Creativity & Violence

Well, who is anybody to give their opinion about anything?  Who are you, to be replying to this post, even?  And who am I to be replying to you (especially since this was originally posted a year ago)?  I am a citizen of a country that at least tries to pay lip service to the concept of free speech every once in a while.  I expect my fellow citizens to have the same purported rights as me, whether or not they are famous (and by extension I expect to have the same rights as them). Sometimes it may even be gossip-mongering, rather than the famous person specifically using their fame to express their beliefs; gossip mags love this stuff, because controversy is their bread and butter. Sure, sometimes people use their positions to further their free speech, but it is the media that propagates it, and it is consumers who support the media.  The context of Cornwell's statement, such that I can find online, was in relationship to the belief of Cruise and his religion that there is no such thing as psychiatric disorders, and expressed her concern that someone who needs medication might be influenced by that.  Anyone who has experienced relief from such disorders through medication is going to be at least slightly skeptical about such claims, if not downright volatile.  Cornwell suffers from bipolar disorder, and takes medication for it, so I would certainly deem her qualified, if such qualifications are necessary or pertinent to the discussion at all, to express her opinion about that.  It's just like when everybody got their panties in a twist over the Dixie Chicks expressing their opinion of Bush.  He's the President, right?  The President of their country, right?  I think anybody has the right to have their own opinions about their own government, and should have the right to express those opinions, or else what does having free speech even mean anymore?  It's a shame she felt like she had to, or was made to, apologize.  Now as far as Stephen King and this comment goes, I feel like it was taken slightly out of context from reading the article.  He was not saying that the imagination only produces violence.  I believe that is precisely the reason he used the term "excretory", because violence, at least in real life, is ugly, and many creative people use their works as vehicles to carry things that would horrify them in real life, but make a great story.  I read it as other things come from the imagination, but violence, specifically, is "excreted" from it.  He was talking about the Virginia Tech student's writings, if that clarifies anything.