The comedian Jim Gaffigan has been tweeting some fierce (and sometimes very funny) lines about Donald Trump lately. That causes pushback, of course, from Trump supporters and there ain't nothing wrong with that. Free Speech is only Free Speech when it's a two-way street.
But can we all agree that "Celebrities should shut up about politics and just entertain us" is a pretty lame argument unless — note the italics for emphasis — you also condemn celebrities who say things with which you agree? I wouldn't endorse that principle but at least it's a principle and not a hypocritical way of trying to get the other side to just shut up. Have any of the folks telling Jim Gaffigan he has no right to be heard said that about James Woods?
I actually can understand that some people think like this: [Name of Celebrity] didn't get famous because of his political punditry. He got there because he told great, funny jokes about eating at McDonald's or he starred in some movies or whatever. How come that buys him a soapbox that I, a guy who drives a truck for a living, doesn't have? Sports figures became famous because they can run or shoot free throws or hit a ball. What entitles them to be heard so loudly about who to vote for?
And I get that but it's simply the way fame works and always has. What entitles them to get paid megabucks to endorse products? Answer: The public responds to it. Tom Selleck — an actor I like and one who probably wasn't starving — must be getting paid a fortune to sell those stupid, evil Reverse Mortgages. Why are they paying him so much? Because he gets more results than an anonymous, unknown spokesguy would. So why can't Jim Gaffigan — who is not being paid to do so — sell us Joe Biden?
After all, Scott Baio was at the Republican National Infomercial selling us Trump. I'm guessing he'd rather be selling the Reverse Mortgages. It pays better and either way, the result is the same: Lots of people losing their homes.