the Pebble Spring 2017

Drug-Dealers-Anonymous, Beyoncé ‘Black
Panther’ Knowles, whose halftime show
Lahren despised.
According to Thompson, there are three
layers to the reasons behind criticism of
celebrities talking politics. The first and most
significant is a disagreement with what the
celebrity says. Second is a disconnect between
what the celebrity is known for and the topic
they’re discussing; it’s jarring when someone
who typically doesn’t engage in politics
speaks out. The third reason is context: a
celebrity endorsing a candidate at a campaign
rally is expected; the Super Bowl and the Oscars
are not inherently political functions.
This criticism manifests most often,
as Lahren demonstrated, with people denouncing
celebrities for talking about a hot
topic. Following Thompson’s theory, because
celebrities tend to lean left, the criticism most
often comes from conservatives. There is a
caricature of the “Hollywood elite” mocking
liberal celebrities for speaking out on social
issues despite being much wealthier than
much of the population. The idea is that
celebrities are out of touch and therefore
shouldn’t speak out at all.
Of course, as with anyone else, when a
celebrity says something inane they should
be ignored or countered with a better argument.
MPH history teacher Edward Curtis
said in his U.S. Citizenship class, “The great
thing about this country has always been the
freedom of expression, freedom of speech,
freedom of the press, and that means freedom
to express your opinion, even if it’s not a very
well-thought-out opinion.”
Celebrities can give their opinion, and
others can comment on it.
One of the most infamous examples of
the implications of free speech is the Hollywood
Ten during the 1940s and 1950s. Cold
War fear-mongering brought more than 40
prominent filmmakers before the House
Un-American Activities Committee for
leftist sympathies. Most complied and sought
leniency, but 10 stood up to the charges
on the grounds that the First Amendment
allowed them to support any political party
they wished. They were cited for contempt of
Congress, sentenced to a year in prison, and
blackballed from the industry.
Like the Hollywood Ten, celebrities have
historically leaned left. Athletes like Muhammad
Ali, writers like James Baldwin, singers
like Madonna and artists like Keith Haring
have engaged in sociopolitical movements,
such as the Civil Rights Movement, the
anti-Vietnam War effort and HIV activism.
Modern celebrities are similarly engaged.
There have been many different responses
to the statements and actions of celebrities.
Right-wing political minds such as Lahren,
the staff of Breitbart and President Donald
Trump act as if any outspoken liberal is a
communist sympathizer who is personally assaulting
their existence by saying “Black lives
matter” or “We are all immigrants.” Just like
anyone else, celebrities have the right to free
speech, and we lack the reciprocal right to
choose our sources of political commentary.
At the same time, the neoliberal response
of acting like a celebrity is revolutionary for
saying “Love trumps hate” is also annoying.
The nonstop updates on new political
developments, celebrity endorsements and
opinions from both sides of the aisle can be
exhausting, but the subjects fascinate me. Politics
is inherently divisive. There would be no
discussion or development if everyone agreed
with one another. While I tire of constantly
hearing about it, I understand its significance.
These events shape today’s world, and celebrity
engagement can make people feel represented
or isolated.
While some celebrities may be out of
touch, they have the same right to free speech
as others. We have the same freedom to say
how we feel about their statements. In an
open democracy, both celebrity commentary
and criticism thereof should be encouraged
in order to present the greatest diversity of
thought possible. Differences in opinion
shouldn’t be the cause of arguments but
learning opportunities for both sides.
Graphic by Sam Goldman
spring 2017 | 37