Whatever happened to free speech?

[Ming]

It would also screw up their bread and butter money producers.. and believe me when I say, THAT'S THE LAST THING THEY WANT TO DO.

Good Night

[Imran Siddiqui]

What do you know.... GAC (the third country music tv station I have) just showed the Chicks' hit 'Travelling Soldier' .

[Berzerker]

You have the right to express your opposition to the war, now sit down and shut up.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Willem


How does having the courage to acknowledge both sides of an issue violate their freedom of speech?

I HAD to address this one.

The whole point of free speech is that I can advocate something and totally ignore the other side. I can be narrow-minded, or biased or a poor news source .

To truly have free speech, one must accept the right of people to proclaim things that you would spend a lifetime fighting against.

[MarkG]

they only care about making money... which if fine since they are a business...

so financial destruction of a singer for speaking his mind is just part of the business (not an execution of the right to freedom of speech by the radio station)?

All I see is personal choices and business decisions being made here... no censorship what so ever.
The radio stations have the right to play whatever they want, and what they think people want to hear.

it's pretty clear: "dont talk or you music wont be played no matter how good it is". it's not goverment censorship but it is censorship. probably "idiots censorship" enforced on money-focused stations/corporations

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

they only care about making money... which if fine since they are a business...

so financial destruction of a singer for speaking his mind is just part of the business (not an execution of the right to freedom of speech by the radio station)?

Yes. Do you think any employees of any corporation have it any better?

Partners of a law firm?

Elected Representatives?

Why are celbrities different?

We are free to be *******s. Other people are free to treat us like the *******s we are when we are *******s.

Quote:

All I see is personal choices and business decisions being made here... no censorship what so ever. The radio stations have the right to play whatever they want, and what they think people want to hear.

it's pretty clear: "dont talk or you music wont be played no matter how good it is". it's not goverment censorship but it is censorship. probably "idiots censorship" enforced on money-focused stations/corporations

Censorship is per se an activity of the government. All the rest of us are simply excersizing our rights, including those of us who wear suits and run corporations. People outside of the government are free to vote with their scorn on those who offend. Or do you think it should be mandatory for art of **** to be displayed at the demand of the **** artist?

[notyoueither]

Wow. That's a lot of ***'s

[MarkG]

We are free to be *******s. Other people are free to treat us like the *******s we are when we are *******s

these singers are not "treated like *******s" in the same manner they were "*******s"(they just opened their mouths and said something. their action had zero effect on their "target"(bush)). they are effectively loosing their ability to work and make a living

Or do you think it should be mandatory for art of **** to be displayed at the demand of the **** artist?

1) i'm not talking about laws here (although i could)
2) i believe music stations/people should play/listen to music according to how good that music is. anything beyond that should be considered(not by law, by people) as wrong

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MarkG

Quote:

We are free to be *******s. Other people are free to treat us like the *******s we are when we are *******s

these singers are not "treated like *******s". they are effectively loosing their ability to work and make a living

And if they weren't *******s? Would they be losing their ability to 'earn a living' [code for making millions by using peroxide and having a twang when they sing the songs their managers bought for them. And looking cute, let's not forget they must look cute].

Quote:

Or do you think it should be mandatory for art of **** to be displayed at the demand of the **** artist?

1) i'm not talking about laws here (although i could)
2) i believe music stations/people should play/listen to music according to how good that music is. anything beyond that should be considered(not by law, by people) as wrong

Well. Welcome to life. You don't get played simply on talent. There are a whole load of things that go into whether you get the gig. Are you good enough? Are you good looking enough? Are you smart enough? Are you well enough connected? Are you not a total moron who just offended the sensibilities of a good portion of your potential audience?

Answer any of those questions improperly and you may well finish by serving slushees at the corner seven-eleven.

It's not fair. Life isn't.

[MarkG]

Originally posted by notyoueither
[code for making millions by using peroxide and having a twang when they sing the songs their managers bought for them. And looking cute, let's not forget they must look cute].

when people didnt know their opinions nothing stopped them from making money. the same should happen now

Well. Welcome to life.

no, welcome to a democracy with a large population believing only in their own rights. and this is not life, this is about the level of education and culture

It's not fair. Life isn't.

saying "that's life" is what keeps this world behind. even worse, you agree that "it's not fair" yet you feel obligated to jump and say to me "that's life" only because i pointed out that not only "it's not fair", but also that "it shouldnt be this way"

[Flubber]

My personal belief is the boycott is silly. It seems to be a huge overreaction to me but thats only MY opinion.

Others are outraged and want to express that. They have every right to do so.


If I were to start a rally and we chanted some slogan, I could hardly complain that the adjoining rally that was on the opposite side of the issue was larger and louder with the effect of drowning out our slogans. The right to free expression does not require others to publicize your views or to stop promoting their view so yours might be better heard.

In the Dixie Chicks incident, I don't really like that there were such adverse consequences to political comment but that is my personal feeling on the comment involved. If such consequences happened to someone for being blatantly racist for example, I would be more in favor of the boycott.

But my personal viewpoint or the majority of people's judgement of the merits of a boycott/protest are irrelevant .The people protesting have the same right to express their opinion through protest regardless of the popularity of their cause.There can be no judgement of the merits of an opinion to determine if the people have the right to hold and express it.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MarkG
when people didnt know their opinions nothing stopped them from making money. the same should happen now

You are living in a fairy tale land.

Of course the fact that they pissed of thousands, or maybe millions will have an impact on their careers.

Do they have a right to millions? Can you show me where to sign up for that?

Quote:

Well. Welcome to life.

no, welcome to a democracy with a large population believing only in their own rights. and this is not life, this is about the level of education and culture

Pfft! Education and culture. Hah! There are about 10 times the number of Americans than there is any other country in Europe. I think they can cover their own education and culture.

But, never you worry. The stealth nation is hard at work. Already we dominate their news broadcasting, and soon we will have stand up comedy completely in reign. Hollywood is a tougher nut to crack, but only because we find it difficult to find entertaining people who are stupid enough to fit in. But don't worry, we have a Jim Carrey cloning program in full swing. We will accomplish the takeover soon. Yessiree, Bob.

Quote:

It's not fair. Life isn't.

saying "that's life" is what keeps this world behind. even worse, you agree that "it's not fair" yet you feel obligated to jump and say to me "that's life" only because i pointed out that not only "it's not fair", but also that "it shouldnt be this way"

Ahh, yes. Youth is wonderful. Enjoy it.

Soon you will find that you will very likely not change the world. Worse, you will come to see that you agree with most of what your parents did. Gads!

[MarkG]

It seems to be a huge overreaction to me but thats only MY opinion.

how dare you?? where do you work? give me you full personal data immediately! i need to report you!

[MarkG]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Of course the fact that they pissed of thousands, or maybe millions will have an impact on their careers.

being pissed off is one thing. trying to enforce on others that they wont be able to listen a song because of you being pissed is another

Do they have a right to millions? Can you show me where to sign up for that?

they have a right to be treated in their job by other entities in the industry(radio stations) in the same manner, regardless of their political views

Ahh, yes. Youth is wonderful. Enjoy it.

Soon you will find that you will very likely not change the world. Worse, you will come to see that you agree with most of what your parents did. Gads!

i'm not out to change the world and i already agree on many things with my parents i'm just not at the point of saying "that's life, you're an idiot for caring about it"

[notyoueither]

You're not an idiot for caring about it, Mark. I care about it too. We're both idiots for thinking we can change it.

[MarkG]

We're both idiots for thinking we can change it.

actually, you said "that's life", so you're not really into changing anything

anyway, here's a political statement: Bush says we need to party!

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by MarkG
Bush says we need to party!

What an arselicker. Still propably the only right thing he said during his precidency of the US of A.

[MarkG]

paiktis, did you see this?

[Bereta_Eder]

yep and I agree with it (the comment)

You should have seen late last night at Alpha some "journalists/experts" talking about the war on Iraq.

Not even a VEGOS film would have made for better entertainment

[Bereta_Eder]

a propo





alla kiauto

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MarkG
they are effectively loosing their ability to work and make a living

Country Music fans happen to like Bush. Artists really should be more mindful of thier target demographic.

[SlowwHand]

Artists really should stick to their area of expertise.

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You're not an idiot for caring about it, Mark. I care about it too. We're both idiots for thinking we can change it.

If you lack the faith that you are unable to change anything, then certainly it's a forgone conclusion. What's your alternative, sit back, say and do nothing? Doesn't sound very productive to me.

[Jac de Molay]

Country Music fans happen to like Bush. Artists really should be more mindful of thier target demographic.

Get real. Most artists, even mainstream ones, dont express themselves with a "target demographic" in mind. It's not the problem or the burden of the artist if his/her audience has an intolerant, narrow worldview, and most accept the responsibility for the reaction their expression creates.

Of course, when somebody gets pilloried for something they express completely outside of their artform, that's different. When media types create a feeding frenzy for one isolated incident, artists probably will be forced to self-censor even more.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Get real. Most artists, even mainstream ones, dont express themselves with a "target demographic" in mind. It's not the problem or the burden of the artist if his/her audience has an intolerant, narrow worldview, and most accept the responsibility for the reaction their expression creates.

Then they and thier defenders shouldn't whine when the audience expresses thier displeasure.

[Imran Siddiqui]

being pissed off is one thing. trying to enforce on others that they wont be able to listen a song because of you being pissed is another

And when you have a radio show or even when you own a radio station you have the RIGHT to prevent others from listening to a song from a group that you disagree with politically.

It's called 'Free Speech'. I know you Euros don't have it yet, but one day, perhaps you will .

Most artists, even mainstream ones, dont express themselves with a "target demographic" in mind.

I dunno. Natalie justified her comments by saying there is a lot of anti-Americanism in Europe. Seems like she was going for a 'target demographic' there.

[Jac de Molay]

Then they and thier defenders shouldn't whine when the audience expresses thier displeasure.

Whos whining? . "Audience displeasure"is one matter. Respectfully choosing not to buy their material, for any reason, is one matter

Wholesale character assasination at the hands of the media outlets is another matter entirely. Ritual villification like CD burnings and trashings is something a little different as well, especially for something said completely outside of their work.

You can call whatever it wants, but it has the faint whiff of blacklisting. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

[Willem]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Yes. Do you think any employees of any corporation have it any better?

Partners of a law firm?

Elected Representatives?

Why are celbrities different?

If an employee of a firm is fired from their job because of a political view, they can file a wrongful dimissal suit against the company. What recourse does a celebrity have if he/she is blacklisted?

And no Ming, musicians don't have special status, the same would apply with sports celebrities or television stars. If they were chastized and forced from their careers for simply expressing a basic political view, it would still be wrong.

[Ming]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Wholesale character assasination at the hands of the media outlets is another matter entirely. Ritual villification like CD burnings and trashings is something a little different as well, especially for something said completely outside of their work.

You can call whatever it wants, but it has the faint whiff of blacklisting. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig.

Yawn... Yes, musicians can have their opinions, but the fans can't.

Like any public figure, if you step up in front of a microphone and say something, you have to deal with what happens.
Blacklisting... Yawn... let me know when no radio stations will play their stuff... then you can call it blacklisting. Some stations and DJ's have decided not to play their music... THEIR CHOICE.

They are public figures... and they make A LOT OF MONEY for what they do... If they can't take heat for opinions they have, LIKE ALL PUBLIC FIGURES, they should give up their multi million dollar career and hide in a hole like rabbits.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If an employee of a firm is fired from their job because of a political view, they can file a wrongful dimissal suit against the company.

Not in most US states (which are right to work states). There is no provision in the 14th Amendment or the EEOC for protection of political beliefs. That's because they realize that a Nazi or a KKK member should be able to be fired because their views create a disturbance.

And btw, he wasn't talking about firing. Partners in a law firm or Elected Representatives suffer from the PUBLIC refusing to either have them be their lawyer or refusing to vote for them.

You can call whatever it wants, but it has the faint whiff of blacklisting.

So? It ain't censorship. According to the definition of 'blacklisting', it is something which almost all political groups do, from the NAACP and NOW to the NRA.