Whatever happened to free speech?

[Dis]

this thread is still going on.

I think the issue is pretty clear.

This violates no one's free speech. The Dicksie (I like that spelling better) Chicks are entitled to say whatever they want to say.

In any case I think Ming should close this thread to prove a point.

[Chemical Ollie]

Dissident, what point would that prove? That there is no freedom of speech?

I read a that Madonna is opposing the War in her new video. Will the radio stations dare not to play her? (I give you no link, as it is in Swedish anyway. A picture will do.)

[Flubber]

Willem,

you seem to think that radio stations have a greater obligation than other private businesses in promoting opinions that they happen to disagree with. I do agree that they should attempt to provide balanced news coverage BUT I don't think anyone should EVER dictate what they MUST play. Because if the stations themselves aren't determining things, then who does ? You ? An outside government authority ? I fear that idea much more than the actions of private stations. In this public interest, should they be forced to play classics, and hiphop, and rap etc to promote cultural diversity.

The current system is working well here. The Dixie Chicks expressed an opinion . There was a backlash and a counter-opinion that has the effect of giving the Chicks original statement much much more publicity. The opinion was not suppressed or hidden. It has been widely discussed with everything from support to denounciation. The only negative is that the Dixie chicks will lose a little money . . . well boo hoo !

Public figures get greater play when they make political statements even though those opinions have no more real importance than the average joe. But someone who's lives on their popularity HAS to accept that entering in the political arena can affect the very popularity that is their lifeblood.

The rules have to be the same regardless of the comment being protested. Imagine the chicks had said " Most welfare folks are lazy alcoholics". Would you have a problem with the protests and boycotts then ?? If not then my point is made since you would be judging the content of opinion which people should protest or oppose. The very essence of free speech is the RIGHT to oppose any opinion . . . no body else gets to judge whether your position is valid or sensible.

I think your position in this thread is perpetrating a nonsensical double-standard. You have the right to repeat and explain your position. I have the right to listen or ignore you and to oppose you or not in this thread.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


But now... you have put your cards the table.

You only want people that disagree with you censored.

People that support your view should be allowed to say what they want. But people that don't, need to be censored.



And this thread is all about censorship...

Ming, I've already mentioned that in an issue like this, everyone should have the right to hear both sides of the story. To bad if that's not good for you.

And FYI, I'm somewhat pro-war and don't necessarily agree with the Dixie Chicks stand. Although I don't like Bush and the way he's handled this whole situtation, I like Saddam even less, and would like to see him removed for the simple fact of being an oppressive tyrant that doesn't deserve to run a country. I was hoping that the world community would pull together and take action like they did with Milosevic, but I guess that's not going to happen. So I'm stuck having to side with the lesser of two evils. Frankly I thought he should have been removed ten years ago, when you guys had a clear chance.

I do feel however that the Dixie Chicks have a right to say what they think about their government, it's actions and policies. That's called Democracy, something some of you Americans seem to value less than making a buck.

[Willem]

Ooops, wrong button.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Flubber
I do agree that they should attempt to provide balanced news coverage BUT I don't think anyone should EVER dictate what they MUST play.

Since when have I ever said that? You're putting words in my mouth. Is there something wrong with them standing up to principles and not caving in to the first 250 people who don't like a certain view? Not all the stations have given in to that peer pressure. I just feel that those that have are lacking in moral courage and feel somewhat outraged by their actions.

The only negative is that the Dixie chicks will lose a little money . . . well boo hoo !

You're forgetting that yet again the music business has been shown to be a morally bankrupt, money grubbing institution. Yeah, bring on the illegal file sharing, they don't deserve my money anymore.

The very essence of free speech is the RIGHT to oppose any opinion . . . no body else gets to judge whether your position is valid or sensible.

How exactly does economic censorship support the concept of free speech? What's the difference between that and government interference? It's still a gross attempt to silence an opposing view. Futile maybe, but still an attempt. Toe the official line or your livelihood will be compromised. Am I the only one who sees the paralells to what happened during the McCarthy era? Are we condemned to relive history yet again?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
I do feel however that the Dixie Chicks have a right to say what they think about their government, it's actions and policies. That's called Democracy, something some of you Americans seem to value less than making a buck.

And nobody is stopping them from saying what they want. Were they arrested? Who in this thread has EVER said that they didn't have the right to express themselves on this subject?

And nobody should stop Fans from speaking out and protesting...

And nobody should stop companies from doing business in a legal fashion...

We call THAT DEMOCRACY

You on the other hand, obviously don't believe in real Democracy... you believe in special treatment for people in your profession only

[Arrian]

I do feel however that the Dixie Chicks have a right to say what they think about their government, it's actions and policies. That's called Democracy, something some of you Americans seem to value less than making a buck.

Actually, it's called Freedom of Speech. Democracy has to do with participation in government. But, as those of us debating with you have been trying to explain, this is not a violation of the Dixie Chicks' FoS.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree, since we're 13 pages in and everyone is just repeating themselves at this point. At least it stayed (mostly) civil.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Geez Ming, don't you ever sleep?

Originally posted by Ming
And nobody is stopping them from saying what they want.

No, but not through lack of trying.

Were they arrested?

Why does it alway boil down to being arrested with you? Can you not see the danger that economic censorship can bring to the concept of free speech? Should that type of action be taken so lightly that we accept it without question, and simply applaud those radio station personnel who are leading the pack as savvy, and in your own words, brilliant business leaders? Where is the morality in promoting their own causes at the expense of someone else's career?

Who in this thread has EVER said that they didn't have the right to express themselves on this subject?

When has the opinions of posters on this thread ever been part of the issue?

And nobody should stop Fans from speaking out and protesting...

And yet again I say that my beef is with the radio stations, not the fans.

And nobody should stop companies from doing business in a legal fashion...

So are you saying here that they can't run their businesses with some sense of morality and principals as well? They're in the communications business, they have an obligation to the general public, not just the vocal minority, to ensure that both sides of the debate get heard. Some of them have done a piss poor job of it, yet you seem to think that's perfectly OK. I don't, and I'm entitled to hold that opinion.

You on the other hand, you obviously don't believe in real Democracy... you believe in special treatment for people in your proffesion only

There's that broken record again. Obviously my moral viewpoint escapes you. Been hanging around business types to long I guess, you can no longer see any other viewpoint.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Willem
Freedom of speech is the very first article of your constitution I believe.

There are copies of the US Constitution available. Article I covers the powers of Congress.

Perhaps you mean the First Amendment?

Does that mean that only the government has to abide by it?

Why not read it? Here:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about the ordinary Joe on the street, is he entitled to ignore that particular amendment as he sees fit? Do your laws not apply to everyone?

sigh....

I don't understand this insistence that freedom of speech applies only to a certain sector of your society, and everyone else can do what they want. It's a principle, a foundation of your very society. You start fudging with the definition at the peril of your own freedoms.

Don't bruise your ribs.

[Ming]

You are the broken record... You are the one saying radio stations don't have rights either... They have the right to make a profit.

There is NO CENSORSHIP here... The band is allowed to say anything they want... and like EVERYBODY else, they have to deal with the aftermath.

So please explain again why only musicians should be an exception to the rule that public figures speaking in public forums have to deal with the reaction of the people listening...

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Willem

I just feel that those that have are lacking in moral courage and feel somewhat outraged by their actions.

here I agree with you. Its entirely possible that SOME of the people involved lacked the courage to stand up to the pressure by others. But people have the right to be gutless . We can never judge HOW people came to form the opinions they express. Put bluntly, people have the right to be stupid if they wish.

Willem, what is your solution? EVERYBODY agrees with the Chicks right to say what they said. Everybody but you ( it seems) see that protesters have the same right to express their views including the use of economic means to show their displeasure. What realistic system do you propose?

I think this whole incident has been a fine example of democracy, free speech and free market in action. Everybody seems to have had freedom to choose their course and NOBODY had any rights infringed.

Sometimes the exercise of rights might have negative connotations. For example, a few years back, Greenpeace threatened a boycott of Canadian cod to protest the seal hunt. I disagreed vehemently with their position but would agree entirely with their right to do what they did, even though it could materially impact the livelihoods of thousands of people. Sometimes free speech and expression does hurt people . I am sorry for that but it is one of the prices of a free and democratic society.


I'll check to see if anything new arises , otherwise we may have to agree to disagree.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Olaf Hårfagre
Will the radio stations dare not to play her?

Why not? MTV has banned a video of hers before. It gave her loads of free publicity last time.

[Jac de Molay]

My biggest fear is that the increasing conglomeration of radio media will create more situations like this.

Is some degree of artistic license going to be compromised for fear of retribution or lost airplay opportunities?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Is some degree of artistic license going to be compromised for fear of retribution or lost airplay opportunities?

What artistic license is being lost as a result of this?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Actually, it's called Freedom of Speech. Democracy has to do with participation in government.

I don't draw a distinction between the two, you can't have one without the other.

But, as those of us debating with you have been trying to explain, this is not a violation of the Dixie Chicks' FoS.

Because you're looking at it it from a legal point of view. Technically no, but since when has a principle ever been technical? Freedom of speech is a value that all of us in the western world are told we should live by; that it's a worthy cause and necessary to the growth of our societies. Yet some of you seem to be saying that this only applies if it's convenient, and/or doesn't hurt anyone's wallet. I don't buy that, sorry.

[Ming]

Artists have been "playing to their audiences" since time began. They are the successful ones in terms of making money

NOBODY has stopped them from doing so... Bands and artists have always had the right to express themselves... And in this case, nobody is stopping the band from expressing their point of view. They are just not giving them their time or money anymore...

Again... since some people seem to be missing reality...

If you are in it for the money, don't piss off you fans.
If anybody else does it, they lose money. Why should musicians/artists be any different.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
My biggest fear is that the increasing conglomeration of radio media will create more situations like this.

Oligopolies & Monopolies (edit and conglomerates of course) are a completely different issue... and there are policies in place to help keep competition healthy in the US.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
Because you're looking at it it from a legal point of view. Technically no, but since when has a principle ever been technical? Freedom of speech is a value that all of us in the western world are told we should live by; that it's a worthy cause and necessary to the growth of our societies. Yet some of you seem to be saying that this only applies if it's convenient, and/or doesn't hurt anyone's wallet. I don't buy that, sorry.

You are the one complaining that this is wrong ONLY because it hurts the bands profits... Their freedom of speech hasn't been limited in ANY other way except that now they have pissed people off and might make less money. And like anybody else that speaks in public, they have to deal with it.

But again, you are the one that wants to give musicians special rights that no other public figure has.

[Arrian]

I don't draw a distinction between the two, you can't have one without the other.

I agree with that. I was just being flippant.

As for the rest... like I said, I'm gonna just agree to disagree.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Flubber
But people have the right to be gutless

And others have the right to point out their cowardice. I'm simply exercising that right.

Put bluntly, people have the right to be stupid if they wish.

Stupidity is one thing, it's another altogether to encourage it. But hey, if it creates publicity why not? It's just business!

What realistic system do you propose?

Who's talking about implementing any system? What's wrong with simply showing a little moral fibre and not caving in at the first sign of trouble?

I think this whole incident has been a fine example of democracy, free speech and free market in action. Everybody seems to have had freedom to choose their course and NOBODY had any rights infringed.

Though level headedness seems to have been somewhat lacking.

Sometimes free speech and expression does hurt people . I am sorry for that but it is one of the prices of a free and democratic society.

A price some of those radio stations obviously weren't willing to pay. And I've already said something very similar to your sentiments here somewhere in this thread. We don't disagree as much as you might think.

[Arrian]

And others have the right to point out their cowardice. I'm simply exercising that right.

Well, if you had just said that in the first place, I doubt I would have argued with you much. I simply took issue with your characterization of this incident as a violation of free speech.

If you wanna call the radio stations spineless corporate wimps, feel, uh, free.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

What artistic license is being lost as a result of this?

It's better to ask what could be lost if this becomes a standard practise in the industry. Is this an isolated incident or a first step down a slippery slope?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
A price some of those radio stations obviously weren't willing to pay.

Hmmmm... the radio stations should pay the price, and not the artists that actually started it.

Please explain again how the band was Censored in any way. Ohhh, that's right, they may make less money. So this isn't fair. But it is fair that the stations lose money...

Your point of view is very clear. Special treatment for fellow musicians...

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
You are the one complaining that this is wrong ONLY because it hurts the bands profits...

I could care less about the band's profits. I just think it's shortsided of the radio execs to put their profits ahead of someone else's life. As I've said before, they tossed the band out like yesterday's garbage at the first hint of trouble, instead of offering some sort of support for people who had helped earn them a profit for several years.

But again, you are the one that wants to give musicians special rights that no other public figure has.

I want everyone to have the right to freely speak their mind about an issue as morally explosive as a war that will take the lives of thousands of innocent people, public or not. It's the DECENT thing to do.

[Verto]

Originally posted by Willem


I want everyone to have the right to freely speak their mind about an issue as morally explosive as a war that will take the lives of thousands of innocent people, public or not. It's the DECENT thing to do.

No, you want musicians to have the right to freely speak their mind. You want to deny the radio stations and viewers the opportunity to speak their mind by showing support for Bush.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


Your point of view is very clear. Special treatment for fellow musicians...

Whatever you want to think Ming, your brain has obviously gotten stuck on this point.

[Ming]

But they do have the right to speak out... and they did... and they still can.

So what's the problem.

Oh... because now the band might make less money. That seem to be your only problem here. And your solution is to say that they shouldn't lose any money... and that it's the radio stations who should lose the money because the band spoke out in public and people didn't like what they heard.

This has nothing to do with the lives of thousands of innocent people... this seems to only be about bands being able to say whatever they want, and be guaranteed the right to line their pockets while doing so... while others lose money.

Again... please explain how their right of free speech is being limited beyond the economic issues.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Verto
You want to deny the radio stations and viewers the opportunity to speak their mind by showing support for Bush.

I want the radio stations to accept the responsibility of showing both sides of the issue, as I feel a good public broadcaster should. Fair and unbiased regardless of any economic pressure group. The listeners can do as they please. Why is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?

[Az]

I feel a good public broadcaster should

They're private, not public.