Since this was a topic of discussion on this board some time back–and I was particularly fascinated by those who somehow felt that boycotts and bannings were something the Dixie Chicks should have “expected” by stating their opinions regarding the war–I bring to your collective attention the following. Oh, and the Dixie Chicks are currently in fear for their lives, having received death threats for stating their opinions. How patriotic. Maybe that’s what spurred the attached:
The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they’re terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American.
The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about – namely freedom. Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home.
I don’t know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support.
Bruce Springsteen
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…
• 
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 ášš. 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? Hëll, watch Howard Stern…we live in a country where strippers don’t even know who Hitler was!
I don’t give a rat’s ášš 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 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.