Oh just to contribute to the whole "Artist + Politics" thing --
The big problem in your view, taky, is that not everyone agrees on what's divisive and what isn't. To some people, arguing that universal health care is a good thing ISN'T divisive. In fact, it's not.
In Canada.
To some people, suggesting that spending valuable community resources on ANIMALS when there are PEOPLE who need help IS divisive.
I reckon if the law says "right to speak freely", it applies to famous people and not-famous people, and if I don't like the things a famous person says, I don't have to see their movies, listen to their music or buy their books. If they'd rather speak up than be famous/successful, that's not a moral failing. They may only be exposing their own lack of knowledge and intelligence, of course. That's their perogative.
But saying "Famous people should only discuss topics I think aren't divisive," isn't very helpful. They may WANT to influence public opinion. They may believe that if they speak up, more people will consider their point of view, come to agree with them, and act accordingly. And that's a fine thing to try and do, every bit as fine (if less likely to succeed, perhaps) as volunteering at an orphanage. Indeed, if the action hoped-for is of sufficient benefit to society, it's BETTER for them to speak up.
Honestly, I AGREE with you, mostly. I'm more impressed by an artistic statement than a direct one. I admire artists who can express their ideas about the world and nature of humanity and what's right and what's wrong through their work. But I don't insist that they do so.
I just turn off the TV whenever Sting appears.
No offense intended.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
