Whatever happened to free speech? - Page 2

Elden · March 17, 2003, 06:25

I forget whether I found this here or on CFC but:

Freedom of Speech is very important to the American government and people, until you say something they don't want you to say....

Tingkai · March 17, 2003, 06:53

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Maybe when the twit is so incredibly insulting to a politico that strikes such a negative chord with the public.

Since we've Canadianised this thread, can anyone remember the ads about the Liberal leader ran when Canbell was running for PM?

No, but I remember the one Campbell's group ran that made fun of Chretien's deformity. That one crossed the line.

So this Dixie Chick is a twit because she said she's ashamed of Bush? That's hardly "incredibly insulting".

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 10:48

As has been pointed out, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It may be silly (we do seem to go a bit overboard with boycotts these days), but it isn't a violation of free speech. Nobody arrested her for making insulting remarks about our Dear Leader.

I don't think I've ever heard a Dixie Chicks song. :shrug:

-Arrian

Willem · March 17, 2003, 10:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
As has been pointed out, this has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It may be silly (we do seem to go a bit overboard with boycotts these days), but it isn't a violation of free speech. Nobody arrested her for making insulting remarks about our Dear Leader.

I don't think I've ever heard a Dixie Chicks song. :shrug:

-Arrian

During the McCarthy era many people weren't arrested either, but having your career destroyed over something you say is just as much a violation of free speech as getting hauled off the street and jailed. Freedom of speech doesn't have a level or a degree, either you can speak about what's on your mind or you can't. And obviously in America at the moment you can't.

Ming · March 17, 2003, 11:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
And obviously in America at the moment you can't.

And obviously, you haven't watched any of the late night talk shows or listened to any comedians who pick on Bush on a regular basis...

DaShi · March 17, 2003, 11:15

I think it is more that many of the Dixie Chicks' fans are from the South and the right. They basically offended their target audience. Just bad marketing.

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 11:25

Quote:

They basically offended their target audience

Yep.

-Arrian

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 11:29

Exactly Dashi. The fans are expressing their free speech by saying the Dixie Chicks are wrong. The fans aren't telling them don't have the 'right' to do it; the fans are merely saying that they disagree with the statements made.

That's different than saying you aren't allowed (or shouldn't be allowed) to say something.

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 11:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi

So it's now a violation of free speech if people choose not to listen to you? Excellent, now to track down your phone number and continually call you to rant off on whatevers on my mind!

If you want to spend the money for international long distance, sure.

Your sarcasmometer must not have been functioning too well, but I do think it's rather interesting that there is so much vitriol. Had they been from Arkansas, and said they were embarassed Clinton came from Arkansas, I think you'd get a different set of reactions from the left and the right.

Not listening, and not buying is one thing. Organized parties to burn their CD's, etc., is a bit more.

Pyrodrew · March 17, 2003, 11:44

Quote:

Organized parties to burn their CD's, etc., is a bit more.

A bit more display of prior fans expressing their right of free speech. Feel free to call these CD burners radical demonstrators, but this is a perfect example that free speech IS quite healthy.

Pyrodrew · March 17, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Why do Americans get their panties in a twist whenever someone says something against Bush?

Some Americans react that way for the same reason some Americans (or even non-Americans) "get their panties in a twist" whenever someone says something pro-Bush.

Static Universe · March 17, 2003, 12:16

Quote:

Originally posted by Elden
I forget whether I found this here or on CFC but:

Freedom of Speech is very important to the American government and people, until you say something they don't want you to say....

You probably saw it here. At CFC the word "Chewbacca" would replace "American governement".

Willem · March 17, 2003, 12:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Exactly Dashi. The fans are expressing their free speech by saying the Dixie Chicks are wrong. The fans aren't telling them don't have the 'right' to do it; the fans are merely saying that they disagree with the statements made.

That's different than saying you aren't allowed (or shouldn't be allowed) to say something.

My main beef here isn't with the fans, it's with the radio stations. People have the option to buy what they want, but I don't see how the stations have any right to refuse them airplay. Actions like that are treading on dangerous ground IMO. What kind of an example is that setting for others that might have an opinion either way?

It's basically saying that if you want a career in entertainment, you keep your mouth shut, which isn't fair or just. She's entitled to her opinions just like everyone else, and no corporate body has the right to say otherwise.

Frankly, as a public figure I think she has an obligation to speak out, either for or against. I personally think that Bush is a moron, but that opinion doesn't give anyone the right to destroy my career, such as it is.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 12:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

A bit more display of prior fans expressing their right of free speech. Feel free to call these CD burners radical demonstrators, but this is a perfect example that free speech IS quite healthy.

How, by pointing out that she's not entitiled to a personal opinion just because she's a public figure? I guess the American people don't like their entertainers to have minds of their own, and to say how they feel.

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 12:34

Our entertainers are, by and large, idiots. Haven't you noticed that by now?

-Arrian

SlowwHand · March 17, 2003, 12:36

Free speech still exists.
It's just that people like Sprayber, Lonestar, and countless others have to pay a deposit.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 12:38

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

And obviously, you haven't watched any of the late night talk shows or listened to any comedians who pick on Bush on a regular basis...

They pick on everyone in the public eye, making their comments inoffensive to most people. Why should the line be drawn for someone who normally doesn't base their act on lampooning public figures? It's OK to comment if you're a comedian but not a musician? Where's the justice there? It's one thing to disagree with what she said, it's another altogether to seek retribution for her comments, and destroy her career in the process. That's going to far IMO.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 12:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Our entertainers are, by and large, idiots. Haven't you noticed that by now?

-Arrian

Or maybe knee jerk reactions like this one have taught them to appear to be idiots, in order to secure their careers. Keep your mouth shut and do well in the business, and don't ever express your political views to your audience.

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 12:45

Well, yeah. Or, on the other hand, have some guts and say what you think, and accept the fallout. They're getting some publicity, that's for sure.

I'm not defending the CD-burning morons. I'm just trying to explain that this isn't a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.

Get back to me when the feds arrest her.

-Arrian

ixnay · March 17, 2003, 12:49

I'm willing to bet that 90% of these people that are boycotting the Dixie Chicks really couldn't care less what they said and are just doing it because everyone else is. The radio stations that are boycotting them are likely just doing it in an attempt for free publicity rather than out of outrage at what they said.

SlowwHand · March 17, 2003, 12:53

Yeah, right, Ixnay.
And ACS is representative of the world.

Pyrodrew · March 17, 2003, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
How, by pointing out that she's not entitiled to a personal opinion just because she's a public figure?

No one said she is not entitled to her opinion, except you. She expressed her opinion & SOME fans don't have her world wide attention so they get their attention another way via freedom of speech.

Quote:

I guess the American people don't like their entertainers to have minds of their own, and to say how they feel.

That's just your hatred for America clouding your judgment. If you want to believe a singer who announces they are a strict fundamentalist (all non-Christians go to Hell) would not lose any non-Americans fans, then that is your delusion.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 12:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, yeah. Or, on the other hand, have some guts and say what you think, and accept the fallout. They're getting some publicity, that's for sure.

I'm not defending the CD-burning morons. I'm just trying to explain that this isn't a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.

Get back to me when the feds arrest her.

-Arrian

Seems to me that your definition of free speech is rather narrow. There's more ways to quell opinion and debate than time in prison, and they can be just as insidious as being hauled of to a re-education camp. How does threatening someone's livelihood promote the free flow of ideas and beliefs?

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 13:00

*sigh*

The government is not threatening this woman with anything. Individual people are refusing to buy her (supposedly crappy) music. There is a BIG difference.

She is perfectly free to say what she wants. People are perfectly free to buy what they want.

I think your definition of free speech is overly broad... at least for people you agree with. Look, I don't agree with Pat Robertson. I therefore do not listen to him, do not buy things from him, and mock him whenever I have the opportunity. Am I infringing on his freedom of speech?

-Arrian

Willem · March 17, 2003, 13:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrodrew

No one said she is not entitled to her opinion, except you.

I'm not the one burning their CDs and boycotting their songs on the radio. If that's not indicating that she's not allowed to have an opinion, I don't know what other criteria you could possibly use.

Richelieu · March 17, 2003, 13:05

I'm getting John Lennon flashbacks.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 13:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
*sigh*

The government is not threatening this woman with anything. Individual people are refusing to buy her (supposedly crappy) music. There is a BIG difference.

She is perfectly free to say what she wants. People are perfectly free to buy what they want.

I think your definition of free speech is overly broad... at least for people you agree with. Look, I don't agree with Pat Robertson. I therefore do not listen to him, do not buy things from him, and mock him whenever I have the opportunity. Am I infringing on his freedom of speech?

-Arrian

Is Pat Robertson being refused airtime? I've already stated that my beef is mainly with the radio stations. The fans are entitled to buy their music or not, as they choose. But IMO the radio stations have an obligation to be nonpartisan. They're public broadcasters, they have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial to all sides of the issue, and not take sides.

Pyrodrew · March 17, 2003, 13:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I'm not the one burning their CDs and boycotting their songs on the radio. If that's not indicating that she's not allowed to have an opinion,

As mentioned, that is the owners of the radio stations expressing their free speech (or more likely seeking publicity as mentioned). Likewise, the burning of those CDs does NOT mean they feel she is not entitled to her opinion, rather a representation of their free speech & means for publicity of it.

Quote:

I don't know what other criteria you could possibly use.

Certainly there must be better criteria then assuming what others think.

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 13:12

The radio stations are just playing up on the thing because they, like the TV news, are sensationalist bastards.

Do they have an obligation to be impartial? I don't necessarily think so. They're private companies, and it's not like the government has ordered them to do what they're doing. They doing it because they figure their target audiences will lap it up.

By the way, her opinion is getting a shitload more attention than it would have if everyone had just ignored her.

-Arrian

Ming · March 17, 2003, 13:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
I've already stated that my beef is mainly with the radio stations. The fans are entitled to buy their music or not, as they choose. But IMO the radio stations have an obligation to be nonpartisan. They're public broadcasters, they have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial to all sides of the issue, and not take sides.

Huh... they have an obligation to their listeners and their advertisers. If people stop listening to them because they don't want to support views they don't believe in, then the station losses money. It's a business decision. But you are saying that the stations shouldn't have the choice... they should be forced to play music that will turn off their audience... and loss money in the process... Talk about limiting free speech, and government control... You are the one advocating the limitations...