"So, if they agree with the prez and his reckless foreign policy, they can speak out, otherwise, they should just stick to acting/singing or whatever they do? What country do you live in? Obviously not the USA with first ammendment rights."
This is what the First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
This is not what the First Amendment states: Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, excepting the consequences thereof.
That's right, consequences. So whether you agree or disagree with the President of the United States of America, or anyone, you can speak out, sure. But when you say something to the effect of, "Screw the fans that made it possible for us to stuff our panties with wads of sweet crazy money!" then you should accept the consequences of their freedom to soak those dollar bills in hot sauce and then watch you squirm like a mouse in a microwave. And yes, you do have the freedom of speech to shriek bloody murder, but only because the chemical reaction of hot sauce and your present yeast infection are killing you in the worst possible way, not because the fans exercised their freedoms just as well as you did. I guess what I'm saying between all the allegory and hyperbole is that celebrities do indeed have the freedom of speech. But when asserting that freedom, that person is accepting the responsibility that is inherent to freedom, that includes bearing the consequences. The issue isn't freedom of speech then, it's having the smallest shred of wisdom on when to open your mouth and when not to. And accepting the consequences rather than splaying your airbrushed asses on the cover of a magazine as if you were a victim of anything other than your own unmitigated ignorance.