PeterDavid.net

Choosing not to buy a Dixie Chicks album? American.

Organizing a blacklist so others CAN'T buy a Dixie Chicks album? Unamerican.

Demonstrate and persuade all you want; that's the essence of the free market of ideas. But once you get into the area of blacklists and bans (let alone death threats), you're using the tyranny of the majority to squelch minority thought. And that ain't American, no-way, no-how.....

My opinion: They've got a right to free speech, sure. But we, as Americans, then have the right to boycott their horrendous music. Frankly, I was boycotting their music before they spoke out.

Regarding radio stations: Hey, it's business. If you got thousands of people saying "I'm not going to listen to your radio station if you play their songs", it's simply a business decision. Do I risk losing those listeners in order to defend someone else's right to free speech? Well, you can guess what businesses will answer.

And eventually it will all simmer down.

It's easy to figure: If you're a public figure and you say something unpopular(duh, look at the polls--more people were FOR the war than against it)--YOU are going to be unpopular. That's the way stuff works.

From what I understand, in the beginning of all this mess only one radio DJ in San Antonio was not going to play any DCs music for 24 hours as his response to what was said by the DCs. A reporter that works for a tv station (or some such) that owns both the radio and the tv that the reporter and DJ work for ran the story. Shortly thereafter everyone jumped on the band wagon to include a permanent ban against the DCs.

I don't listen to the DCs (even though I'm from Dallas, Texas), but I don't think the treatment that they've rec'd was fair at all. Haven't other artists spoken out with less (or no) consequences?

I just wrote a comment on all of this, clicked the "preview" button, then tried to go back to edit a few things, and guess what? My comments had disappeared! I think I have had this happen before, which is why I have just been posting comments without previewing them. Does the "back" button on anyone else's browser do this, or is it just mine (Internet Explorer)? Suggestions on what to do, or not do, to avoid this will be appreciated.

How come no one spoke out about radio stations refusing to play Darryl Worley's song "Have You Forgotten?" It's a double standard.

Artists have to realize that no matter what they say, American's and businesses can refuse to play whatever they want. That is protected free speech also.

It works both ways, because you are free to say what you want people are free to criticize you if they don't agree and that includes refusing to play one's music.

Oh yeah, the Dixie Chicks didn't just speak out about the war, they slammed the President personally. The Dixie Chicks should realize that most of their "fans" probably voted for him. They are free to say whatever they want, but it's just reality that if people don't like what you say they won't buy your albums. Don't alienate the people that you are trying to sell to.

Voltaire said " "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it." Of course, we're currently against all things French...

The main problem with American's view of the war is that pro-war people seem to divide everything into "us vs. them." If you don't want American soldiers getting killed, you're supporting the terrorists. If you disagree with Bush, you're a traitor. Free speech shouldn't be the first casualty of war -- certainly not in a country where Freedom of Speech is guaranteed.

I'm not a fan of the Dixie Chicks' music, and I'm not going to buy their album because they spoke out against the President. I am impressed with their courage, making a public statement that they had to know would result in a negative backlash and a loss of sales. (Contrast this with Madonna, who always uses controversy when it boosts her sales but removed her anti-Bush video for being "controversial.")

As for the people who made death threats against the Dixie Chicks: If they were intelligent, they would use their freedom of speech to try and persuade others why the Dixie Chicks should be protested against. Death threats are a criminal act. I hope they get prosecuted, under the laws of the country they supposedly love.

[sarcasm]Well, I think the banning of the Dixie Chicks isn't going nearly far enough! The Dixie Chicks state their personal opinion at a show people went to explicitly to see them and they get banned from radio stations, so why isn't Michael Moore suffering for doing the same at a ceremony of which less than a percent of the airtime was devoted to him? Steve Martin should have bolted out and ripped the Oscar from his hands and beat him over the head with it.

Or Martin Sheen and that "virtual march" business? Somebody should virtually subdue that man with a virtual stun baton. And Bono. Well, I confess I have no idea what we should do to Bono, since he's not an American to begin with. But someone should do something, that's for certain. And don't get me started on George Michael![/sarcasm]

Seriously, I don't even listen to the DC (or the Boss, anymore), but I have to say this: If musicians decide they're also going to be politically active, how does it really matter? Except in the case of someone like Bono or Bruuuuce (who is proof positive that Bruce isn't a gay name, by the way) who are eloquent and well-informed in addition to whatever musical talent they may posess, how does the opinion of a musician (especially a pop musician or the country-fied equivalent) affect your ability to enjoy their music one way or the other?

Let me give you another example: I find people who have foot fetishes to be creepy (for the sake of example only; don't worry. I mean, they are creepy, but kind of a harmless creepy). I enjoyed Quentin Tarantino's movies. When I learned he had a foot fetish, it in no way diminished my ability to enjoy his films; even the ones he acts prominently in (like From Dusk Till Dawn or his segment of Four Rooms). Also, I take issue with pedophiles. Learning that the director of Disney's Powder was a convicted child molester didn't make that movie a bad one, nor did it prevent me from wanting that director to have his portion of the money I paid for my ticket.

Since Powder wasn't about child molestation, and Pulp Fiction wasn't about foot fetishes, and the Dixie Chicks don't sing about how Bush shouldn't be president, who gives a flying fish? That's like refusing to wear a pair of underwear because Inspector 78 was a draft dodger.

One of the first tools fascist societies use to supress political dissent are threats to individuals' livelihoods.

Make no mistake, this isn't individual people deciding on their own not to buy the Dixie Chicks' albums, or to withhold support from stations and advertisers that play them. This is an aggressive campaign organized by media conglomerates with close ties to the Bush administration, to paint the Chicks as traitors to the Fatherland for daring to insult our Glorious Leader. If they'd treated this the same way they treated all the Clinton-bashing, hell, they'd be hailed as heroes. Instead, the Chicks are now a threat to mom and apple pie.

We need to look in the mirror and see what we are becoming, before we pass the point of no return and end up on the same track all fascist societies have. Wake up America. It can happen here.

Sure, the Dixie Chicks have the right to free speech. The government has taken no action to hush them up.

But to then call the backlash of more free speech going the opposite direction un-American is... well... un-American. No one confiscated the Dixie Chicks CDs for the steam rollers to crush. No secret police officers went to the radio stations and monitored the playing of the music.

The Dixie Chicks sing country music, which has a fan base that is by and large conservative. That's why the jingoistic songs thrive the best. To go against that is to suddenly no longer be in your fan base's focus.

There's nothing wrong with what they said. Nothing at all. But there's also nothing wrong with the fans using their own freedom of speech to communicate their reaction.

The unspoken aspect to all of this is how quickly the Chicks music was yanked from radio. It was not, as might first be thought, a reaction from numerous Station Programmers across the country. The deregulation of radio has led to the dominance of Clear Channel. Owns a frightening percentage of American Radio stations. They are the ones who put the brakes on the Chicks.

For more about Clear Channel and the story you won't hear on the evening news, search for stories about them on Salon.com.

And no, I don't work for Salon. I'm just so tired of Clear Channel programming away any interesting radio that I have to go to real.com to find radio I want to hear. I live in Kansas City, and I believe something like 8 of the top 10 stations here are owned by Clear Channel.

Disgusting what the concentration of media has done to the Free Press in this country.

The problem is now bigger than the Dixie Chicks. The problem applies to all the people who thinks the war was not a good idea in the first place. Just look at the boycot that americans do to the frenchs, germans and canadians just because they tought that there was a more peaceful solution to resolve this conflict than war.

Who gives us the right to decide wich nation is to be tamed or destroy just because they might be dangerous to us.

All those boycotts shows that were no longer open to negociation. What we're saying to the world right now is "if you don't think like us you're no better than Saddam...so you better watch out !!!!".

We're turning the world against us and we're even turning americans against other americans with this kind of hateful reaction to what should be FREE SPEECH. America should promote that, not ban it.

What you're ignoring, Howard, is the difference between airing your own speech and trying to silence someone else's. No one defending the DC is saying that people disagreeing with them should be silent (apart from the death threats, which are another matter entirely). The appropriate response, if you disagree, is to say so, not try to deny them the right to their livelihood. The equivalent would be for the anti-war faction to say, "The people who disagree with the Chicks and support the war shouldn't have their calls to radio stations aired, their letters printed in the paper, etc." and no one's saying that.

Let me put it this way. A few weeks ago I drove down a major street with a pro-war rally on one side and an anti-war rally on the other. The pro-war people had a bucket labeled "For disposal of Dixie Chicks CDs" (doubtless for destruction). No doubt, if asked, they would have defended the right of people to destroy a piece of their own property to make a statement. How many of them would have accepted the same argument if the anti-war side had had a bucket "For the disposal of US flags?"

"But to then call the backlash of more free speech going the opposite direction un-American is... well... un-American. No one confiscated the Dixie Chicks CDs for the steam rollers to crush. No secret police officers went to the radio stations and monitored the playing of the music."

Um, I think you are quite incorrect here.

Who decided to yank them off the playlist? That kind of decision comes from upper management. The rapidity with which it occurred shows that it wasn't from popular demand or response; popular demand or response would have show a decay over time and not a sudden disappearance from the airwaves.

And I certainly wouldn't say that the Dixie Chicks' core audience is determinedly pro-Bush or pro-war...I think it's a disservice to brand it one way or another, as it invariably turns out to be more complex than it appears.

The bottom line is that yanking them off the air waves is NOT an economic decision...it's a political decision. If their political stance hurts them in the marketplace....let the MARKETPLACE decide that. Don't decide for the marketplace.

Hmph. I recall there was one political school who thought they knew better than the marketplace. They fell apart in the last decade...

Another thing...

"If musicians decide they're also going to be politically active, how does it really matter?"

Artists don't decide to be "also" politically active...it's part and parcel of their artistry. There are degrees of politicalness in what an artists creates, but it's a dangerous delusion that an artist can create art divorced from political reality.

At the very least, an artist upholds the status quo....

From Dictionary.com:

"fas·cism

n.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Seems to me we are way too damn close to meeting this definition.

Frighteningly close, I agree William !

Down here in Atlanta, the big country station Kicks 101.5, is still not playing Dixie Chicks music.

I think that the Chicks have picked a good time to speak again (after the majority of the fighting is over) about what they said, what was meant by it. I think it's all a major overreaction by people and especially companies to ban their music on the airwaves.

It is kind of scary to realize that businesses are increasingly becoming more and more powerful like this and gaining more power over the people that supposedly they are working for.

Let's see...the DC's CDs (that's a weird thing to type) that were destroyed were purchased by individuals. So, the DC's got the money for them. Once the CD (the physical media) is in the hands of the new owner, shouldn't that new owner be able to decide if they want to play it or crush it? Where's the loss of livelyhood?

The Chicks made their comment and this is the audience's way of responding. The audience does not have a microphone in front of thousands of people. It seems to me that the left in this country is trying to make freedom of speech mean that "I can say something, but you can't say anything about it". Sorry, it just doesn't work that way.

What has bothered me most about this whole thing is not their statement, but their half-hearted apology/non-apology. If you are going to make a statement, then by God make the statement and stand by it! Otherwise it seems like pandering and is insulting to your audience.

-Jeff

...but I've thought the Chicks should be boycotted for their cover of Landslide. They are no where near as good as Stevie Nicks...

Steve Miller said....

The unspoken aspect to all of this is how quickly the Chicks music was yanked from radio. It was not, as might first be thought, a reaction from numerous Station Programmers across the country. The deregulation of radio has led to the dominance of Clear Channel. Owns a frightening percentage of American Radio stations. They are the ones who put the brakes on the Chicks.

But, amazingly enough, the Clear Channel station here in my market in Texas is still playing DC music. I've even talked to some of the on air personalities (or what pass for personalities) and they told me that CC itself said to play what your listeners want to hear. The DJ's also said that they had very little reaction at the station since the week after the statements were made, most people just didn't care.

Other than "Landslide" that is, most listeners just seem to not like their version of the song, but I digress...

jeff

A sad truth.

If you are a leftist and protest, you are a brave activist.

If you are anywhere else on the political spectrum, you're just a whiner.

Jeff, you completely missed my point. First, no one is saying that the people who disagree with the Chicks shouldn't be able to say so; second, the loss of livelihood I referred to has nothing to do with destroying CDs. Playing music on the radio is a platform to generate sales. It's like if I saw that one of my neighbors had a pro-Bush bumper sticker, so I let the air out of their tires so they couldn't go to work. It's a completely unreasonable response.

I am:

1)A person who has been critical of the Dixie Chicks

2)A huuuuge Springsteen fan.

I'm not surprised that he has taken this stance. As a Bruce devotee for some time and having speculated on how he might feel about the topic, I thought that this would be his stance. And it doesn't bother me in the least.

Why?

Because Bruce has always proven himslef to be thoughtful with his words. As well, it's not the first time I have disagreed with a particular stance he has taken.

The Dixie Chicks, however, made a juvenile comment directed at our(yes, our)President while on foreign soil. It's their right to do so. It's also my right to disagree. And not buy their albums. And turn the dial and let the station know that I'm turning the dial. It was grandstanding, pure and simple.

But Dear Lord, I love Springsteen.

Peter, if you would like, e-mail me and I would be happy to burn a retrospective disc for you. The man has a wonderful soul and it shows in his music.

Bruce was never that bright. The government has nothing to do with what's happening to the Dixie Chicks. Those are market forces, baby. What's ironic (but not too surprising from the short-sighted left) is that you were all cheering on these kinds of tactics when they were used against Dr. Laura. Yet somehow when it happens to your own, it's just not fair that it cuts both ways.

Just to be clear, I do not condone death threats. But the American right for free expression of dissent is perfectly fair in response to the free expression of dissent. I don't think anyone is denying the Dixie's the right to say what they want. But that doesn't free them from the consequences of saying what they want either.

With all this talk about fascism, I'm reminded of the following exchange from an episode of BTVS:

Cordelia, about Buffy: "But she's like this superman. Shouldn't there be different rules for her?"

Willow: "Sure, in a fascist society."

Cordelia: "Right! Why can't we have one of those?"

PAD

Choosing not to give money to people who we don't believe in is probably the most American thing that there is. And could you please explain to me how the government and "big business" is destroying the Dixie Chicks? What's destroying them is a bunch of people who don't agree with their views; it was their own fault for attacking the views held by the vast majority of their fanbase. There's a reason you dodn't see the same thing happening to Madonna.

I also find it rather hypocritical that you bring this up; you don't seem to be against boycotts against things you don't personally believe in. I don't see you mentioning the boycotts of Domino's Pizza that are going on because its founder gives money to Operation: Rescue, and I am certain that they've gotten at least one bomb threat because of it.

People have the right to think and feel as they like; this right cannot be curtailed by the government. However, if a radio station or record label doesn't agree with their opinion; if they don't want anyone to get the impression that they agree with them--they have every right to silence them. Because they own that particular part of the medium, and they have the right to choose how it's used--because what is said reflects on them. It's the same reason why a radio station would never run an ad for NAMBLA. There is no difference.

As I said before, we have the right to speak our minds and not to be censored by government. However, we don't have the right of freedom from the consquences of our words. We also have the freedom to not respect what someone else says.

Posted by Matt Adler:

**

One of the first tools fascist societies use to supress political dissent are threats to individuals' livelihoods.

Make no mistake, this isn't individual people deciding on their own not to buy the Dixie Chicks' albums, or to withhold support from stations and advertisers that play them. **

With all due respect to botyh Mr. Adler and Mr. David, a boycott is a valid protest. Unless someone is being forced to participate under duress. If I were to organize a boycott of Mr. David's books no one I can NOT convince to join is obligated to participate. Heck, as PAD stated he's going out to purchase something he otherwise might NOT have purchased and why? Just to make a STATEMENT. It works both ways it seems, otherwise, isn't Mr. David JUST as wrong to artificially inflate sales by buying a record he probably won't even listen to?

I'm at a loss to understand why Mr. David is so mad that the fans have spoken back. Apparently, it's gotten the Chicks' attention. Ms. Maines opinion was unpopular, although I think it was more WHERE she said it than WHAT she said.

No one is abbrogating the Dixie Chicks' right of free speech. I'd bet that almost everyone here saying that they got a bum deal, would be singing a different tune if they had said something objectionable like "I hate gays and blacks." Wonder if PAD would still go out and buy that album?

The bottom line is that yanking them off the air waves is NOT an economic decision...it's a political decision. If their political stance hurts them in the marketplace....let the MARKETPLACE decide that. Don't decide for the marketplace.

Economic, political, or otherwise, it remains a decision that radio station managers and owners, even if they're corporations, should be free to make if they wish. Fans of the Dixie Chicks can still go out and buy their albums in stores or online and the band can still tour and give performances. Free speech is not a guarantee of radio airtime.

And I think the fact that the band is now appearing on the cover of a major entertainment magazine published by a giant media conglomerate demonstrates once again just how hysterical and overwrought the "Help, help, we're being oppressed!" argument is.

But PAD, the question on all our minds is: What do YOU think is the best superhero movie ever made?

Roger Tang said:

"Artists don't decide to be "also" politically active...it's part and parcel of their artistry. There are degrees of politicalness in what an artists creates, but it's a dangerous delusion that an artist can create art divorced from political reality.

At the very least, an artist upholds the status quo...."

Who said anything about artists? What we're talking about is a pop music/country crossover band that has brought a younger audience to country because their music is more fun and lively than what had been on the air. I'm not suggesting that they can't be artists, nor am I suggesting that music is not an artistic medium, but very rarely is the sort of bubblegum played by the DC politically or artistically driven. At least, not as I understand art. I'd ask you to define the words "art" and "artist," but I know better. Suffice it to say that I happen to believe that art and non-art can co-exist in a medium, as can artists and non-artists. Nothing wrong with being a non-artist, it all comes down to (as I define art) whether you're saying something with your music or just trying to have fun/make money/become famous. From the DCs, I get more of a "have fun" vibe is all.

**fas·cism

n.

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Seems to me we are way too damn close to meeting this definition.**

William, I'm kinda scared that you really feel that way. When I read through that definition I don't think we come anywhere close.

Dictator? NO

Governmental Socioeconomic Controls? NO

Government Sponsored Censorship/Terrorism? NO

Government Policy of Narionalism/Racism? NO

Please tell me where we are even close.

Brian

I like the Dixie Chicks. I looooove Bruce Springsteen. Artists can say what they want, but I have my own beliefs. Sometimes those beliefs coincide with the artists' beliefs; sometimes they don't.

I think the backlash the Chicks have experienced is to be expected, but they'll bounce back.

Incidentally, I disagree with the backlash because it seems paranoid and vaguely McCarthy-era-esque to me, but that's neither here nor there.

Let the Chicks peep, I say.

Brian:

Just look at the Homeland Security Act for starters.

William

"The government has nothing to do with what's happening to the Dixie Chicks. Those are market forces, baby."

Bullshit. Pure and utter bullshit.

Market forces is declining sales. Market forces is drooping concert attendance.

Market forces is a lack of interest in the group.

Market forces is NOT a blacklist. Market forces is NOT a ban from play lists.

Stop going for the easy solution. Cajole and persuade, but don't yank them off the air because you don;t like what they say. You're confusing your own desires with the market...and you keep forgetting that the market is not just you.

I see the Dixie Chicks situation as a tempest in a teapot. It strikes me as being somewhat analogous to John Lennon's comments on Christianity in the mid-60s that led to the burning of many Beatles LPs in the Bible Belt and the death threats the Beatles received during their final American tour. In time, the whole issue blew over, and it's remembered as one minor incident in the Beatles' legend. This affair with the Dixie Chicks will blow over, too.

" Choosing not to give money to people who we don't believe in is probably the most American thing that there is. And could you please explain to me how the government and "big business" is destroying the Dixie Chicks?"

GHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Aren't people listening??????

Burn your Dixie Chicks CDs. Decide not to buy them. Persuade other people not to buy the. That's perfectly fine.

What's NOT fine is to ban them from play lists (which prevents OTHERS who DO agree with them from hearing them) or for state legislatures to pass resolutions requiring them to have charity concerts to benefit veterans (dunno about you, but I find it odious for state political bodies to lean on individuals like this).

Del posted:

"Just to be clear, I do not condone death threats. But the American right for free expression of dissent is perfectly fair in response to the free expression of dissent."

I don't want to put words in Del's mouth and I'm not interpreting his statement as having said, "Death threats are protected under the right to free speech," but I thought it important to point out (because death threats have been mentioned a couple times in this thread already) in case anybody was confused that death threats are criminal acts and, as such, are not protected forms of speech.

I don't think anybody has claimed that death threats are protected in the USA under the first amendment, but it's important to remember that not all speech is automatically protected by law.

"I'm at a loss to understand why Mr. David is so mad that the fans have spoken back."

Because he has this feeling, like I do, that it's NOT the fans who have spoken back, but just a small number of gatekeepers who, either out of censorship or timidity, has made this decision.

There's a distinction between the two that I hope is not getting lost.

With all due respect to botyh Mr. Adler and Mr. David, a boycott is a valid protest.

I don't think anyone said it wasn't. The issue is:

1) What's the reason for the boycott?

2) How did the boycott originate?

The fact that the answers to those questions are...

1)Someone expressed dislike of the president

and

2)Media conglomerates with close ties to that president waged an aggressive campaign to portray them as traitors

...should trouble anyone who believes in the ideals espoused by the founders of our country, who certainly would not approve of the elite and powerful using their power to intimidate and quash political dissent by depriving people of their livelihoods.

No one should lose their job over expressing their dislike of a politician. That's not only un-American, it's anti-American. It spits in the face of everything this country is supposed to stand for. If Bush had any decency, he would at least have his spokesman go out and say people shouldn't be punished for dissent.

Many people in this forum misunderstand the American concept of "Freedom of Speech". Free speech refers to speech that is free from GOVERNMENTAL oppression, it has nothing to do with the actions of private citizens.

Those who say that the free speech of the Dixie Chicks has been in some way violated are incorrect. The DC's are free to say what ever they like, the government has not violated that right in any way.

The actions of radiostations have been correctly characterized in this forum as a business decision, and free enterprise is a halmark of this country as well as free speech. I am not saying that the former fans of the DC's that now boycott their music have a rational reason to do so, but they have the right to be irrational.

What celebrities have to understand is they have a stronger voice than the average citizen, that is a definition of what a celebrity is. As such, when they use their voice the reaction is proportional to its strength.

The DC's made a poor business decision by miscalculating the views held by the majority of their fans. A fan boycot does not amount to a violation of ones free speech, the only way that could happen is if the government (state or federal) passed a law prohibiting the DC's from speaking.

The reaction to the DC's statements is entirely predictable and justified if that is how their fan's feel like expressing themselves. Remember that their voices alone are not as strong as that of the DC's, but collectively maybe.

People should stop discussing "free speech" with respect to this issue, it is entirely irrelevant. Private actors have every right to try to stop celebrities from using their fame to voice their views. It is the private citizens that give celebrities such a strong voice to begin with, they have every right to take it away.

The unspoken assumption of most of this discussion is that country music afficianados are idiots. While this would explain the Dixie Chicks' version of "Landslide" ("Hey, they won't know the difference"), it seems a bit presumptive to assume that country music fans cannot form their own opinions. If there were some Great Conspiracy Far, Far More Secret Than The CIA (insert TMQB footnote here) pulling the plug on Dixie Chicks broadcasts, then we would have reports of thousands, perhaps millions of diehard country music fans calling radio station request lines to ask for their favorite DC song, only to be rebuffed. Is that in fact happening? No. Instead of waxing paranoid over the Clear Channel, try talking to an actual listener. Most of the ones I have heard discussing the issue seemed to be genuinely annoyed that a band they liked had turned political protest into an ad-hominem insult to the President. (And yes, the sets of Country Music Fans and North Carolina Republicans do in fact overlap quite a bit.) People seem to be able to feel betrayed or insulted without being prompted. The Dixie Chicks have an absolute right to express their opinion. And their listeners have a right to tell them where to shove it.

And for what it's worth, the correct version of "Landslide" is by the Smashing Pumpkins.

The people who run over Dixie Chicks CDs with bulldozers are the same ignorant fools who burn Harry Potter books because they are "of the devil".

And it is a very small minority. The Chicks latest album was at #6 on the country charts when Natalie Maines excersized her constitionally protected right of free speech, and now- a month later- its at #1.

That sounds like a victory for free speech to me.

What gets me is the same people who are now saying that speaking up against 'president' bush are the same hippocrites (sp?) (like Bill O'Right-wing and the Fox Republican Crapaganda channel)that bashed President Clinton for every little thing he did when he was in office.

I guess President bashing is only un-patriotic when there is a Republican in office.

PAD: you're in for a real treat, especially with the Dixie Chicks album. "Home" was one of the best albums of 2002.

In particular, the song "Traveling Soldier," which is a cover of a song originally written and performed by one of the Chick's brother-in-law. It's quite poignant.

Can't say I had a problem with DC's comments and cannot fathom why anyone else would give a single sliver of crap about it either. Of course, I am scared that either Bush is either a crazy little puppet "president" who only wishes to serve his party masters or he's just really as ignorant and "hick-ish" as he appears. I mean, the man is a moron who was never even elected. I can only wonder what it wouldhave been like had Gore rightfully gotten the presidency (and actually, I didn't vote for either one)... at least we would have had someone speaking a lot more eloquently during all this. And so the DC's stated they were ashamed (or whatever) that Bush was from Texas... we got Jeb down here and we were the state that gave W the White House! It doesn't matter what a singer or an actor says. I barely care what people I actually know say about it. They can have their opinions and do what they will with their money. Personally, when I don't like a CD anymore, I trade it in for one I do like. Apparently that just ain't the way to "protest" something stupid like what someone said. But it IS the way to protest music you don't like anymore. And it was nice to see PAD slip in a BTVS comment in a week of another rerun. :)

In my opinion, I really don't think that celebrities should be given any more consideration for their opinions than the jabbering homeless man on the street, who thinks he's talking to God.

I don't give a damn WHAT you think about political issues. When I pay to see your film, or hear your CD, or (sorry, PAD) buy your book, I do NOT pay to hear your nationally publicized political opinions.

Consider the fourteen cents you get from my dollar an invitation from me to keep your pouty Hollywood mouth shut.

This goes for BOTH camps - pro-war, anti-war, you're a celebrity. Unless you're delivering a line or playing an instrument, shut the fuck up.

Peter, the government is not strong arming the Dixi Chicks or the thoughts of Americans. If you take the example of the Dixi chicks as your proof that Civil Liberties are being hounded, then you really gotta take a step back and rethink this.

The Dixi chicks are public figures. Like it or not that means their popularity is dirrectly connected to public opinion. They choose this carrer, and obviously that meant their cash flow is connected to their public life.

Also Springsteen is wrong. The Government is in no way trying to dirrect conformity. The Government didn't gather people and radio stations to Boycott the Dixi Chicks. The people and the Radiostations themselves chose to do this - and doing such things is perfectly within their right to free speech.

We have the right to boycott anything we want, from Child Labor-Made products to something as trivial as the Dixi Chicks latest albem.

Oh, and about people fearing to express their views. What about Conservative celebraties? It's just as eqally frightening to voice a convervative, and perhaps unpopular view, when surrounded by liberals.

Then again, what I just said is sort of a sterotypical view of Hollywood - not all celebraties are liberal. Yet you promote the same kind of Sterotypical views about Governments and Big Bussiness: that their out to sqwash naysayers and anybody who thinks diffrently than the government.

Also, BTW, I'm sure the Dixi Chicks have gotten death threats before. That is a most horrible thing for those people to do, but once again it's a fact of a public life. It is a criminal act, to send such letters, and those who do should be punished. Again, it's sort of sterotypical to think all those boycotting people approve of such things.

This will blow over... the Dixie chicks are nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly and get to tell their side. It is covered all over...so where is censorship? If I own a radio station and don't play a song...for instance Christian radio, I aim for my target audience. It is ultimely up to the station to decide whether or not they want to play an album. Grab the radio playlist for last month and show me the media conglomerate that owns radio stations that isn't playing the DC's. Then maybe I'll listen to the censorship protests. Otherwise, find another radio station or buy the CD.

Bush just talked about the Dixie Chicks in the Tom Brokaw interview. He basically echoed the comment of some here, and dismissed what is happening to the Chicks, saying something like "their feelings shouldn't get hurt just because some people don't buy their CDs."

A class act as usual.

Coincidentally, I'm reading the Chicken Little story to my son.

I find it unsurprising, that all of these paranoid conspiracy theorists are not shocked that anti-war rallies are being organized by Stalinists.

Yes, I said it.

It has been well documented who sponsors A.N.S.W.E.R.

I find it unsurprising, that all of these paranoid conspiracy theorists are not shocked that anti-war rallies are being organized by Stalinists.

And people said the right wouldn't be able to use the communist boogeyman anymore after the fall of the Soviet Union...

What's NOT fine is to ban them from play lists (which prevents OTHERS who DO agree with them from hearing them)

No it doesn't. Radio stations, and, yes, even the corporations that own them, are precisely within their rights to play or not to play whatever artists they choose. All that does it prevent people who want to hear the Dixie Chicks from being able to do so on those stations. People are still able to hear the Dixie Chicks on CDs, internet radio stations, at concerts, etc.

But a station choosing not to play the Dixie Chicks in no way infringes on ANYONE's rights, any more so than my right to hear, say, Bobby Darin is being infringed upon when the local 80s station doesn't play "Beyond the Sea" or PAD's right to free speech was infringed upon by the cancellation of YOUNG JUSTICE.

or for state legislatures to pass resolutions requiring them to have charity concerts to benefit veterans (dunno about you, but I find it odious for state political bodies to lean on individuals like this).

Fortunately, no such resolution requiring them to do so has passed. The South Carolina passed a deeply silly resolution REQUESTING them to perform a free concert for members of the armed forces and their families (as per http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/sess115_2003-2004/bills/3818.htm) but did not "require" them to do anything.

CJG

Choosing not to give money to people who we don't believe in is probably the most American thing that there is.

No. No, it's not. Choosing not to support someone's work because you don't like the work is SOP. Choosing to withhold support because you don't agree with someone's politics is...at the very least...tacky. It's cheap and smacks of retaliation and pettiness.

PAD

I also find it rather hypocritical that you bring this up; you don't seem to be against boycotts against things you don't personally believe in. I don't see you mentioning the boycotts of Domino's Pizza that are going on because its founder gives money to Operation: Rescue, and I am certain that they've gotten at least one bomb threat because of it.

I can't be held responsible for you not reading what I post. I said more than a month ago, in another discussion, that I thought boycotting Domino's Pizza because of its founder's politics was idiotic. Personally, I don't get Domino's Pizza because I'm not wild about Domino's Pizza. But if I'm at a convention or something and that's what around, I'll eat it. And I'm pro-choice.

PAD

The unspoken assumption of most of this discussion is that country music afficianados are idiots.

In my case, the reason it was unspoken was because it never even occurred to me. Honestly, country music isn't normally my cuppa. But I have no problem with people who do like it.

PAD

I'm at a loss to understand why Mr. David is so mad that the fans have spoken back.

Because there is a difference between speaking back and retaliating. People don't seem to understand that; they consider retaliation a form of speaking back.

If I say, "I believe in "A" and you respond with, "Well, I believe in "B"," that's speaking back. If I say "I believe in A" and you respond with, "Oh yeah? You SOB. I'm going to stop buying your work and try to get all my friends to stop buying it too," that is NOT speaking back. That is an attempt at punitive measures because you disagree with what I've said.

And that is wrong.

How can ANYONE not see that?

PAD

Just 2cs from someone who lives outside the States (which, I guess would make it 2ps or God-knows how many Euros)....

Personally I'll listen to anyone who has an opinion, but I tend not to listen very long if they are merely regurgitating sound-bites or nifty slogans. If they have a thoughtful and considered opinion - even if it's not the same as mine - I'm happy to discuss and appreciate that we both might learn something from it.

Was the 'ashamed' comment a tad sound-bitey? Yes,probably (though recently I've heard the professional versions). Did they have a right to say that? Yes, definitely. Do they have to deal with subsequent brickbats and bouquets? Yes, of course. Are death threats acceptable? No - and no logic could really say they were.

From abroad (Europe...not sure if I'm Old Europe, Young Europe or Middle-Age Spread Europe) we do get the impression from US TV that it's two extremes of thinking. Which is strange because all the Americans I know are intelligent enough to be seeing that this isn't a black/white issue - it's full of greys. It's the insistence that it's so clearcut that annoys a lot of us overseas.

It's one thing to criticise/question what somebody says. It's another to criticise/question their right to ask it. And it's often very telling when the answer to the criticism/question is often not much of an answer.

People have every right to smash CDs, burn books and boycott whoever they want. Presuming, that is, they own them. They also ahve the right to call thin layers of fried potato, *Freedom Fries* should they really so wish.

Ain't diversity grand?

John

I have yet to see the Dixie Chicks arrested or fined, so there's no government suppression, and I can't see why people refusing to buy their albums can't be considered another act of free sppech.

I like Bluegrass, so I'm a big fan. I love their sound. I couldn't care less about their political views.

But, if someone decides not to buy albums because of their political views, that's their right as well. That's not censorship, that's just free speech from the other side.

**I don't think anyone said it wasn't. The issue is:

1) What's the reason for the boycott?

2) How did the boycott originate?

The fact that the answers to those questions are...

1)Someone expressed dislike of the president

and

2)Media conglomerates with close ties to that president waged an aggressive campaign to portray them as traitors**

Beg to differ sir. The issue is is a boycott a fair and appropriate response?

The answer is yes. If an artist says something I don't like I'm entirely in my rights to NOT give that person any more of my money. I'm also entirely within my rights to try and convince others to join my cause. People will either agree with me or not. Saying I shouldn't be able to organize a boycott just because it might hurt someone financially is an attempt to squelch MY free speech.

As for the media conglomerates, be specific Mr. Stone. Who are you talking about?

Even if it's true, so what? If you have the only radio station in town are you saying that everyone has a right to free speech, BUT you?

And people said the right wouldn't be able to use the communist boogeyman anymore after the fall of the Soviet Union...

Man, I love that line. It proves how much you don't get it.

The point to anyone bringing up ANSWER's roots is to show how knee jerk the left has been about this war.

They don't care about anything other than attacking the 'right', they'll even let the worst elements of their 'side' organize rallies and not blink.

I mean who on EARTH actually still believes communism or socialism can work other than hard core nuttier than a fruitcake idealogs?

That the people who organize these rallies are communists is only important because it shows how IRRATIONAL these people are. They're still spouting off about the prolitariate and they don't even understand that the theories they profess to believe in were proven wrong decades ago.

I don't think anyone sees thes people as a threat, they aren't a boogeyman, they're a freaking JOKE. It's almost laughable that these people still believe these lies.

That's why people bring it up, because it's funny in a sad kind of way, that humans can be so deluded.

And for the record, I'm about as far right as The Dixie Chicks.

I just find the left's Marxist and pacifist elements to be an embarrassment.

PAD said:

If I say, "I believe in "A" and you respond with, "Well, I believe in "B"," that's speaking back. If I say "I believe in A" and you respond with, "Oh yeah? You SOB. I'm going to stop buying your work and try to get all my friends to stop buying it too," that is NOT speaking back. That is an attempt at punitive measures because you disagree with what I've said. And that is wrong."

Nope, it's not. The assumption you make is that a person is somehow entitled to the money that I and my friends MIGHT have spent on them before the disagreement. They aren't. It's my right to decide where and when to spend my money.

"I said more than a month ago, in another discussion, that I thought boycotting Domino's Pizza because of its founder's politics was idiotic."

There's no clause about boycotts needing to be sensible. It all has to do with what are you, as a person, willing to give up to make a point. The Dixie Chicks and some of their fans are giving each other up: the Dixie Chicks made a political point and their fans are making it back. It's a decision they both get to make without any government intervention.

Free speech DOES have consequences. It's not supposed to be a free ride. Some consequences are good. If a person isn't willing to accept the consequences of their own speech, then maybe the point isn't important enough.

America is very quickly becoming Brian Wood's Channel Zero. If you haven't read it, do so, and then compare the Clean Act to the recent Patriot Acts (I & II). We should really be afraid people, because it's not an impossibility.

"I said more than a month ago, in another discussion, that I thought boycotting Domino's Pizza because of its founder's politics was idiotic."

There's no clause about boycotts needing to be sensible. It all has to do with what are you, as a person, willing to give up to make a point.

Completely irrelevant. I was asked why I hadn't commented on the Domino's boycott. I said I had.

Furthermore, "Giving up" something doesn't make a point. It's the laziest form of protest there is. If you like Domino's Pizza but dislike the owner's opinions...write to the owner. Tell him why you think he's wrong. If you really feel strongly about it, find out when "Operation Rescue" is picketing and organize counter-protests. But patting yourself on the back because you're opting for a nice, easy boycott that's going to hurt no one except the local Domino's franchise is...there's that word again...idiotic.

The Dixie Chicks and some of their fans are giving each other up: the Dixie Chicks made a political point and their fans are making it back.

I would agree with you if you were right. In this case, however, a member of the group made an offhand comment about the president--a president who, when he was elected, was roundly hooted by many fellow Texans who said to Americans in general, "Now he's YOUR problem" (apparently forgetting that Texas is still in the U.S.) She didn't think she was making a "political point." And the fans, in turn, make *no* political point, but instead strive for--in essence--economic sanctions.

It is, as far as I'm concerned, pathetic that anyone calling themself an American is incapable of saying, "I disagree with what you say, but hey, in America you can say what you want." Instead, the approach is, "Criticize the President at your own risk."

Free speech DOES have consequences. It's not supposed to be a free ride. Some consequences are good. If a person isn't willing to accept the consequences of their own speech, then maybe the point isn't important enough.

And maybe if certain Americans believe economic retaliations, blacklisting of songs, and organized boycotts (not to mention death threats)are somehow acceptable and not an attempt to squelch free speech through punishing it, then maybe they don't comprehend what free speech is all about.

PAD

I haven't read all the comments but I would like to state my opinion and this is what a forum allows.

Everywhere in the world has freedom of speech, how would you stop it. It is the reaction to what is said that is important. The United States does not have freedom of opinion, but no where does.

Try being black in a KKK meeting, try breaking a non disclosure clause on a contract.

As a country you hide behind free speech like a shield to say you are better than anyone else.

I know not all people do this but it comes through you movies, comics, and television shows including news, oh and by the way Fox a large supporter of the idea that everything america does is right is owned by an Australian.

What would benefit you as a country is realise that there are other opinions in your own boarders, as well as all over the world.

People should be able to buy or not buy music because of taste, not because of a fear of other seeing their CD collection.

Sort yourselves out, sort your press out, sort your president out and people like myself and other all over the world won't have to snigger at how stupid you look.

Actually I think almost all boycotts are idiotic. Personally, I prefer alternative rock to country. My dislike of the Dixie Chicks has an awful lot more to do with the fact that I don't like their music than with their opinions, about which I don't give a rat's ass. I profoundly dislike REM's politics. I deal with this by pushing the "skip track" button on my CD player when "Ignoreland" comes up on Automatic for the People. It's considerably easier than picketing Warner Brothers.

The only reason I take this debate seriously at all is that a great many people seem to truly not understand the difference between a public backlash and a fascist state. The NSA isn't going to bug PAD's phone. Stormtroopers aren't chasing Natalie, waiting for a clear shot. The Department of Justice isn't preparing an indictment of Mr. Watson for calling the President a "crazy little puppet." (Way to raise the level of discussion, though.) The DOJ is actually much more likely to go after the people who sent death threats to the DC (being naughty through the US Mail is a Federal offense). What is really happening? A bunch of people are overreacting to the Dixie Chicks because the band members are self-righteous jerks. This is not unusual in America. We all have the right to be jerks. Most of us have the sense not to be jerks in front of an audience, although admittedly that doesn't stop legislators. The boycottors are being self-righteous jerks too, which is OK.

What isn't OK is the double standard. It's not OK to assert that it's noble to protest opinions you find offensive, like Trent Lott implying that a segregationist presidential campaign was a good idea. (Frankly this is one of the all-time worst political gaffes, and Lott deserved to be crucified for it.) But it's not OK to then insist that a protest aimed at sentiments you might find acceptable, like the Dixie Chicks' anti-Bush posturing, is a symptom of the demise of freedom and the rise of fascism in America. Protesters try to shut up Henry Kissinger and Clarence Thomas on a regular basis when they try to make personal appearances. Why is it any worse for the Dixie Chicks to lose airplay? I tend to agree with PAD, that it's a little "tacky." But it's only tacky. It's not evil.

But it's not OK to then insist that a protest aimed at sentiments you might find acceptable, like the Dixie Chicks' anti-Bush posturing, is a symptom of the demise of freedom and the rise of fascism in America. Protesters try to shut up Henry Kissinger and Clarence Thomas on a regular basis when they try to make personal appearances. Why is it any worse for the Dixie Chicks to lose airplay?

It's not worse. It's pretty much the same: It's just two different forms of off-base reaction. Trying to create an environment where a speaker is unable to speak is wrong. Trying to create punitive responses to an artist with whom you disagree is wrong. And I seem to recall something somewhere about two wrongs not making something...can't quite remember...

I tend to agree with PAD, that it's a little "tacky." But it's only tacky. It's not evil

I didn't say it was evil (although I'd certainly toss death threats into the evil category). But it's wrong.

PAD

The unspoken assumption of most of this discussion is that country music afficianados are idiots.

In my case, the reason it was unspoken was because it never even occurred to me. Honestly, country music isn't normally my cuppa. But I have no problem with people who do like it.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you did. My point is that a number of the posts seemed to attribute the Dixie Chicks blacklist to the fabled "right-wing conspiracy" which was manipulating country music to punish dissent. It's a uniquely leftist tendency to assume any time a grass-roots movement lurches right that it's the result of manipulation on the part of the Republican party, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Priory of Sion and possibly the Three Emperors' League. My argument is that this grass-roots movement (i.e. boycott) is the sincere opinion of the people involved. (No opinion on whether it is in fact a blue grass roots movement.)

Why can't we protest protesters? And when we do, we get called McCarthiest, Fascists, etc..

Beg to differ sir. The issue is is a boycott a fair and appropriate response?

It is not a fair or appropriate response to someone expressing their dislike for a politician.

The point to anyone bringing up ANSWER's roots is to show how knee jerk the left has been about this war.

The point was to create spurious and defamatory associations. That being, associating those speaking out against suppression of political dissent with the Chicks, associating the Chicks with the broader anti-war movement, associating the broader anti-war movement with ANSWER, and associating ANSWER with Stalin.

Voila, now anyone who doesn't think the Chicks should be punished for speaking out is a Stalin-worshipping commie. Oh, and thankfully, you added "the left" into those assoications. Wouldn't want anyone with an opposing political view to escape untarnished!

a great many people seem to truly not understand the difference between a public backlash and a fascist state.

And a great many more people don't understand that a fascist state doesn't appear out of nowhere. It evolves from "a public backlash" (which is really a nice way of saying "an angry mob"). Ambitious men incite and exploit those sentiments to further their own political aims. And one of the first steps is creating an atmosphere of intimidation for speaking out against them. Threatening a person's livelihood is a reliable method. Even if THEY won't shut up, other people will get the message.

a protest aimed at sentiments you might find acceptable, like the Dixie Chicks' anti-Bush posturing

I'm all for speaking out against sentiments you disagree with. I am against attempting to punish someone for saying they dislike politician. That is a dangerous precedent to set. This country was founded on speaking out against those in positions of authority, and there is no way that someone should be targetted for that.

In the midst of all this discussion about rights, has everyone forgotten what this is all about? The Chicks received death threats! In comparison a boycott is nothing! I share PAD's philosophy on boycotting (the only thing I boycott), but there is a more serious issue here. Better to sacrifice such materialism in the face of personal danger. I admit, however, that I am as materialistic as many people, but let's get our priorities in order, PLEASE!!!

I am certainly not suggesting trampling on anyone's right to free speech. I wish the subsequent apology - no doubt forced upon by their label - was never made. Better to simply end purchasing, and even to destroy what one has owned, then to put a life on the line, whether those threats were serious or otherwise.

Hope you enjoy the music, Peter. Not much of a Dixie Chicks fan myself, but I recommend most Springsteen albums from the 70s & 80s. Pretty much all top-notch.

Anyone who has taken a college course in Logic will see the, uhm, logic in this:

President Bush makes a statement or takes action.

Dixie Chicks make a statement questioning Bush.

The logical response would be to defend Bush's statement/action.

Instead, we get "The Dixie Chicks suck!"

That's not the issue. The question posed, in whatever fashion is was, is "is President Bush doing the right thing?"

The question is not, "are the Dixie Chicks doing the right thing?" They didn't do anything other than give an opinion. Bush has an opinion, too, but he was the one who took action in the first place.

Did Bush do the right thing? Did he do the right thing in the wrong way? Did he do the wrong thing in the right way? It's a public debate. If I offer a statement, prove me wrong...give your side of the story...give me something to think about...change my mind...listen to my ideas...maybe change your own opinion. Take any of these options.

Does anyone out there remember the McCarthy hearings? Are we in such a love affair with our SUV's and cell phones that we can't recall the lessons of recent history? Does anyone remember Bob Dylan before he was on VH-1? Does anyone remember Kent State? Hell, watch Howard Stern...we live in a country where strippers don't even know who Hitler was!

I don't give a rat's ass about what the majority of this country thinks...there was a time when the majority of this country thought that slavery was a pretty cool concept. I'm much more interested in what the minority thinks.

The majority will run off a cliff if enough people are ahead of them, blocking their view. I would much rather be on the side of the road with the guy adjusting his shoe-laces...

-dj

PAD wrote:

And the fans, in turn, make *no* political point, but instead strive for--in essence--economic sanctions.

Economic sanctions can be very political. The South African sanctions started as individual economic boycotts.

As far as I'm concerned, it still comes down to a person's right on where they spend their money. Nothing more, nothing less. You say it's wrong and stupid. I disagree, but even if I didn't - well, there's no law against stupidity :)

In the midst of all this discussion about rights, has everyone forgotten what this is all about? The Chicks received death threats! In comparison a boycott is nothing!

Not a bad point, but everyone agrees that death threats are a criminal act and beyond the pale, while boycotts are open to debate. Note that no one is defending death threats, though I am disturbed by the lumping of death threats with the perfectly legal practice of boycotting.

I also note that Reason

Magazine's Hit and Run blog has reported that the proprietors of two sites mocking antiwar celebrities have received death threats as well (http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/001383.shtml#001383). Methinks it's less a matter of evil fascist thought police trying to suppress the Dixie Chicks (who have done SUCH a good job that the band is on the cover of Entertainment Weekly and being interviewed on ABC) than nutters on all sides making death threats. Which is, of course, one of the things that makes them nutters...

**Beg to differ sir. The issue is is a boycott a fair and appropriate response?

It is not a fair or appropriate response to someone expressing their dislike for a politician.

Posted by Matt Adler **

So fans are required to continue to support artists they don't agree with? And it was MORE than just WHAT they said. It's WHERE and WHY also.

To be honest, I didn't even believe the apology. I'm even doubting the death threats. Much of the reaction to what the DC's said had pretty much run it's course. I see this latest bout as an attempt to capitalize on the publicity. The concerts were sold out before they opened their mouths ( and they won't refund any of the money to those who want it). Most radio stations have returned them to the playlist and even their sales have rebounded a bit. and they get on the cover of Entertainment Weekly and a full hour on primetime network television. Heck, they even got patsies like PAD feeling sorry for them and buying an album he wouldn't normally go for, just to make a point. Not to mention the people that will calm down and think they over reacted, go back and buy their album AGAIN. Do you know how much they would have to PAY for all this publicity? More than they lost in sales, I'm sure.

Matt Adler,

The main organizer and financer of the "peace" protests is a group called International A.N.S.W.E.R. -- a front for the Communist World Workers Party with tentacles stretching around the globe. Its leaders include Ramsey Clark, a former U.S. Attorney General, turned communist.

· The "anti-war" group NION (Not In Our Name), is the brainchild of Maoist Clark Kissinger. Kissinger, a leader of the Revolutionary Communist Party, and has a close relationship -- by virtue of his hatred of his country -- with the Maoist International Movement (MIM). MIM has called for the violent overthrow of the US government. NION has become a coalition of far-left professors and Hollywood stars, including Martin Sheen, Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, Michael Moore, Ed Asner and Mike Farrell, who believe celebrities have a sacred duty to stand on their soapbox and attack America!

· United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) -- still another communist oriented group with deep pockets -- isn't against war, unless it's fought to protect U.S. interests or free oppressed people from a vile dictator. UFPJ, chaired by Castro groupie Leslie Cagan, who was a member of the American Communist Party until after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

The bottom line is that yanking them off the air waves is NOT an economic decision...it's a political decision. If their political stance hurts them in the marketplace....let the MARKETPLACE decide that. Don't decide for the marketplace. -- Roger Tang

Why do you think the marketplace DIDN'T decide? Are you positive they were removed from the playlists before fans asked for that change? If listeners asked for it first, that is the will of the marketplace, not political censorship on the part of corporations who own radio stations. Which corporations, by the way, have a legal duty to stockholders to run the business in the most profitable way legally possible.

What's NOT fine is to ban them from play lists (which prevents OTHERS who DO agree with them from hearing them)... -- R.T.

If enough of those others lobbied the stations to return the band to the playlist, it would have happened. And the others didn't have the right to hear them on a particular station anyway. Country music listeners had every right to express their opinions to the stations, as much as the band had the right to make comments in the first place.

It is, as far as I'm concerned, pathetic that anyone calling themself an American is incapable of saying, "I disagree with what you say, but hey, in America you can say what you want." Instead, the approach is, "Criticize the President at your own risk." -- PAD

Since when does the right to free speech come without the risk of backlash, though? You exercise that right, you better be prepared for others to respond. And economic speech has always been around -- would you disagree if say, for example, a public bus service in Atlanta stated that all blacks had to give up seats at the front, and people boycotted in response? It is certainly a matter of opinion whether economic speech was used well re: the Dixie Chicks, but I don't see how the act of boycott itself can be right or wrong.

And, FWIW, I was for liberating Iraq; however, I wasn't the least bit upset by Ms. Maines' comments. Where I lost respect for her was her stepping back from her opinions when she realized they upset her fans. She had every right to her comments, but that right comes with the responsibility to take the heat that may come with exercising it.

First of all, anyone who does not vote for President Bush in 2006 just because they don't believe in his politics is a fascist who is trying to take away his right to be President. There, I said it.

Second, Natalie Maines claims she received death threats. She also claims her house in Texas was trashed, although the sherrif there said the only incident he was aware of was a toilet papering a month ago, and it was never actually reported.

Third, if Rush Limbaugh receives death threats, does that by association make all liberals evil?

Fourth, speaking of Rush Limbaugh, or Ann Coulter, or Sean Hannity, if anyone refuses to buy their books because they dislike their politics, does that make them a facist? According to Peter David,

"That is an attempt at punitive measures because you disagree with what I've said.

And that is wrong.

How can ANYONE not see that?"

I thought their version of Landslide was great.

Anyway, last week I bought the Beatles Anthology on DVD (yes, this is on topic). When they got to the "Jesus" comment and the Southern Protests it perked my ears. One of the Southern Protesters in the boycott was a KKKlansman. He talked about how the Klan was a "terror organization" and that they had many tactics get rid of the unAmerican Beatles.

I just thought that was interesting and relevant to the conversation.

I think responses are inevitable. But I firmly believe they should be appropriate responses. Obviously, death threats are not appropriate in any way, shape, form, or fashion; but labeling some as "unpatriotic" or "un-American" for expressing an opinion is wrong, too. This country is allegedly based on the concept of open debate, and that's not something I'm seeing these days. You can't negate someone with terms like "unpatriotic" and "un-American" and expect the argument to go anywhere productive.

Thought from a conservative...

Let's change the senario. The Dixie Chicks are in London in 1999. We are on the verge of war in Kosovo and Natalie says "I am ashamed Clinton is from Arkansas". What would the reaction be?

This comment is only related to one comment on the board. William asked about hitting the back button to make some changes and his text was gone. This has happened to me too. What I have started doing is highlighting my text and copying it (right click and copy) so if I lose my text when I go back, I can just paste (right click - paste) it back without losing anything...hope that helps..

Xyon

Last time I checked the government wasn't banning the Dixie Chicks.

Till they do the stations and the fans have expressed their freedom of speech. But I guess in Mr. David's world the only ones who have the right to free speech are liberals.

If you say anything conservative you better SHUT UP. Just buy your records like a mindless puppy. How dare you criticize young white celebreties. Aren't their lives hard enough. No one's buying their records!

WAHHHHHHHHHHH

but right now, if you say something to disagree with the conservative viewpoint, you're told to shut up, that you're un-american, etc.

um...why?

Probably cause they feel their views are unamerican. As long as the government is not doing it I have no problem. You have the right as a liberal or conservative to tell people to shut up. Didn't the upstanding moralist Bill Clinton do something similar to Sister Souljah I think he did.

If the Dixie Chicks said something like kill all Queers or White Power and there was the same response I doubt you or Mr. David would be so self righteous.

In the minds of certain people only Liberals can express their opinions.

What makes you any better than those "intolerant" conservatives you hate. Oh yeah cause your right and they aren't.

Not everybody Boycotting them is issuing death threats. You try to brand the majority of people who think the Dixie Chicks are idiots with a lunatic fringe.

Unless you believe those who Boycotted Dr. Laura were out of line cause they have done the same exact thing.

But then again its ok to excercise your rights if they agree with you. If they dont they're evil and are fascists.

Whatever....

I *WON'T* be buying the latest Dixie Chicks album; or the Last DC Album; or the NEXT DC album; or *ANY* Dixie Chunks album for the forseeable future.

The Dixie Chicks have the right to free speech, but as Syan Lee so ably quoth;" With Great Power come Great Responsibility." Speech may be free, but it is not without responsibility.

I can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre; I'll go to jail. I can't call the judge a moron in his court; I'll do one-day-at-a-time Contempt of Court jail sentences until I apologize. I can't spint something untrue in a newspaper; that's Libel (or Slander is it's spoken.

Free Speech is not without consequence. The Dixie Chunks are paying the price for their speech. I hope they're enjoying their unemployment. I'm certainly not, either.

~~~JD~~~

I believe it has already been ruled that money can be viewed as speech, and that, thusly, the expenditure or lack thereof, if an expression of free speech.

As such, boycotting is a form of free speech. Asking others to boycott is usually done by speech as well (I haven't yet heard of people being physically restrained from the Dixie Chicks CD bins at local music stores).

And, yes, burning a flag is also a form of free speech that should be protected. Ain't it great? :)

For those remotely interested in reality, The Dixie Chicks have seen almost no drop in record sales and most of their upcoming tour is sold out and dates put on sale in the wake of this 'controversy' have seen no lack of interest in ticket sales.

Any sort of assertions that the Chicks are hurting from the backlash is entirely without base in truth. They're certainly not 'unemployed' (right here's the perfect place for a 'like most of their fans' line but I prefer the high road ... sort of.)

In other words, people whined, got over it and now are one again embracing the vapid country/pop ballads of The Dixie Chicks.

And the world of country music is once again at peace.

*whew*

Several things...

First of all, anyone who does not vote for President Bush in 2006 just because they don't believe in his politics is a fascist who is trying to take away his right to be President. There, I said it.

Yeah, you did. And I laughed. But hey...you want to go vote for Bush in 2006, you go right ahead. I guarantee you: You'll be the only one.

Let's change the senario. The Dixie Chicks are in London in 1999. We are on the verge of war in Kosovo and Natalie says "I am ashamed Clinton is from Arkansas". What would the reaction be?

They'd be roundly applauded by many of the pundits who are currently calling for their censure and claiming that it's inappropriate to criticize the office of the President. Oh, and Clinton would probably offer to jam with them.

I can't yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre; I'll go to jail.

Not necessarily. If there's a fire, yell it all you want.

If the Dixie Chicks said something like kill all Queers or White Power and there was the same response I doubt you or Mr. David would be so self righteous.

First, I'm not self-righteous. I'm just right. And second, there is a world of difference between speech that expresses a personal opinion that does no harm, and speech that incites to riot or encourages harm of others.

In the minds of certain people only Liberals can express their opinions.

In the minds of many people, only they themselves should be able to express their opinions without censure. That cuts across both liberal and conservative lines. As for me...point out an instance when I've advocated boycotting conservative speech, if you wouldn't mind.

PAD

ant.

ERB: Let's change the senario. The Dixie Chicks are in London in 1999. We are on the verge of war in Kosovo and Natalie says "I am ashamed Clinton is from Arkansas". What would the reaction be?

PAD: They'd be roundly applauded by many of the pundits who are currently calling for their censure and claiming that it's inappropriate to criticize the office of the President. Oh, and Clinton would probably offer to jam with them.

ERB: You are right. And this is one conservative who STRONGLY supports their right to speak. And I will continue to listen to them as long as they make music that I want to hear.

Its funny that during the Clinton era no one confused bad mouthing the president with bad mouthing the troops. And don't tell me it is because (as John Mellancamp seems to believe) that we had 8 years of peace. During the Clinton years we had Bosnia, Somalia, the '98 bombing of Iraq, and Kosovo. We could support the troops and the military action and still question the Government. That is one of the things that makes America great.

ERB: You are right. And this is one conservative who STRONGLY supports their right to speak. And I will continue to listen to them as long as they make music that I want to hear.

THERE ya go. Then again, you have the taste to be a fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs so, y'know, it's to be expected.

Its funny that during the Clinton era no one confused bad mouthing the president with bad mouthing the troops. And don't tell me it is because (as John Mellancamp seems to believe) that we had 8 years of peace. During the Clinton years we had Bosnia, Somalia, the '98 bombing of Iraq, and Kosovo. We could support the troops and the military action and still question the Government. That is one of the things that makes America great.

I think it has nothing to do with that, and everything to do with the fall of the WTC. It created a siege mentality, circle-the-wagons, if you're not with us you're against us mindset to such a degree that criticism of anything government related was seen from--and associated with--the most extreme point of view.

What's that? You say that war is precipitous? You support terrorism! You say that Bush shouldn't be sending troops into war without UN sanction? You don't support our fighting men! Shades of gray have gone out the window in favor of stark black-and-white.

Once, you could criticize the president and simply have supporters rebut the criticism. Now you criticize the president, and your very patriotism is called into question with an almost religious fervor. Y'know, now that I think of it...perhaps it's not unrelated.

Think about it. God, for many people, represents their way of getting through the day. The world's unfairness is "part of God's plan." This life sucks? A greater award awaits you in the next life. Challenge that belief and many people go ballistic because it's a belief system that enables them to survive. Same thing now with Bush. Once upon a time, it was SOP to opine that he was a dim bulb, inarticulate, an empty suit. That was a luxury when things were going oaky. But the fall of the WTC reduced many Americans to mindsets of pure, stark terror...and believing in the man running the government is the only way to get through the day. Considering the notion that a dunce is responsible for protecting us in times of terror is as unthinkable as the notion that there's no heaven awaiting God-fearing souls. And some people react with the appropriate fury that such a notion would be broached.

PAD

Let's forget about the scenario of the Dixie Chicks criticizing President Clinton and instead consider one that actually happened. Just as the House of Representatives was about to start debate on whether or not to impeach Clinton, Clinton started a bombing campaign against Iraq. Senator Trent Lott said the timing was suspicious, and I don't see how anyone can reasonably disagree with that assessment.

He was roundly criticized in the media and forced to apologize. He was accused of slamming the President while troops were in harm's way (never mind who put the troops in harm's way to begin with). I doubt there were many people now defending the Dixie Chicks who defended Lott, and Lott at least had said something with some substance in it. Of course, people on both sides of the aisle seem to have different views on the respect due a President depending on whether the portrait of Franklin or Theodore is hanging in the Roosevelt room.

As for Clinton offering to jam with the Chicks, I'm sorry but I can't think of a single time Clinton was magnaminous to someone who insulted, criticized, or lampooned him. His was the most vindictive administration I can remember, although to be fair my political memory does not stretch back to the Nixon administration.

I just wish Comedy Central would rerun "That's My Bush". That was a funny show.

From a Republican that still has a sense of humor.

PAD: As for me, I'm going out and not only buying the latest Dixie Chicks album, but the latest Springsteen. Which is interesting considering I've never purchased albums from either

ERB: One question for PAD. Did you buy the Dixie Chicks CD? If so, what did you think?

To All:

Great comments, one and all. I really enjoy these lively discussions in which all points of view are open. I only have two questions:

1)Which superhero movies did PAD choose?

2)Why are stall and spin practice encouraged in flight training?

You've never bought a Springsteen album? Weird.