Whatever happened to free speech?

[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.