More proof the looney left loves the 1st Amendment, as long as they agree with what you say. If they dont, well, you see acts such as this.

What are libs so afraid of? Dont they always say you need to sit down and discuss things?

Ah, they torture in the movie to try to find Daniel Pearl. Didn't anyone tell them that torture doesn't work, rapport does.

Allan Greenspan.

Angelina has no time for tabloid news.

She is concentrating her efforts on raising the level of awareness not dumbing it down any further.

What is AJ's problem with Fox? She has streed cred in Africa.

Oh yes, time was of the essence in the Pearl case; rapport takes time.
==============================

Fox isn't "the press" - that's the difference.

No Lee, Fox News doesn't spout the socialist liberal mantra of the MSM and you can't deal with it. Like AJ, they want take the ball and go home if you don't get your way.

Libs monopoly on information dissemination is over. WAY OVER. Get used to it. We get to call Bull Shit on all sorts of stupid and fake news stories & articles, and yes, it does make folks like you look like the total clueless idiots you are.

John Galt. As to the part Jolie is playing and the movie, odd that it championed press freedom and then she pulls this. These people tend to believe their own pubicists about how important they are.

The Bill of Rights apply to government infringement on those rights of the individual. They do not apply to private entities limiting the rights of other private entities. She can talk to, keep association with, be interviewed/photographed by, etc. whomever she chooses, that is her first amendment right.

Lee, if Fox isn't news, then neither is CNN, CNN's Headline News, MSNBC, the 'legacy' networks, etc. I think a good deal of what is Fox's non-news reportage is sensational and tabloid-esque, yet they are really no different than any other network in that regard. Then again, that's not what you have a problem with now, is it?

Dear Idiot Sean, the red carpet is not hers. It is Cannes. Now, go play and let the adults talk. ww

Did she specify why no Fox?

=================

Watch AJ's publicist and lawyer do lunch with Paramount's publicist and lawyer.
=======================================

"I think a good deal of what is Fox's non-news reportage is sensational and tabloid-esque, yet they are really no different than any other network in that regard."

They are different in that regard, they're worse. Much worse. And since their primary product is tabloid-esque, and their political coverage is strongly biased to the right, those newsmakers who disagree with the tabloid'esque or political aspects have every right to shun them.

Fox doesn't do "news" anyway.... Last Friday Fox News Channels' Studio "B"s coverage of Paris Hilton returning to jail was the number one show that day on Fox, even beating out O'Reilly. Fox viewers want sleazy tabloid journalism, and Fox News gives it to them, and to see Wizbang pundits continually linking to Fox at the same time that they decry the downfall of the MSM is patently stoopid (but less than surprising).

It's not as if what AJ had to say wasn't going to get out there without Fox cameras in her face -- in fact, she got more coverage then she would have otherwise.

All that's left now is for Lorie Byrd to declare a boycott on AJ's movie because of this -- that would guarantee an Oscar and box office success for Jolie! LOL

AJ and all of hollywood are obsessed with their image. An insecure lot that has to be told by many daily that they are great. They frequently run their mouths before what little brain they have kicks in. Apparently, Lee (Liar,Liar Pant of Fire) Ward loves people like this. He is so distracted by AJ he doesn't even know what the post is about. Take a cold shower Lee, then read. I suppose Lee the Liar approves of selective press. Remember that folks. And personally, I am not a fan of hers. She cannot act in my opinion. She can pose and pout, but that is it. Now I know she can't think. Come to think of it, Lee is just like her. ww

You know what makes me laugh the hardest? The reactions if this were reversed and some star didn't want CNN to ask questions because of their support of genocidal dictators like Saddam.
The people against this would be against that too.
But the people for this, like Lee and civil behavior, would be "OUTRAGED!"

And, just to prove I'm still a jerk, I have to respond to this (even though responding to Lee is about stupid)
in fact, she got more coverage then she would have otherwise.

Ummmmm no, she got less. Why? Because FoxNews actually has viewers, unlike their competition.

the red carpet is not hers. It is Cannes.
WildWillie

Fair enough, but that does not get at the central point I raised, namely that freedom of speech prevents gov't infringement of rights, not private entities limiting participation at an event (whether that be Jolie or the Cannes Film Festival is irrelevant). So if Jolie said the CFF that she will only attend if Fox News is not on the red carpet, she has every right to make such a request and Cannes has every right to abide by it or not. And it is your right to disagree with Jolie's choice, but this has little to do with an actual first amendment violation.

BTW, your reply was just what I would expect from a mature adult.

That agreement she and her lawyer wanted everyone to sign appalled many in the industry. She is the odd one out here on this issue, and that she should be more alienated from Fox than the others is one sign that Fox is right. Think it through, a crazed press response like hers makes the biggest target of her craziness look sane in comparison.

Look at Deb Frisch and the Bible Thumper out in Eugene.
====================================

Sean:
"The Bill of Rights apply to government infringement on those rights of the individual. They do not apply to private entities limiting the rights of other private entities. She can talk to, keep association with, be interviewed/photographed by, etc. whomever she chooses, that is her first amendment right."

I agree with you in that only the government can censor someone. I think Kim (Or Fox?) mis-spoke.

I say that because it would piss me off to no end when the Dixie Chicks or Susan Sarandon & Tim Whatsisname would complain about being the victims of censorship because people stopped buying their crap because of the opinions they held. The consumers of the products they are hawking are exercising their 1st amendment rights as well. As long as people are consistent on this point, all is well.

Actually, V, I think Lee is right about the exposure. I knew about the film because of the torture scene(which I hope will provoke more interesting discussion than AJ's sorry press relations), but this brouhaha will raise awareness about the film. I about half believe it was deliberate about Fox. The Dem Pres candidates made it 'cool' to trash Fox. It'll get old fast, and backfire.

Murdoch discovered a niche market; half of America. And really folks, compare liberal MSM, TV and dead tree to conservative talk radio and the internet. Notice growth patterns. This is why, in desperation, the Democrats want to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine' in broadcasting. It is their only chance of getting a share of the dialogue, but note, it has to be a mandated share.

Imagine the internet without the corrupting influence of Soro's slush funds. Half a billion a year he spends to pollute you with trolls.
===================================

Uh, folks, the First Amendment does apply to government restriction of speech. Ordinary tort laws apply in other restrictions. It's not as if it is just OK to restrict others'
speech as long as you are not the government.
=========================

In other words, the term 'Free Speech' does not equate to 'First Amendment'.
===================================

The Dem Pres candidates made it 'cool' to trash Fox.

That's a good point, Kim. But I don't see it getting old fast. Alot of liberals can't deal with day to day realities unless they're scapegoating someone.

I would like to say however, that I'm not going to change my overall opinion of Jolie, which is fairly positive (and no it's not based on looks....alone.)

The difference really is monologue, and dialogue. The left has TV and Print Journalism, which is monologue. The right has talk radio and the internet, which is dialogue. It is really not a fair fight, and you can see it in the sphere. The leftwing blogs use deleting and banning as a first resort; the rightwing ones use it as a last resort.

If it's about controlling the dialogue, George, money won't buy happiness. Only in controlled markets.
==========================

Jolie is top-notch on Darfur.
===========

Kinm, I apologize for assuming you misspoke, I was in a hurry to get to my point.

I personally think that it is a fair use of the word "censor" to apply it only in terms of the government restricting the speech of another. In this case, I think that is a bit strong. Also, I'm being contrary because I've not had enough coffee yet...

I do agree with you on the larger point, hypocrites are funny.

From the linked story: "It was only with the intervention of mortified Paramount staff that an FNC camera crew was allowed to be present."

So AJ was overruled by the business people. It's never was about 1st amendment rights, it's about hypocrisy. A charge the left often levels, but more often is guilty of.

Does anyone really care what she thinks or does? I find it ironic that hollywood lefty mutts would put together a movie about Mr. Pearl while mostly refusing to acknowledge the threat of the Islamofacists.

Who knows Ms. Jolie, maybe someday a piano wire could be stretched around your neck. I'll be you'll recognize the threat then.

Fair enough, but that does not get at the central point I raised, namely that freedom of speech prevents gov't infringement of rights, not private entities limiting participation at an event

...so when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed murdered Daniel Pearl, it wasn't "infringing on his freedom of speech," either. He was just "limiting participation at an event."

Stalin's "Usefull Idiots"--still alive and well in Hollywood. Pretty vain, vacant and vaccuous....

AJ is under no obligation to suffer propaganda tools posturing under the guise of news agencies.

Color me amazed that the lefties are oblivious to hypocrisy. It's a central part of their entire political identity.
-=Mike

More proof the looney left loves the 1st Amendment, as long as they agree with what you say.

I wasn't aware that Jolie is the 4th branch of government, such that the 1st Amendment prohibits her from censoring others.

Thanks for the crack reporting, brainiac.

Are people JUST noticing Jolie's a hypocrite?

First: please excuse my previous comment. I'm tired and it's making me crabby.

It's not as if it is just OK to restrict others' speech as long as you are not the government.

She wasn't going to commit the tort of false imprisonment or anything. She tried to contractually limit the scope of articles.

This is perfectly legal, has nothing whatsoever to do with the 1st Am, and probably happens all the time in entertainment law.

Why do hot liberal women have to speak? Can't they just look good and leave it at that?

I think the main idea is she wanted FNC banned from the red carpet. All stars, politicians and others set ground rules for interviews. That is a no brainer. She, AJ, wanted to ban FNC from the red carpet which covers all the hoopla. A little brazen you think? For someone so untalented. ww