Should a celebrity condemn publicly?

Absolutely YES, but why?  A celebrity is a celebrity not because, (s)he is best in their field, but due to their social responsibility. For being best in their field, they are already, recognised with awards and paid heavily. Celebrity is a recognition (in other words responsibility) given by the public, thats the reason, a celebrities private life is less compared to their public life. Moreover, the atrocities around us, is not because of bad people, but due to the silence of the good. Given that, for any atrocity one has to condemn and reject it immediately and publicly, immaterial off celebrity status. And for a celebrity it becomes a primary responsibility.

Why someone is not condemning publicly?
Fear. This could be fear of losing livelihood, losing popularity or losing status. In general Dishonest, when some one is not honest they cannot condemn publicly. To condemn, one has to be honest. Reserving comments on such atrocities, reveals their insecurity.

Can someone condemn privately? 
May be, on certain situations, that too when things are personal or restricted to a closed group, condemning can be  private, again not always. Say for an example, if I found my son doing shoplifting, I can condemn him privately but should respond immediately and publicly, means,  either keep the shoplifted product back or pay for the product. Once back home condemn him for the act. Contrarily, If I choose to keep blindfolded, after reaching home, condemning him is more or less like supporting him for the act, as it is not a punishment to him but will act as an encouragement, as he gets the product and as a bonus no intimidation in public. Intimidation in public is good though modern psychologists differ from me, however stats prove that modern psychologists ideology has failed to give better society and citizen. As we see increase in crimes in society, including minors, where ethics and morals were completely ignored.

Another example, Ilayaraja (Celebrity) corrected (condemned) his daughter Bavadharini on a stage show, where he had choice to do that privately, but he chose to do it publicly on the stage. 

If we don't condemn a terror act publicly, we are actually supporting the act by not providing enough resistance, and sugar coated condemns are direct support for such acts. Especially when sugar coated words like hasty, brainwashed, misguided youth and all is used. As these acts are well planned, meticulously executed, guided to the perfection, which need to be condemned publicly, in-fact should be punished immediately


For morons (I tried not be abusive, but it will injustice for Martys), who say Army personnel are to die, is not just a vicious statement but treachery. Army personnel are not meant to die, they are for our protection, they are in the first row to sacrifice their lives before our turn to lose. They are sacrificing their lives and comfortableness for our safety and happiness.Hence, asking for retaliation or revenge for them, is not an emotional ask, is out of devotion towards them.  Snake-lets who ask to restrict such comments to IPL and should be ostracised from public forms. Rather adding values to the society their views are damaging the social values. One should be precautious about them.

As a public we can ask for revenge, but ideally it is government decision, only government knows the consequences, a government should not indulge in more damage for peoples expectation at the same time public views or expressions should not be restricted either. Snake-lets and paid media (presstitues and Urban Naxals) are painting such people as emotional and war mongering demons, which is condemnable. These people who stood for dissent once are against now, when general public are dissenting their views they change their side to bigotry.

Ultimacy on anything is not good, ultimate liberty is not a boon but a disguised curse, freedom of expression or freedom of speech should have a check, ultimacy in it, will lead to disaster, good will use it wisely, but bad, will only misuse it and we have those consequences, all around us.

Finally, all sweet talks like "Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind" is all good, however "Peace for an eye will make the whole world dead" better to be blind, to be dead. Not condemning or sugarcoated condemning is nothing but a indirect support. One has to condemn, but should choose correct emotions and words based on their social status as that shows their maturity, knowledge and responsibility. Above all their credibility and honesty.