Whatever happened to free speech? - Page 3

Imran Siddiqui · March 17, 2003, 13:22

Quote:

People have the option to buy what they want, but I don't see how the stations have any right to refuse them airplay.

Um... because radio stations have the option to play what they want, perhaps? This isn't publically owned radio or anything. Private radio stations want to exercise thier own free speech rights.

Quote:

Is Pat Robertson being refused airtime?

Actually he is, which is why he had to make his own tv station. He wasn't getting airtime on CNN or MSNBC, except for being mocked, so he went and made his own... Are you saying the Dixie Chicks should make their own radio station?

SlowwHand · March 17, 2003, 13:24

Well-said, Ming. Well-said!

Japher · March 17, 2003, 13:36

The "Chick" shoot herself in the foot, potential suicide for her career, seeing how the country music world is so dictated by Southern politics and mannersims.

While not as bad today as it was yesteryear, you really have to watch what you say, do, eat, look like, act, ect... in the country music world, more so than in any other genre... Rather suks, but that is the way it is.

Personally, I don't mind what they said, and I think they have the right to say. I wish they hadn't, but I will still listen to their albums. Like most Texans (Bush included), the Chicks are are just being silly and aren't watching what they are saying... now, aint that the pot calling the smoker green?

Sinapus · March 17, 2003, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
Dixie Chicks blacklisted?

Is America suddenly developing a culture of intolerance? I thought you people took so much pride in being able to speak your minds. What the hell are you doing to yourselves?

So... freedom of speech means people are obligated to buy albums of performers. Even (or especially) if said performers express views a particular buyer disagrees with?

Do you have a problem with people expressing their views?

Verto · March 17, 2003, 14:02

When I saw the thread's title, I was expecting something a bit more interesting, ie pertaining to the Sedition Act.

Although it's been said here before, let me just state my opinion as being the Dixie Chicks exercised their freedom of speech when they made the comment about Bush, and the fans exercised their freedom of speech by telling the Dixie Chicks to shove it, and the radio stations exercised common sense. I don't see why some people interpet this as the end of freedom.

SlowwHand · March 17, 2003, 14:06

I'll say again. Your purchase power is a vote.
You don't like what someone says, you cast a negative vote.

MBD · March 17, 2003, 14:26

here you go---

Ming · March 17, 2003, 14:36

Dis · March 17, 2003, 14:53

private radio stations go with what the fans want. The fans don't want to hear Dixie chicks. The goverment is not restricting speach.

'nuff said.

Case Closed!

I'm locking this thread now

Jac de Molay · March 17, 2003, 15:13

Sounds like a good start. Maybe they ban All the other bands that express politically controversial viewpoints.

Perhaps a list of no-no artists and songs should be circulated as well among the radio stations like Clear Channel did after 9/11.

Glad to see free speech working so well.

Static Universe · March 17, 2003, 15:30

Didn't I just start a thread last week that The Pretenders were being banned because of the statements of one of their members?

I'm appalled that talentless corporate super-models/singers like the Dixie Chicks are generating more discussion than a great band like The Pretenders, absolutely appalled.

Ming · March 17, 2003, 15:33

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Glad to see free speech working so well.

Yeah... stations aren't playing what people don't want to listen to... Free Choice and Free Speech are doing just great.

ixnay · March 17, 2003, 15:38

People are stupid, but they have their freedom to be stupid.

SlowwHand · March 17, 2003, 15:39

Static. Goodbye, Earl is pretty funny.

Jac de Molay · March 17, 2003, 15:51

Quote:

Yeah... stations aren't playing what people don't want to listen to... Free Choice and Free Speech are doing just great.

The only problem is that it isn't audience-driven. It's the DJs and media sources that are villifying the artists.

The stations aren't are playing what people dont want to listen to, they're not playing what they dont want people to listen to.

And why stop with just one or two performers?

Dis · March 17, 2003, 15:54

DJ's have been doing that for years. DJ's are people too ya know

In any case the article said something about people calling up and complaining. so in this case they are going with what the people want.

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 16:01

Quote:

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Sounds like a good start. Maybe they ban All the other bands that express politically controversial viewpoints.

Perhaps a list of no-no artists and songs should be circulated as well among the radio stations like Clear Channel did after 9/11.

Glad to see free speech working so well.

We need to start a program to encourage those radio stations to play only good, wholesome, music, and to promote patriotism.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

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...

To bad they don't have the guts to stand up to their audiences and state publicly that people are entitled to their own opinions, instead of jumping on the bandwagon along with thier narrow minded listeners. They're frontline when it comes to spreading information and political views, and if they can't handle the responsibility that goes along with that, then maybe they should think about some other business to get into.

SlowwHand · March 17, 2003, 16:05

Well, I have to say, the banning of certain songs following 9/11 was stupid.
None of them had anything at all to do with, anything.

Dis · March 17, 2003, 16:05

DJ's have a right to be as narrowminded as they want

If the public doesn't like it, their ratings dropped and the dj gets fired.

The system isn't broke, so don't fix it.

Willem · March 17, 2003, 16:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Sinapus

So... freedom of speech means people are obligated to buy albums of performers. Even (or especially) if said performers express views a particular buyer disagrees with?

Do you have a problem with people expressing their views?

Do you have a problem with reading my views? How many times do I have to say it, my beef is with the radio stations.

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Yeah... stations aren't playing what people don't want to listen to... Free Choice and Free Speech are doing just great.

Funny, radio stations with audiences of tens of thousands are pulling the Dixie Chicks based on the protests of a few hundred - a small fraction of one percent, not even a large fraction of one percent of their listener base, and they're doing it based on "what people don't want to listen to?"

Your years in advertising are showing.

If they had a song that slammed Bush, and people were offended by the song, that's a different story.

But hey, I suppose nobody wanted to see those faggoty Godless pinko fellow traveler actors and directors back in the '50s, either, so those blacklists were A-OK too, after all, they were done because the people didn't want to see them.

SlowwHand · March 17, 2003, 16:07

What The World Needs Now was "banned", for instance.

People call dusting Hussein overkill. No.
Banning songs like the above? Yes.

Arrian · March 17, 2003, 16:08

Ok, I'll admit to being a tad puzzled by your reaction, MtG.

In your opinion, this is a violation of free speech?

Or are you just registering displeasure with the Radio stations?

-Arrian

Willem · March 17, 2003, 16:11

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

Funny, radio stations with audiences of tens of thousands are pulling the Dixie Chicks based on the protests of a few hundred - a small fraction of one percent, not even a large fraction of one percent of their listener base, and they're doing it based on "what people don't want to listen to?"

Yeah, I guess mob mentality is becoming the rule down south, and no one has the guts to stand up to it. The vocal minority wins this round I guess, and sadly no one seems to care.

Ming · March 17, 2003, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Funny, radio stations with audiences of tens of thousands are pulling the Dixie Chicks based on the protests of a few hundred - a small fraction of one percent, not even a large fraction of one percent of their listener base, and they're doing it based on "what people don't want to listen to?"

Your years in advertising are showing.

Yes, my years in advertising are showing...

The people that complain are the only people that get heard.

First, they really don't have a clue what total percentage of their audience is complaining...

Second, any percentage is enough to drop their ratings, and cost them money.

Why should they risk their profits. I don't see hundreds of people standing up saying they won't listen to the stations until they put them back on.

The math is simple on this one

Flubber · March 17, 2003, 16:15

Willem

IT WORKS BOTH WAYS !!

The Dixie Chicks can say what they want. Then radio station DJs and consumers can say what they want including " I don't like what you just said and don't want to associate with you"

Thats the basis of FREEDOM. Whether or not I agree with a boycott is irrelevant. In fact isn't there a quote that goes something like " I would defend with my life your right to promote that which I would spend my dying breath fighting against"

Japher · March 17, 2003, 16:17

Quote:

If they had a song that slammed Bush, and people were offended by the song, that's a different story.

Why is that different?

Willem · March 17, 2003, 16:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming

Why should they risk their profits.

To stand up to the principles of your constitution? Isn't that what you guys are supposed to be going to war over, freedom and liberty and all that? Or does that only apply when it's convenient to do so?

MichaeltheGreat · March 17, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, I'll admit to being a tad puzzled by your reaction, MtG.

In your opinion, this is a violation of free speech?

Or are you just registering displeasure with the Radio stations?

-Arrian

A technical violation of First Amendment free speech rights only occurs in one of two types of situations: Active censorship by the government;

or direct government action or a refusal to act when government would otherwise ordinarily do so, (i.e. refusal to grant parade permits, provide customary security or inspection signoffs, etc.) that has the effect of blocking or intimidating the exercise of free speech.

This isn't the case.

This IS, however, more akin to the sort of blacklisting in the McCarthy era - people were "tainted" so nobody would hire them. What I have an issue with is not only the radio stations, but the general notion of acceptance that anyone who expresses an opinion that isn't subject to mob approval, will be subject to economic pressure or any other form of "influence" to keep their opinions "in line."

If I buy or don't buy the Dixie Chicks CD's, it's because I like or dislike their music, not because I give a **** about their politics, or because I want to support or limit any political opinion they might express.