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…
• 
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, hëll, 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
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
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.”
Bûllšhìŧ. Pure and utter bûllšhìŧ.
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 dámņ 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 fûçk 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…