During a recent appearance on Boston talk-radio star Reese Hopkins’ program, Phil Donahue waxed indignant about the way the Dixie Chicks were treated during the weeks preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom. Donahue, the producer of the new antiwar documentary Body of War, claimed that the Dixie Chicks and other celebrities who condemned the impending war were silenced by conservatives and forced off the airwaves by the mainstream media. The former TV star insisted that American broadcasting executives were nervous about strongly expressed antiwar views on their programs, and placed a muzzle over the mouths of those opposed to “Bush’s war.”

Hopkins pointed out that those who criticized the Dixie Chicks and other antiwar celebrities were simply exercising the same freedom of speech the “progressive” entertainers used when they inveighed against Bush. As Hopkins noted, the Dixie Chicks and their celebrity colleagues weren’t silenced; rather, those who opposed their opinions simply refused to remain silent.

It’s hard to shed a tear for the Dixie Chicks and other antiwar celebrities who took heat back in 2003; they weren’t the first entertainers to be raked over the coals for expressing controversial views.

In 1977, singer Anita Bryant—an “America’s Sweetheart” figure and a popular spokesperson for the Florida Citrus Commission—became the target of national scorn when she vociferously objected to state laws extending civil rights protection to gay and lesbian Americans. Bryant’s activism sparked protests and boycotts; she was vilified by gay rights advocates, and received so much criticism that the Florida Citrus Commission felt it necessary to drop her as a spokesperson in 1979.

While some of Bryant’s critics used tasteless tactics to register their outrage—Bryant was famously “pied” at a 1977 press conference in Des Moines, Iowa—most of her critics simply used their First Amendment rights to criticize Bryant’s views, just as Bryant used her First Amendment rights to criticize the gay rights movement. Bryant was not silenced; her critics merely spoke as well.

If it’s wrong to feel sorry for Anita Bryant, why is it right to feel sorry for the Dixie Chicks, Phil Donahue or any entertainer who took heat for coming out against the Iraq War? Donahue’s diatribe was dishonest.

Freedom of speech works both ways, at least in theory. Mel Gibson used his free-speech rights to make a movie honoring the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ; his critics used their free-speech rights to allege that the film was religiously intolerant. Michael Moore used his free-speech rights to condemn President Bush; Moore’s critics used their free-speech rights to defend Bush and condemn Moore.

Andres Serrano had a free-speech right to make blasphemous art; Christian conservatives had a free-speech right to condemn him for that art. Martin Scorsese had a free-speech right to make The Last Temptation of Christ; the religious right had a free-speech right to condemn Universal Pictures for giving Scorsese the budget to make the film.

Why is Donahue complaining? Does he not remember what happened to Anita Bryant? Or does he think what happened to her was fair, while what happened to antiwar entertainers was unfair?

What Donahue seems to want is a right not to be criticized—but such a right doesn’t exist. If it’s fair for 1970s left-wingers to declare Bryant a villain, it’s also fair for 2000s right-wingers to brand the Dixie Chicks heels as well.

In the Hopkins interview, Donahue came across as both a media legend and a mental lightweight. His tremendous voice still booms, but what does it say? He has an unrestrained hatred for the President; while Bush has more flaws than Lindsay Lohan has freckles, he does not deserve the great vengeance and furious anger that Donahue directed towards him.

Donahue said he hated being called anti-American for his views. Is Donahue anti-American? Are the Dixie Chicks, Sean Penn, George Clooney and Bruce Springsteen anti-American? No—but they are all rank hypocrites. If President Clinton, President Gore, President Kerry, President Dukakis, or President Obama had invaded Iraq, these “progressive” celebrities would have been the most jingoistic, God-bless-America, rally-round-the-flag-boys people in this country. They’d paint the Hollywood sign red, white and blue if a Democrat had led us into Baghdad. Instead of “Redacted” and “Rendition” and “In the Valley of Elah”, they’d make new versions of “The Green Berets” and “Red Dawn” set in Iraq.

Donahue and the Dixie Chicks are not traitors, but they cannot be trusted. Their antiwar activism is insincere and phony; if a President with a (D) after his name had led us into war, they’d be telling America that we had to stay the course, that we could not abandon our commitment to democracy in the Middle East, that we owed it to ourselves and to the world to win. Conservatives recognized their hypocrisy, and simply did to them what liberals did to Bryant three decades earlier. So why complain? It was equal treatment, not apples and oranges.