
And the Right has said the same thing while censoring people they don't agree with. There's no law preventing this from private companies, but that doesn't mean it's good and proper to do the censorship. Just listen to all the voices bitching about Facebook not letting conspiracy theories about the election through. Does it fall down to allowing corporations to silence voices you disagree with while not silencing voices you do agree with?
Re:ADHD (Score:5, Insightful)
That was, perhaps, the point of censoring the speech: to not bring the former President (and de Niro's hatred of him) into something where it's irrelevant.
If you watch the speech (De Niro actually did read the censored part; when it wasn't on the teleprompter he whipped out his phone), it actually was relevant, somewhat. He was talking about the movie, how it represented the way that whites have tried to rewrite history with "alternative facts" regarding their treatment of the Native Americans, and the fact that the movie attempted to present a more accurate view. He used Trump as a modern example of similar gaslighting. Could he have reached for a different example? Sure. Did he choose Trump because he also wanted to make a political point? Absolutely, he even acknowledged that on stage. But it wasn't off-topic. And it also wasn't a rant, it was about five sentences, delivered calmly.
I don't blame Apple for not wanting him to say it regardless, though they handled it very badly.
Re: ADHD (Score:2)
Re:ADHD (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:ADHD (Score:4, Insightful)
Lol, I hope he’s at least paying you for so much ass kissing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:ADHD (Score:5, Informative)
The president is not the ultimate authority in the land. The president is not a monarch! There is a balance of power. It's not that NARA had more power than the president, but instead the LAW has more power than the president. Trump was ignoring a law passed by congress, approved by the president, and had been adjudicated by the courts already. Trump was absolutely in the wrong there, and he'd have little legal problem today if he'd just have complied and turned over the documents when requested.
You're believing all sorts of conspiracy nonsense. Engeron has a court clerk, and the New York state system has clerks that behave slightly differently than most other states and the clerks do stay up do date on past evidence given and do whisper in the judge's ear. This is legal, it's been done this way for ages, and any competent lawyer based in New York knows this, except for the two idiots Trump hired. Trump possibly _could_ have had a jury trial but his lawyers did not appear to request one or request a hearing about whether they should have one (how does someone that rich hire lawyers that bad?).
Engeron said he didn't want to hear Trump's answers because Trump was NOT answering the question and instead Trump was rambling (as usual) and not giving a yes or no answer. Don't listen to Trump's campaigning on the steps while the trial is on break, read the transcripts directly in context. When you're asked a question in court you need to answer that question, not start talking about irrelevant things. This is why Engeron asked the lawyers if they could control their client.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Every level? Could it be as simple as he committed crimes and is being held accountable?
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.vanityfair.com/new... [vanityfair.com]
Mike Pence: My Son Had to Remind Me Not to Let Trump Steal the Election
What would you call it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He lost. He'll never be president again. And we can move on.
I hope you are correct, but I fear that you are wrong and he will win the 2024 election. That fear of what might happen in 2025 is why we cannot and should not move on.
Re: ADHD (Score:4, Insightful)
Major republican leaders are endorsing others. Which is no surprise, given that Trump went out of his way to slam the senior leaders in Iowa who were very popular, the state he wants to win badly. You don't win an election by slamming your colleagues in a school yard cry fest. Also major evangelical leaders, in a predicted a long overdue move, have also criticized Trump for not having character, for being an embarrassment, and not having any of the ideals that they espouse.. How to you explain to your children that you are voting for this habitual liar who talks about golden showers while voting against the guy who regularly attends church (technically Trump attends church at least as often as he gets re-married)?
So losing these endorsements and overall support is going to hurt badly. Yes, Trump has a core base that stands by him no matter what, but he can't win an election with only those people. The evangelical support got him past the finish line the first time he won. Now that they've got their three judges added to the supreme court, the Republicans realize that they can stop holding their noses while voting for someone they despise. Remember, Trump never won the popular vote, so he'd need those swing states that he's pissing off. Trump's only platform currently is "election was rigged", "it's a witchhunt", and "I'll double down on authoritarianism", and those aren't winning cards. Remember, Trump was never a conservative, and Trumpism was not a conservative movement, so it's not a given that conservatives will want to vote for him again.
Now there's momentum, and you should never underestimate the ability of the general public to act irrationally. He might win the primary, but there was a recent quote in roundtable from a guy who said "if it comes down to Biden versus Trump, I'd vote for Biden even if he were dead, and I'm a Republican", and the other Republicans there nodded knowingly.
I wonder if this might be a reply of Hillary, who was so convinced she'd win that she failed to campaign in some states and alienated some voters with insults. And Trump can easily out-insult and out-fail Hillary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And we can move on.
I really wish that were true, but you do know he's (at this point) most likely to be the 2024 GOP nominee, right? That seems like a decent enough reason to talk about him.
How much you want to bet (Score:5, Insightful)
Oops, I'm about to get cancelled....
Re: (Score:3)
It's a free country. You're *allowed* to rant if you want, you just can't use other peoples' platforms to do it.
DeNiro doesn't have a right to use someone else's platform to denounce Trump if they don't want him to do that. But he *does* have a right to know what conditions are in advance if he's invited to speak on it. Editing his speech without telling him and handing it to him on the dais without warning isn't *censorship*, but it's outrageously underhanded and disrespectful behavior.
This is a bit of
Ranting for 10 minutes about trans folk (Score:5, Insightful)
Also comedy that punches down isn't comedy, it's cruelty. But again, you have to tell a joke before it's comedy. Even SNL tells jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
So I looked that up (Score:2)
Can you explain how it applies to Chappel's rant about trans folk? I'm not following it.
Re: (Score:2)
You took option 2, most would pick 1. My response to "How would I feel..." is I would laugh and not take it personally. I would realize the people around me like me and we're having fun with one another. I had to learn this myself and learn how to be both interesting and fun. I used to lack the "fun" part. Now I'm quite
Option #3 (Score:3)
If you don't understand what that quote actually means, read a book. Or at least google it for Christ's sake.
Oh, and before I forget (Score:2)
Maybe go back to college so they can teach you what comedy is. I understand that Herschel Shmoikel Pinchas Yerucham Krustofsky has an excellent program....
See, that's what's called a joke.... Yes, its at your expense. But that's OK because you're the one with the power in this dynamic. But here I am giving you free lessions that Mr Krustofsky would
Re: Ranting for 10 minutes about trans folk (Score:2)
Making fun of 55 year old virgin basement dwellers who are bitter because they never made it in life is definitely punching down, and we do it to you all the time, yet nobody considers that cruel.
That aside, as the self appointed "what's comedy and what isn't" Tsar, here's the style of comedy you're sure to approve of and will make you laugh your ass off:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=DO... [youtube.com]
Here's another zinger that's sure to leave you dieing with laughter:
What do you call a trans woman who walks into an abort
Yeah but why are they offended? (Score:3)
I'm a nerd. I dealt with bullies my entire life (which is silly, I'm 6' and 200lbs when I'm in shape, I could crush those guys, but that's not how humans think/work).
The bullies laughed at me sure. But that wasn't comedy, that was cruelty.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't even tell him they had objections, just altered his speech. What kind of fucknut thinks that's okay and blames him for being pissed?
Re: (Score:2)
That's ADHD in a nutshell: let me bitch about something irrelevant to what I'm supposed to talk about instead of the topic I was hired to focus on.
It's almost like talking about politics in a forum ostensibly for tech topics. We say that others should just restrict their speech to what we define as appropriate. Of course, what we really mean is that others should censor themselves when we disapprove of their speech, but we want label ourselves as righteous instead of oppressive.
Re: (Score:2)
That's ADHD in a nutshell:.
That's poisoning the well in a nutshell.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:ADHD (Score:4, Interesting)
If Apple didn’t like what he had to say then they shouldn’t have let him speak. Sounds like the orange messiah has dirt on Apple.
More likely this is Apple being Apple. They prefer to keep their controversy in the tech industry, and do their best to avoid political bruhaha bullshit. The only real negative here is having a speaker and then altering their speech without notifying them. That's some shady bullshit no matter what the subject was they edited out. I would prefer to not hear more Trump-stats with my entertainment, but it still doesn't mean that they went about this the right way.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely this is Apple being Apple. They prefer to keep their controversy in the tech industry, and do their best to avoid political bruhaha bullshit. The only real negative here is having a speaker and then altering their speech without notifying them. That's some shady bullshit no matter what the subject was they edited out. I would prefer to not hear more Trump-stats with my entertainment, but it still doesn't mean that they went about this the right way.
Apple was just being their corporate image self. The unexpected part was going about the image curation in an inept way. Did the teleprompter-directing person really believe that De Niro would blindly stick to the script instead of criticizing both Trump and Apple?
Maybe in the future, we'll call this the De Niro Effect.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Brainless Idiots (Score:5, Informative)
"He could have said WHATEVER he wanted" - and he did. He gave the speech that he had written, not the one on the teleprompter, as you'd know if you'd read the article.
Re: (Score:2)
Actors are people who deliver lines from a script, and most need to have time to practice the script. Changing it at the last second really throws them off.
The speech was the standard Hollywood propaganda, but getting upset at the last minute change to the script, without even bothering to tell him, that was a legitimate complaint as an actor. He's just not good enough to wing it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's being paid to promote a movie, not his limousine-liberal politics. No one is stopping him from doing his politicking on his own time and his own dime.
Re: (Score:2)
Limousine liberal is such a funny term. Can you throw in welfare queen next?
Re: (Score:2)
Your first paragraph is pretty much the definition of actor, or more generally employee.
Personally I'm amused that the canceller was preemptively cancelled. I'm sure the purity of his hate is most impressive, but that is not what he was there for.
Re: (Score:2)
I get it, sort of.
Yet I've lived long enough to remember when politics wasn't part of nearly every conversation. Especially in high profile, not politically affiliated events. There were unwritten boundaries that most followed. Those boundaries absolutely had plenty of room for espousing the virtues of your political/religious/sexual/etc choices. It was a much more peaceful time on the whole. Yes, objectively.
I honestly give zero fucks about his or anyone else's views, if we are not sitting down and di
Re: (Score:2)
People are happy to listen to and promote entertainers' message when the speech aligns with their worldview. Kid Rock shooting a case of Bud Light is an excellent use of free speech, and deserves to be amplified. But an actor trashing on Dear Leader? Can't have that, shut up and do your job.
Hiring someone like Di Nero to deliver a speech and expecting him not to use that platform is about as stupid as hiring Colin Kaepernick, circa 2016, and expecting him to just shut up and sell shoes. Further, doing wha
Re: (Score:2)
Kid Rock did that where on his own youtube channel?
That is quite different than De Niro doing it at someone else's award show.
De Niro can say whatever he wants at his own even or at events where he is specifically asked or invited to give political opinions. Otherwise yes he should shut up and do his job.
Re: (Score:2)
He is an actor with a massive following.
He is welcome to speak out as much as he wants. He can use the twitters, or the facebooks, or his own blog, or just announce he is giving a speech in the park and media will probably show up!
He does not need to abuse other peoples platforms and attempt to hijack an audience. He is a narcissistic sack of crap for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)