It's pretty simple. Drunk driving = wrong, and he should be arrested etc. Of course people are more interested because of who he is. It was just a mistake, but one that he should have to pay consequences to just like anyone else.

Sure, have a drunken tirade. I do it all the time m'self! :lol: But seriously... drunk or not, if you start going off about how 'everything is the Jews' fault'... yeah. You're an anti-Semite, and for that kind of irrational racism, you should be bitchslapped. I believe in free speech, but I also believe in bitchslapping.

Free speech means you have the right to say something. It does not mean you have the right to say something free of any and all consequences. He'd already fought off questions about being anti-Semitic before; now he's just confirmed that they were true. Being an anti-Semite, unfortunately for Gibson, has consequences-like ABC won't want you to produce a miniseries about the Holocaust, for example. People who think biggotry is stupid and wrong won't want to work for him or with him, despite his star power.

This isn't about "He's free to say whatever he wants." Of course he is. That doesn't mean the rest of the world either has to like it or has to ignore it. It is not illegal for him to hate Jews. He cannot and should not be jailed for it. However, he has no Constitutional protection against people deciding that being one makes him a stupid asshat and not be interested in seeing his movies or being in them or associating with him. People are not entitled to the rest of the world conforming to their ideas or accepting them simply because they have them.

As tophat said, in vino veritas. I have no interest in supporting someone who thinks that Jews killed his lord and savior and ruined the world, and neither the Constitution nor anything else guaranatee him the ability to be like that without other people choosing not to have anything to do with him.

There's a huge difference between supporting the person and punishing the person.

If you do not like what the man says you do not buy his product. The studio heads decide that they don't want him to be in their movies, have his distributed by their studio and so on.

But to have people say he needs to be bitchslapped and by whom(?) that's just wrong.

If you personally have issues with what he said turn away and look elsewhere and for people you can believe in what they say.

To me, Mel Gibson is a decent actor, one of the best these days, he adds humor and has a style of acting I like. His personal life is none of my business, his beliefs are none of my business and what he says and does outside of that entertainment realm is none of my business.

If he comes down my street and preaches hatred or if his movies are filled with hatred then I will lose interest and decide I won't buy his product. If he restarts a NAZI party and declares all jews must die..... then he needs help, deep psychological help.

As for The Passion of The Christ, it was a very good movie, very realistic as to how the Bible itself wrote it. It was also damn entertaining and well acted. I didn't find it anti-semitic in anyway. What, was Mel Gibson supposed to change the Bible and history and make the Jews love and want to save Christ?

For Christians, Christ died to save us all...... therefore he had to die and had to suffer because it was his sacrifice to do so. That is all I got out of what the movie and Gibson said. I saw nothing damning the jews.

If people worried more about the log in their own eye and not the splinter in anothers, when it comes to what 1 man says the world may just be a better place.

Agreed on all points Pan. I don't remember, anywhere in our Constitution of the United States where it states that "You have the right to not be offended"

Who is talking about a right to not be offended?

He made offensive comments, so now people don't want to be involved with him because they feel offended. If a guy at work tells you he raped your mom every day you walked by his desk, wouldn't you try to avoid that guy at work?

Actions have consequences. He has a right to hate Jews and he has a right to express that hate if he chooses. He does not have a right to express that hate free and expect that nothing will change. He offended a lot of people and they have every right to choose to not go to his movies or be in his movies or anything else regarding him. Alternately, people who don't want to be tarnished by his newfound reputation as a bigot will avoid him or distance themselves from him.

Freedom of expression does not guarantee tolerance or acceptance of that expression.

I've always said "A drunken mind speaks a sober heart."

I didn't say anyone had to ignore it... But its a personal choice, and as far as the mass media coverage, and bullshit that goes along with it... Thats too much.

On an individual basis, if you want to boycott him, thats fine, and I won't berate you for it. But legal-esq punishment? Please....

having been drunk quite a few times in my younger days and not remembering what i've said or done on a few of those, i'm inclined to forgive, forget, and move on with whatever he may have said. Personally, I think that there is a bit of hypocrisy floating around. How many of you would be criticizing him if Mel had gone off on a tirade calling the cop a german nazi and a hitler puppet and then slamming the whole nazi movement? My guess is less than two or three of you.

Anyway, people and companies can do whatever they feel they need to do with Gibsons movies...I, however, still enjoy his work and will continue to see and buy his movies.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

As soon as I heard they found a bottle of Tequila in the car, I discounted just about everything he said. Te-kill-ya is not normal booze. It makes you say and do stuff you can't even believe you said or did. BTDT.

Also, I realize that LA/Malibu cops are used to dealing with all manner of star/wanna-be/washed-up actor types, but who writes up an 8 page report on the babblings of drunk asshole during a DUI arrest? Only someone who wants to share the limelight when the shit hits the fan. You can be sure if it was you or I every drunken slur and insult would not have been written down in a report.

Also, what is the big deal with insulting Jews? What if he goes off on 'lazy, cross-breeding Mexicanos' , 'foul smelling cheap-ass frenchies' , or 'sneaky slant-eyed Japs'. Is there a French Anti-Defamation League who gets their panties in a wad? A Mexican Civil Liberties Union running to crucify Gibson? A Japanese Defense Society who sentences him to eternal damnation? Didn't think so.

Sticks and stones and all that.....

I don't see how that is hypocritical. I can disagree with what he supposedly said, I can say that I think it was stupid and wrong to say it, AND I can support free speech at the same time. Free speech does not guarantee "no retribution" for your speech.

Did anyone suggest "legal-esq" punishment?

So fewer people would object to him calling an officer a nazi? Again, how is that hypocritical?

I don't really care one way or the other about what Gibson said. (EDIT: Though I did find it offensive). He was drunk-driving way, way over the speed limit. That's the main issue for me. However, I understand that there will likely be consequences when someone in a highly public career goes on a drunken anti-semetic rant.

I know that I probably won't be going to any of his films, but not because of his comments. I just don't think he's much of an actor. He has a few good movies, most are average/bad.

pointing out worse behavior to excuse bad behavior is childish at best, since that's exactly what children do.

Again I still wonder.

Why do more people care about what an actor says then about a president of a nation working twords nuclear weapons?

The latest.

for the same reason people don't care that hezbollah hides among civillians and palestinians fake violence to make israel look bad.

Well, Since you or I aren't going to "Bitchslap them" I just assumed that meant a favoring of some type of formal punishment for the comments.

To clarify: bitchslapping a person is certainly not a legal punishment, just a societal one as detailed by others.
I was speaking casually, but my point was that he can say whatever he wants - but he shouldn't expect people to not have strong opinions about his opinions. He's too public a figure.

And for myself, when I hear racist mumbo-jumbo, I want to slap that person. But usually, I just practice that one mentally and hand out verbal ass-kicking instead.

Legally, it's agreed that the only thing they should be penalizing him for is the DUI, the stupid schmuck.

And yep, have to agree with Ustwo - it's just Mel Gibson. He doesn't have command of an army. Unlike the Iranians... /shudders

The "legal-esque" question is very much a factor.

Why if it is "freedom of speech" were they so worried about his remarks as he was arrested? Why did they press for some type of "extra" charges if he was just being a belligerant ass who had too many and was speaking things that may be offensive.

So if this weren't about what he said and just the DUI...... then what other charges are they looking for????????

I know ....... it's that whole public disturbance thing. He was loud and acting a fool (as drunks do) and they want to charge him for that also. And while we're at it let's pressure the judge to max old Mad Max out on the sentencing, that'll teach him to speak his mind.

From this I have learned..... if and when I drink I can no not never speak badly of sprites and pixies..... even though I love them when sober when I drink I find them very much a nuisance. So Heaven forbid I start walking home from a drunk get arrested for public intox and instead of wanting to feel guilty for my stupid actions I go into a tirade against pixies and sprites...... I don't believe what I am saying, I'm just having a drunk rationalization that if I can blame others for why I am drinking maybe someone will understand that I have a true reason to drink.

I know that's psycho babble from an bleeding heart liberal addictions counselor that many of you probably just see as an excuse, even though it happens.

I think that they were worried about preferential treatment of celebrities and possible falsification of records by the police. Again, I don't see any charges relating to what he said while drunk.

I refuse to accept being drunk as an excuse for anything he said. He chose to drink, he chose to get in a car. The subesequent behavior is his, not the alcohol's.

Gilda

keep in mind his bac was only .12 - that and he's an admitted alcoholic. most alcoholics I know wake up with a .12 not go on anti-semetic tirades. .12 what is that like 4 beers? damn mel is a lightweight pussy.

So when a drunk in a bar comes up to you and tells you he's rich and single, you're sure he's telling you the truth?

From a professional in the field :thumbsup: :

As stated above a long term alcoholic who has liver issues will get drunk on less, it's called a tolernece break. (Hopefully, this isn't Mel's case.)

Also, when a recovering alcoholic who has a significant amount of time in recovery (everyone is different and thus the results) when they first "slip" it may take very little to "get them drunk". They will return very fast to the tolerence level they stopped at, but the first 2-3 times out they'll get "drunk" on very little.

Also, who's to say alcohol was the only drug in his system, it's the only one they tested for.

Before stating the above, keep those facts in mind.