Whatever happened to free speech?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
You aren't a musician are you? The music always comes first, the money is just a bonus. At least if you're sincere about your craft.

If that's the case... then there isn't really a problem here. Because of their views, they are making less money... but since as you say, the music comes first, and not the money... Things are working out fine.

Nobody is saying they don't have the right to speak their views. They weren't arrested... They just now are making less money because they pissed their fans off.
Which should be ok by you based on your comment

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Have non americans really become less informed on the issues of free speach in America

Don't get on that subject! We Canadians would be tickled pink if Americans knew half about our country as we do of yours.

Maybe it's a conceptual thing, we don't compartmentalize our rights to free expression to government actions alone. We view it as a societal issue that doesn't suddenly stop at the corporate doorstep.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
Don't get on that subject!

Then don't say things like:

Hell, I'm not even American and I seem to care more about your rights and freedoms than you do. Have the American people really become that complacent?

[ThePlagueRat]

Yeah! Happy St.patricks day. Great discussion anyway!

[Ming]

And again... this isn't about free expression. NOBODY is stopping them from playing their music... selling cd's...
It's just some people have decided with their OWN FREE EXPRESSION not to support them with dollars or time anymore.

There is no CENSORSHIP here... You can still HEAR THEM ON RADIO STATIONS... and still buy their CD's... and they weren't arrested.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


If that's the case... then there isn't really a problem here. Because of their views, they are making less money... but since as you say, the music comes first, and not the money... Things are working out fine.

Nobody is saying they don't have the right to speak their views. They weren't arrested... They just now are making less money because they pissed their fans off.
Which should be ok by you based on your comment

No it's not OK, intolerance should never be OK.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming

It's just some people have decided with their OWN FREE EXPRESSION not to support them with dollars or time anymore.

Maybe you see it that way, but I see it as going above and beyond that. Organised CD burnings? Come on! That's retribution pure and simple!

There is no CENSORSHIP here... You can still HEAR THEM ON RADIO STATIONS... and still buy their CD's... and they weren't arrested.

If even one station pulls their songs from their playlist, that's censorship. Or perhaps you'd care to provide me with another definition?

[Ming]

Intolerance? HUH... they disagree with their views. That's their right too. Just because you are a musician doesn't mean you have the right to state your views AND EXPECT EVERYBODY TO GO ALONG WITH YOU.
Everybody is welcome to their own views... and that includes not liking somebody elses. And if they want to vote their feelings with their "pockets"... that their right.

Again... if you want to make money... DON'T PISS OFF THE PEOPLE GIVING YOU MONEY. If you don't care about money... this is a non issue. Which is it?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
If even one station pulls their songs from their playlist, that's censorship. Or perhaps you'd care to provide me with another definition?

No... that's just FREEDOM OF CHOICE. It's not censorship.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem
Don't be buying into Pat Robertson's views on "Canuckistan", the same holds true here. There's one main public radio system with one or two stations in each major city, maybe a dozen or two in total. All the rest are private.

Actually it is probably my own memories of Canadian stations many years ago when they had to play 50% or whatever Canadian product and otherwise were more tightly regulated by the government.

Originally posted by Willem
But no one deserves to be suddenly villified simply because their views run counter to the norm. It's an artist's job to share ideas and views, to express things in ways that others may have difficulty doing themselves. If we have to start writing songs and creating musical images that only satisfy the expectations of the status quo, then music is going to get stale rather quickly. Kind of like some of the boring stuff that was around during the 50's. That sure was a golden age wasn't it?

On a moral level no one deserves to be villified at all, suddenly or not, and for no reason whatsoever unless they actually happen to be villains. So lets move on to the artist's job. Technically most artists are not paid to do this at all, most are paid to produce goods or services for their customers or employers. Some customers want them to express themselves politically, while most do not. If expressing yourself politically is your calling, more power to you. Just don't expect that the audience that came in to here your cool love poetry is going to react the same way to your political beliefs, or not resent you for the bait and switch. If you want to be political, then build your audience on that basis. If you build your audience on the principles of appealing to the most people possible by putting forth bland truisms and platitudes about life in order to maximize profits, look for a backlash once you come out of the closet as a communist.

Music gets stale all the time, regardless of the political climate. The sixties and seventies and eighties produced tons of absolute sh!t that nonetheless managed to propogate a political viewpoint. I usually prefer universal themes in music, which is one reason I tend to prefer instrumental forms of music.

Originally posted by Willem

Yes, and that's my point. They don't have the guts to stand up for anything but the bottom line.

Or perhaps they have not been authorized by their shareholders to take big risks. Or conversely they have been authorized to take risks in order to increase their station's profile in the market and are doing so. In any event, these people serve their corporation. In general this sort of behavior is profitable, but when someone is perceived to have stepped out of line it can work against the corporation as well. I find that the lack of ubiquity in regards to stations relations to the Dixie Chicks interesting. Obviously the vast majority think that boycotting is going way too far.

Originally posted by Willem

CD burnings organized by radio stations aren't disturbing? Didn't the same sort of thing happen during the Nazi regime? Oh, but your Americans, it's alright for you do that, you believe in freedom! Do you not see the hypocricy in acts like that?

Yea, look what happened to an old group, The Beatles. I'm sure a whippersnapper like you has never heard of them, but they said some wild sh!t and some people gathered and burned some of their albums, and they were never heard from again. They would make an interesting "Where are they now" episode.

People are free to burn their own property to some extent, the only concerns the law has with this being safety. Does the fact that a handful of entities, each with perhaps 20 or so employees has managed to stir a couple of hundred people to take part in an organized spectacle surprises me not at all, nor does it particularly concern me. If this sort of thing was going to concern me I would be concerned with the anti-war protests sponsored by the communists that draw more people more often, and serve as a similar one way conduit of propoganda, and unlike the CD burning parties, can turn violent. But they don't particularly bother me either, because the vast majority of people are not drawn to these hysterical sorts of endeavors. For those who are, I'm glad they have a way to work some of it out of their systems.

Originally posted by Willem

It's not the same thing at all. Whether or not someone agrees with the upcoming war and how his/her leaders are dealing with it has no comparison to supporting an organization whose very ideal is the suppresion of another race of people. You're comparing apples to oranges.

The only thing that was changed was the opinion expressed. I was merely (successfully) establishing that these forms of protest and economic severence were not abnormal for people who are offended by a particular statement, or worried that a controversial statement might have a negative impact on their bottom line. The rest is merely a different value judgments for different people. These people are offended. I don't have to agree with their viewpoint to see this.

Originally posted by Willem
Quite the cynic aren't you? Maybe they were just sharing some of their feelings with their audience, who they no doubt think of as friends. Are they not allowed to feel remorse over what their government is about to do to the Iraqi people, and hold Bush accountable for it? Maybe it's their way of apologizing beforehand. I'm not saying I agree or not, but I could certainly see their viewpoint on it, especially after touring throughout Europe. In another article I read they said they were amazed at the anti-American sentiment they came across. Don't they have the right to distance themselves from an administration they don't agree with?

They have a right to feel anything they want, as well as a right to say anything they want. They have the priviledge of being wealthy and famous. That priviledge is held in the hands of their many customers and the other powers that be, record companies, radio stations, venues, news organizations etc. who have given them the opportunity to become wealthy and famous, just as many of those same powers that be have been enriched symbiotically. Using a concert as a forum to put forward your opinion is common enough, but not without its risks to the relationships that you have built up with your customers and partners. There are thousands of examples, political, personal etc. I personally ignore most of this stuff and consume what I enjoy, but I do have very little tolerance for people puting forth ignorant political views and trying to charge me for it. If I want that I can come here to Apolyton and get it for free, minus half the ingorance in many cases.

Originally posted by Willem
So you're saying that only politicians are allowed to hold a view, and everyone else has to mind their own business and do as they're told? Now there's freedom for you!

Boy, you are really kicking the sh!t out of that poor strawman! I'm saying none of that. What I am saying is that people go to concerts to see music played live. A very few go in the hopes that the band will tell them how to think, but the vast majority really just want to see the show. So this sort of thing is a small scale bait and switch, in that you paid to be entertained with music, but I'm going to take the opportunity of having a microphone and a captive audience to tell you my political positions. For bands like Rage Against the Machine this isn't a bait and switch. In fact if they didn't rave about the government one might make a good case that he deserved a refund. But for a band like the Dixie Chicks, serving up mass-produced formulaic music to one of the most conservative segments of the U.S. population, it is not expected. So in that sense, they were betraying their fans and especially their business partners.

Maybe this will make them more popular. That has certainly been the case for many artists, though usually the ones who don't get the sort of press attention that the Dixie Chicks' record company buys them. If it does make them more popular, then they are on the right track and their business associates will fall in line behind them. If so, more power to them. If not, they can always do what the vast majority of people who don't have access to millions of people, and talk about their opinions to their friends, families, neighbors etc. They can join a political party and decide just how publicly to support the causes they believe in. They can go on with their career just as it is, and say anything they want and see where the chips fall. They are free to do what they want, if anything they have way more power than the average person in this country. They just can't expect applause for everything that they might do.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Intolerance? HUH... they disagree with their views. That's their right too. Just because you are a musician doesn't mean you have the right to state your views AND EXPECT EVERYBODY TO GO ALONG WITH YOU.

I don't expect that at all, in fact it rarely ever happens. But I also don't expect to be tarred and feathered for them either.

Everybody is welcome to their own views... and that includes not liking somebody elses. And if they want to vote their feelings with their "pockets"... that their right.

But like I said, some people have gone beyond that. And unfortunately the radio stations seem to be caving in to that vocal minority.

Again... if you want to make money... DON'T PISS OFF THE PEOPLE GIVING YOU MONEY. If you don't care about money... this is a non issue. Which is it?

I guess you'll have to ask the Dixies Chicks that one.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
But I also don't expect to be tarred and feathered for them either.

But like I said, some people have gone beyond that. And unfortunately the radio stations seem to be caving in to that vocal minority.

I don't see tar or feathers... I see some people taking heat for their views. Just like ANYBODY ELSE THAT SPEAKS THEIR VEIWS IN A PUBLIC FORUM.

And as far as going beyond that... people have the right to burn their CD's... They are just using a PUBLIC FORUM to get their views across... fair is fair... or are you trying to say musicians should get special treatment.

And again... even a minority can cost a radio station money. And they aren't in business to LOSE MONEY.
If that's what their listeners want, they will deliver...

If a larger minority became vocal and said they would stop listening until they were put back on the air, the radio stations would change their position in a second...

AGAIN... IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY... NOT CENSORSHIP.

[Japher]

You go Ming!


because you are so right.

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Sikander

Actually it is probably my own memories of Canadian stations many years ago when they had to play 50% or whatever Canadian product and otherwise were more tightly regulated by the government.

Canadian Content, goes with the licence. Great source
of comedy that rule. Same as cable companies have to provide a local community channel if they want a licence.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sikander
Actually it is probably my own memories of Canadian stations many years ago when they had to play 50% or whatever Canadian product and otherwise were more tightly regulated by the government.

We have to impose quotas if we hope to have any sort of independant music scene of our own. Otherwise we'd get drowned by out by the stuff coming up from down south. It's lower than it was, though I'm not sure of the current percentage.

On a moral level no one deserves to be villified at all, suddenly or not, and for no reason whatsoever unless they actually happen to be villains.

Which is exactly what happened! Yet you've been saying that it's perfectly alright. Which is it, or are you content to just sit on the fence?

If expressing yourself politically is your calling, more power to you. Just don't expect that the audience that came in to here your cool love poetry is going to react the same way to your political beliefs, or not resent you for the bait and switch. If you want to be political, then build your audience on that basis. If you build your audience on the principles of appealing to the most people possible by putting forth bland truisms and platitudes about life in order to maximize profits, look for a backlash once you come out of the closet as a communist.

Some valid points there. I don't know very much about the Dixie Chicks music, but I don't get the impression they've ever come across as a political band before. But I still don't feel they deserve the obvious hatred that's being expressed, simply for speaking their minds.

Obviously the vast majority think that boycotting is going way too far.

I'm just disappointed that they all don't feel that way.

Yea, look what happened to an old group, The Beatles. I'm sure a whippersnapper like you has never heard of them, but they said some wild sh!t and some people gathered and burned some of their albums, and they were never heard from again. They would make an interesting "Where are they now" episode.

FYI, I remember their first concert in America on the Ed Sullivan show. I'm hardly a "whippersnapper", I've been around the block a few times now.

... or worried that a controversial statement might have a negative impact on their bottom line.

Worried is one thing, to actively organize a vendetta against those girls is something else entirely. Even if it is just a publicity stunt, it's a very nasty thing to do to a group that they had supported and profited by up until just recently

These people are offended. I don't have to agree with their viewpoint to see this.

Well quite obviously they are, that's very plain to see. But does that justify such an over-reaction? Does that not embarass you in any way? And I'm not refering to you here as an American, but as the sane human being that you seem to be.

What I am saying is that people go to concerts to see music played live. A very few go in the hopes that the band will tell them how to think, but the vast majority really just want to see the show. So this sort of thing is a small scale bait and switch, in that you paid to be entertained with music, but I'm going to take the opportunity of having a microphone and a captive audience to tell you my political positions. For bands like Rage Against the Machine this isn't a bait and switch. In fact if they didn't rave about the government one might make a good case that he deserved a refund. But for a band like the Dixie Chicks, serving up mass-produced formulaic music to one of the most conservative segments of the U.S. population, it is not expected. So in that sense, they were betraying their fans and especially their business partners.

Perhaps that's the difference between the Canadian music scene and that of the US. Most of our biggest stars also have a political side to them, we've come to expect that to some degree and aren't shocked when they "come out of the closet" so to speak. That's almost become part of the identity of being a performer here; at some point in their careers many of them will speak out about some issue. It's accepted and tolerated. Even Celine Dion once had something to say about Quebec separation at one time, and she's about as banal as they get.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming

I don't see tar or feathers...

That's called a metaphor Ming.

I see some people taking heat for their views.

And I see some people over-reacting.

or are you trying to say musicians should get special treatment.

Of course not! I don't even buy into this idol thing. That just feeds someone's overblown ego.

And again... even a minority can cost a radio station money. And they aren't in business to LOSE MONEY.
If that's what their listeners want, they will deliver...

Again, maybe that's the difference of the Canadian way of doing things and the American. We expect our media organizations to be fair and unbiased, and we generally don't engage in protests against our artists. We either accept what they do or not, we don't get hysterical if they suddenly speak their mind.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ozz
Same as cable companies have to provide a local community channel if they want a licence.

Not anymore. I volunteered at one a couple of years ago and that's no longer a requirement. In fact, the one here is becoming more and more like a regular station, commercials and all.

[Ming]

Well quite obviously they are, that's very plain to see. But does that justify such an over-reaction? Does that not embarass you in any way? And I'm not refering to you here as an American, but as the sane human being that you seem to be.

No... it doesn't embarass me.

Again, you seem to think that musicians should be treated differently than normal people. In a VERY PUBLIC FORUM, they stated their political views... and all the fans did, was to do the same thing... and since they don't have microphones stuck in their face regularly, they made there own public forum to express THEIR views.

There were just expressing THEIR right of free speech.

I'm damn glad that they do have that right, and that they took advantage of it to tell somebody who they had been giving their hard earned money to, that they disagree with them. People in the US have been boycotting products for a long time... this is no different.

Or again... do you believe the musicians should have more rights than their fans?

[Pyrodrew]

Is that why Canadian radio stations took Howard Stern off the air after "a regular flow of letters to the editor and the promised threat of an extensive boycott towards the advertisers on CHOM FM."?
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/B...2796/news.html

And I didn't even have to look hard to find this. Willem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Imran Siddiqui]

We expect our media organizations to be fair and unbiased,

And do you actually believe that they are?

As for burning of CDs, do you consider it a threat to free speech when a group of people organize to burn the flag? Should we ban burning the flag then?

And opposition to the war is NOT different than opposing racial integration or supporting racial integration or backing free medical care for all or supporting lower taxes.... ALL are speech. All can get backlash.

Your constant assertion that the KKK's protest isn't at the same level of say opposition to the war or support for the war indicates to me that for all your talk of free speech, you believe that some groups (KKK) shouldn't have that right because they are not the same good for us speech as war protestors.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming

Or again... do you believe the musicians should have more rights than their fans?

Did the Dixie Chicks go to the workplaces of their fans and try to get them fired?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Is that why Canadian radio stations took Howard Stern off the air after "a regular flow of letters to the editor and the promised threat of an extensive boycott towards the advertisers on CHOM FM."?
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/B...2796/news.html

And I didn't even have to look hard to find this. Willem, you have no idea what you're talking about.

And I suspect that will be pretty much the only example you'll ever find.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
That's called a metaphor Ming.

Oh... they can express their opinions, and NOT accept the consequences... Special treatment for musicians?

And I see some people over-reacting.

Just expressing their opinions too... They don't have the advantage of the media to get theirs across... What they did just evened things up.

Of course not! I don't even buy into this idol thing. That just feeds someone's overblown ego.

Yet everything you have posted says differently. Musicians should be allowed to express themselves without any consequences... But their fans can't express themselves...

Kind of a double standard if you ask me...

Again, maybe that's the difference of the Canadian way of doing things and the American. We expect our media organizations to be fair and unbiased, and we generally don't engage in protests against our artists. We either accept what they do or not, we don't get hysterical if they suddenly speak their mind.

I expect business to try to make a profit. Especially if I invest in them. And please explain how they are not being fair and biased. Their LISTENERS... you know, their customers, don't want to hear it... so they don't play it. They are being fair to their customers... and supporting the advertisers that pay big bucks to reach their customers. To do anything different would be WRONG.

In America, if we don't like something, we stop supporting it by voting with our product.

But again, you seem to be looking for SPECIAL treatment for artists. In america, we think the fans deserve the SAME treatment

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did the Dixie Chicks go to the workplaces of their fans and try to get them fired?

Did the fans of the Dixie Chicks go to the record company and try to get them fired?

[Pyrodrew]

And I suspect that will be pretty much the only example you'll ever find.

Much like the DixieChic was the only example you found.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
Did the Dixie Chicks go to the workplaces of their fans and try to get them fired?

Uhhh... can they still perform... can they still produce CD's... can they still write music.

Yes, Yes, Yes...
They may make less money, but as you said, that's not the real point, because they STILL HAVE THEIR ART.

So, your point besides artists deserve special treatment, and their fans don't?

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by ixnay
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.

You just took cynicism to a new level.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem

Which is exactly what happened! Yet you've been saying that it's perfectly alright. Which is it, or are you content to just sit on the fence?

Note that I said unless they really are villains. I don't believe that they are and have no interest in helping the campaign against them. But I have to also understand that there are people who do feel this way, and are acting in what they see as a righteous fury against the Chicks. Ethically I have to support their rights even when I disagree with their conclusions.

Originally posted by Willem

Some valid points there. I don't know very much about the Dixie Chicks music, but I don't get the impression they've ever come across as a political band before. But I still don't feel they deserve the obvious hatred that's being expressed, simply for speaking their minds.

Neither do the vast majority feel that the Chicks deserve this. I imagine that a lot of the vitriol is based upon the fear that this war will become like Vietnam politically, and that the soldiers are going to end up being the ones who are screwed. Since the Dixie Chicks fan base will tend to have a much higher number of relatives who are soldiers, this is probably seen by some of them as a betrayal.

Originally posted by Willem
FYI, I remember their first concert in America on the Ed Sullivan show. I'm hardly a "whippersnapper", I've been around the block a few times now.

My mistake, fellow oldtimer.

Originally posted by Willem
Worried is one thing, to actively organize a vendetta against those girls is something else entirely. Even if it is just a publicity stunt, it's a very nasty thing to do to a group that they had supported and profited by up until just recently

They'll get theirs in all probability. This thing seems destined to run out of steam quickly, and these same stations are not going to be seeing the Dixie Chicks sitting in on their morning show or the like again. They are not powerless victims here.

Originally posted by Willem

Well quite obviously they are, that's very plain to see. But does that justify such an over-reaction? Does that not embarass you in any way? And I'm not refering to you here as an American, but as the sane human being that you seem to be.

It doesn't embarass me much, I have enough reason to be embarassed in my personal life that I don't have to read the papers looking for idiots to identify with. Believe me, I see worse than this all the time.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
And do you actually believe that they are?

Within a reasonable degree yes. In fact we have regulations to ensure that they are. There's always going to be some leaning towards one side of the spectrum or the other, but only to a certain degree. And our public system has a strong reputation for showing all sides of an issue; it's part of their mandate.

Should we ban burning the flag then?

A flag is a public symbol. To ban flag burning would be an infringement.

Your constant assertion that the KKK's protest isn't at the same level of say opposition to the war or support for the war indicates to me that for all your talk of free speech, you believe that some groups (KKK) shouldn't have that right because they are not the same good for us speech as war protestors.

The views of groups like the KKK infringe upon the rights and freedoms of other people, so no they shouldn't have that right.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by Willem We have to impose quotas if we hope to have any sort of independant music scene of our own. Otherwise we'd get drowned by out by the stuff coming up from down south.

That's because you have crap music like Avril, Sheryl, Nickelback, Sum 41, and Shania.