Whatever happened to free speech?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem
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?

Unlike in Canada, the vast majority of radio stations in the U.S. are privately owned. There are thousands of them, and IIRC less than 10 of them have taken part in the boycott. Those that did seemed to have done so out of respect for the feelings of their listeners, though I'm sure that the individual station manager's opinion on the matter had an impact as well. To put things in perspective, radio stations refuse me airplay as well. It turns out that no one has a right to receive airplay on a particular station. I think it's silly, but I'm not worried about the state of free speech. Everyone seems to have made their point.

Originally posted by Willem
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.

Look at all the Hollywood people who are much more to the left of the Dixie Chicks. No one is boycotting them, in large part because they have a much wider audience. The Dixie Chicks are a commodity marketed to a more conservative section of the population. Their partners are the record companies and the radio stations. The Dixie Chicks have alienated (to some extent) the customer base that they share with their partners, and their partners are seeking to distance themselves from them, while some of their fans are expressing their disapproval by taking an active part in these boycotts. None of this is particularly surprising, or IMO disturbing. The only reason that the Dixie Chicks opinion was ever made known to anyone publicly is because of the fame that they have achieved due to their business dealings and conscious image building.

Imagine the outcry if an artist publicly proclaimed his support for the Clan. His record company would find a way to dump him, and he would face radio boycotts on a scale that would show this incident up for what it is, as minor blip on the radar. I wouldn't blame people for boycotting such an artist, nor would I blame a business for severing its contacts with him. It is the same in this case, just more controversial because there is more support for Bush bashing than the Clan in the U.S.

Originally posted by Willem
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.

Again I disagree. These people are commerical public figures, they are chosen for the way they look, or sing or whatever, not on the basis of their opinions on the issues of the day. I don't give a damn about their opinions on these issues, I'd rather hear what normal people who don't suffer from any of the several personality disorders that are the lot of most entertainers think about it. What they are doing when they make public pronouncements is using their commercially acquired fame to pump up the volume of their personal opinions. It is their call whether they want to risk their commercial viability by doing so. I don't give a damn about what Mr. Whipple thinks about Bush, and if I find his attempt to cash in on his celebrity annoying enough I'll boycott Charmon. If he wants to become an opinion leader, then let him do so based on the viability of his opinions, and not on his fame purchased to push toilet paper.

[Ming]

Nobody is saying that people can't have their own views, and speak up in public with them. However, you have to be prepared to deal with what's going to happen. If your "income" is based on your fans... and you piss those people off... you are the fool. If you are playing your music just for the experience, then you won't care if people don't spend money on your work

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Hmmm... a private company isn't allowed to determine what IT WANTS to broadcast... Talk about limiting free speech.

Are you suggesting that the GOVERNMENT tells them what they have to play....

Oh please... wake up guys and see what you are actually asking for... the exact opposite of free speech.

No, I'm saying that these music people should show some guts and stand up for something besides the almighty dollar. Like maybe the very founding principle of everything the US stands for. These people made alot of money from the Dixie Chicks, and as soon as it's no longer convenient they dump them like yesterday's garbage. Nice show of loyalty!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem

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.

I know you have your blood up, but you really should read the news stories about this. Only a tiny percentage of country stations are refusing to play the Dixie Chicks. This means that the vast majority don't think it's a big deal. You criticize them for jumping on the bandwagon driven by their listeners, but this is their job. They get paid according to how well they pander to their audience in most cases, and how many people tune in to listen in every case. This controversey is designed to bring in listeners, and it's working like a charm. You are in fact aiding this commercial ploy by being outraged. The broadcasters of America thank you for your contribution.

[Ming]

It's their right... they are in business to make money.

So are the artists... if they want to piss off their fans, it's THEIR problem, and they shouldn't whine when people stop spending their money on the artists work.

That's reality. Deal with it.

If you don't care about money... than it's not an issue. But if you are interested in earning money for your work, then don't expect people to like your stuff when all you do is piss them off.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Who's next, then? Is it appropriate, then, to yank every song off the air because some "fans" oppose the political views of the artist regardless of whether its in the music or not?

Considering how politically extreme some performers are, I would think that would be a very loooong list.

And the fact that it isn't / hasn't been happening should give you some faith that things aren't going to hell in a handbasket just because a very few country stations have decided to whip up the hysteria for a few days. If you don't like it you can call the stations up and explain that you are going to boycott them. Make it hard for them. Or conversely, support the stations that wouldn't be caught dead doing something like this. Everyone gets to have their say one way or another. I just find it silly to get all worked up about a poor multi-millionaire who is having complications in getting their personal opinion broadcast around the world for free. Tough sh!t. When did the Dixie Chicks ever asked for your opinion on anything, much less try to help you propogate it?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Willem
I'd be saying the very same things. I'm a musician, most of my friends are musicians, a few of whom having been playing the Country & Western circuit around here for a number of years now. And we're entitled to have opinions on issues just like everyone else, without having to worry whether our careers will be destroyed. How would you react if your supervisor at work came up to you and said that you would have to change your political views or risk being fired from your job? Would that be fair and just? Would you just go along quietly and toe the line like a good little patriot?

There is a difference between being able to have an opinion and being able to propogate it along the commercial pathways that are a joint responsibility between yourself and your business partners. This woman made her statement in front of an audience that came to see the Dixie Chicks inc. They did not pay to witness an interview with woman, nor to hear her wane poetic on her political opinions. This effects the business partners of the speaker, and they have every right to complain if they feel that their interests are compromised for the personal interests of the speaker.

If I was approached by my employer and asked to change my views or be fired I would have a lawsuit and injunction ready in a matter of minutes. If however I worked as a receptionist for my company, plastered signs supporting David Duke for President around my work area and answered the phone, "Vote for Duke, or We'll all Puke!" my employer would be perfectly within his rights to tell me to stick to business and to stop using the company as a platform to propogate my beliefs, or find another job.

As far as your right to a career is concerned, in this country you certainly have the right to pursue happiness, but we make no guarantee that what your talent earns you on the one hand will not be lost by your indifference to your customers on the other. So have at it, and use that microphone as you see fit. Just remember that you don't own it, and people will wrest it from you the moment that they'd rather hear something else.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sikander
Unlike in Canada, the vast majority of radio stations in the U.S. are privately owned.

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.

It turns out that no one has a right to receive airplay on a particular station. I think it's silly, but I'm not worried about the state of free speech. Everyone seems to have made their point.

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?

The Dixie Chicks have alienated (to some extent) the customer base that they share with their partners, and their partners are seeking to distance themselves from them...

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

...while some of their fans are expressing their disapproval by taking an active part in these boycotts. None of this is particularly surprising, or IMO disturbing.

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?

It is the same in this case, just more controversial because there is more support for Bush bashing than the Clan in the U.S.

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.

What they are doing when they make public pronouncements is using their commercially acquired fame to pump up the volume of their personal opinions.

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?

If he wants to become an opinion leader, then let him do so based on the viability of his opinions, and not on his fame purchased to push toilet paper.

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!

[Ming]

No.. they are allowed to hold their own views... and people who don't like those views don't have to listen to them anymore... fair is fair

[Imran Siddiqui]

But no one deserves to be suddenly villified simply because their views run counter to the norm.

That is the consequences of free speech at times. The KKK is villified because their views run counter to the norm. That is the consequnce of asserting their rights.

It's an artist's job to share ideas and views

No it isn't. An artist's job is to make money.

CD burnings organized by radio stations aren't disturbing? Didn't the same sort of thing happen during the Nazi regime?

Because the government is organizing these in the background and is banning Dixie Chicks CDs?

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.

They are both speech that is contrary to the mainstream of people in their society. It's apples to apples. The beliefs have no difference in value.

[Ben Kenobi]

THE BROCKIE CASE - Statement by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada

A newly-formed legal intervention alliance, known as The Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance (made up of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and The Catholic Civil Rights League), has been granted intervenor status in the Brockie case.

On February 24, 2000, a Board of Inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code found that the rights of Ray Brillinger and the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (of which Mr. Brillinger was current vice president) had been infringed by Scott Brockie when he refused to provide them with a printing service. Mr. Brockie testified that "he endeavours to live his life according to biblical principles" and that "providing printing services to lesbian and gay organizations was in direct opposition to his beliefs."

The Board found that Brockie discriminated against the complainants on the ground of sexual orientation for which Brockie was ordered to pay damages in the amount of $5,000.00, notwithstanding acceptance by the Board that Brockie's beliefs were sincerely held. The Board went on to say that "it is reasonable to limit Brockie's freedom of religion in order to prevent the very real harm to members of the lesbian and gay community..." and that "Brockie remains free to hold his religious belief and practice them in his home and in his Christian community".


The application for intervention by the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance was successfully argued before the Ontario Divisional Court on May 23. The appeal is tentatively scheduled for hearing on November 29 and 30. Represented by CLF member, David M. Brown of Stikeman Elliott, the Alliance will argue among other things that:

"The freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the freedom to refuse to provide services to a cause or activity to which an individual objects on bona fide conscientious or religious grounds. The obligations imposed by section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") must be read in light of such a constitutional freedom; and
If left undisturbed, the decision of the Board of Inquiry would eliminate, for all intents and purposes, the practical ability of any person who provides services to the public to refuse to service a cause or activity to which he or she objects on bona fide conscientious or religious grounds..."


Only in Canada.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
No.. they are allowed to hold their own views... and people who don't like those views don't have to listen to them anymore... fair is fair

Certainly, but they're doing much more than that. If they don't agree that's their business, but what right do they have to try and sabotage the Dixie Chicks career in order to silence them.
That's the chilling part for me, and I sincerely hope this is simply an isolated incident.

Unfortunately though, ever since Sept. 11 I've been hearing about more and more things along these lines, and sometimes I have to wonder where the hell the US is heading with it all. Censorship, racial profiling, internet snooping, it doesn't look promising to those of us on the outside. Step by step you seem to be losing sight of your overall principles.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That is the consequences of free speech at times. The KKK is villified because their views run counter to the norm. That is the consequnce of asserting their rights.

Again with the apples and oranges. Taking a stand against a war holds no comparison to an organization devoted to racial discrimination.

No it isn't. An artist's job is to make money.

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. But I guess I can see how corporate creations like Britney Spears can confuse you.

Because the government is organizing these in the background and is banning Dixie Chicks CDs?

Intolerance doesn't happen overnight, it grows like a weed until there's nothing left of the good crop. Don't be complacent about your freedom, it's not as ironclad as you might think. Actions like this one could very well lead down the slipppery slope if the people allow it to. And it doesn't sound to me like very many of care, at least judging from the responses I'm getting here. 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?

[Ming]

Have non americans really become less informed on the issues of free speach in America

[Willem]

Originally posted by obiwan18

Only in Canada.

And what has this to do with a discussion about the Dixie Chicks? I realize that this the Off Topic forum, but you don't need to take that literally.