Whatever happened to free speech?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Willem


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

As you have every right to do

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

The right to be stupid (or smart) includes the right to encourage others to do the same.

Originally posted by Willem
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?

Well, you seemed to think there was something terribly wrong so I thought you were advocating some societal structure where this does not or could not happen. If you are merely disagreeing with the protestors and expressing the opinion that they SHOULD not protest thats very different than the idea that it is somehow WRONG or an infringement of someone's rights for them to do so.

Originally posted by Willem
Though level headedness seems to have been somewhat lacking.

The validity or thoughtfulness of the opinion is irrelevant to the the issue of the right to express it.

Originally posted by Willem
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.

Radio stations each exercised their own free choice . Kowtowing is always an option. You might not respect the choice but people have the right to make it.

Your last few posts have seemed to soften or step back a little. If all you want to say is that the protestors are idiots and the radio stations are gutless, go ahead. But if you are trying to say there is something wrong here, that free speech has been infringed, well I vehemently disagree.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
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?

Again... changing the subject.

This is about censorship... and there is no censorship here. The band can still say what they want. You keep seeming to ignore that simple truth.

The only problem you have is that they will lose money.
So you want somebody else to lose money instead of them.

That is your entire argument... everything else is just a smoke screen on your part.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel

They're private, not public.

Privately owned, their product is public.

[Ming]

Uhhh... so is pretty much every other product/service.

Just like the musicians "product"

[Willem]

Originally posted by Flubber
The right to be stupid (or smart) includes the right to encourage others to do the same.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or refrain from speaking out against it.

If you are merely disagreeing with the protestors and expressing the opinion that they SHOULD not protest thats very different than the idea that it is somehow WRONG or an infringement of someone's rights for them to do so.

My concern has nothing to do with the Dixie Chicks frankly. My issue is what kind of a signal does this action send to the rest of the industry, and how will it affect the ability of others, and not necessarily just musicians, to express their views in the future?

Detroit Dave and MtG seem to be the only ones so far who understand where I'm coming from. Will economic pressure be used to force everyone to toe the line, and follow the herd? How many musicians will be afraid to speak out about anything at all if they feel that they're careers will be destroyed because of it. Will this type of action spread if no one speaks out, until it also starts affecting television and movie production? It's happened once before, it can happen again, if people are willing to accept it. Which it seems they are if the responses on this forum are any indication.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh... so is pretty much every other product/service.

Just like the musicians "product"

I guess you just fail to see the distinction between a communication product and some car that rolls off the assembly line. It's all just about money with you isn't it?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
My concern has nothing to do with the Dixie Chicks frankly. My issue is what kind of a signal does this action send to the rest of the industry, and how will it affect the ability of others, and not necessarily just musicians, to express their views in the future?

And again... why should musicians be any different than anybody else in the public eye. You speak in public, and deal with what happens... it's that simple.

Nothing is stopping them from airing their views. NOTHING.

But if you want to claim the economics is stopping them, then don't radio stations have the same rights?

There is NO CENSORSHIP HERE... just choices. If you piss your fans off and lose some money in the deal, whose choice is that... Unless you are saying that only musicians shouldn't be held accountable for what the say in public. Because that's all you seem to be saying... that they have more rights than anybody else.

Again... show where any actual Censorship is...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
It's all just about money with you isn't it?

Uhhh... no, that's your argument.
You are saying that bands should be able to say what they want and somebody else besides them should lose money because of it.

My argument is that EVERYBODY, including radio stations have rights.

And I'm saying EVERYBODY has the right to say what they want in public... but have to live with what happens.

I'm for free speech and no censorship... You seem to be arguing for giving musicians special rights at the expense of others.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh... so is pretty much every other product/service.

Just like the musicians "product"

But radio stations are different in that they are granted a license to use something that doesn't belong to then, i.e. the public's airwaves.

Radio stations used to have some responsibilites regarding how they used them.

[Ming]

And they still do have those same responsibities... And they are still enforced.

But please explain how not playing music that their audience doesn't want to hear as violating those responsibilities.

It's the same thing as not playing bad music that their audience doesn't want to hear...

They ARE living up to their responsibility BY NOT PLAYING IT.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
My argument is that EVERYBODY, including radio stations have rights.

My argument is that radio stations have an obligation to present both sides of the issue in a fair and unbiased manner, just like you have an obligation to ensure that everyone on this forum has the opportunity of expressing themselves equally, and be treated fairly for their views. I don't see why you have such a problem with that.

The Dixie Chicks see things one way, their fans see it another. Sorry that the radio stations had to get caught in the middle; that happens sometimes in life. And some of them sure have handled the pressure well haven't they? They ran for cover at the first sign of trouble. How commendable!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
My argument is that radio stations have an obligation to present both sides of the issue in a fair and unbiased manner

When it comes to the news, I would agree...

But when it comes down to what songs they play... they have the right to play what their audiences want to hear. They also have the right to promote themselves so that they can make a profit.

You want to take that right away. You want to give special rights to musicians. You want the radio stations to lose money based on actions of others, while protecting musicians from their own actions.

But you don't want to address those points...

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Ming

But please explain how not playing music that their audience doesn't want to hear as violating those responsibilities.

Because I don't hear groups of fans spontaneously assembling to burn CDs. Usually, it's some DJ informing the audience "Hey' did you hear what so and so said? We know you don't want to hear that kind of thing, so we're not going to play their music anymore."

[Ming]

Originally posted by Static23
Because I don't hear groups of fans spontaneously assembling to burn CDs. Usually, it's some DJ informing the audience "Hey' did you hear what so and so said? We know you don't want to hear that kind of thing, so we're not going to play their music anymore."

Ahhh... so musicians can have opinins, and nobody else can. And it was the FANS that started the boycott, and the radio stations went along with them... which is THEIR RIGHT.

If they wish to use it to promote themselves with THEIR audiences... that is ALSO THEIR RIGHT.

Again, why should musicians have "special" rights that protect them when they say things in public when others don't?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


When it comes to the news, I would agree...

So simply dealing with an issue as serious as war is irrelevant to you is it? Who cares if the public is getting all the information they need to form an intelligent opinion, as long the bottom line isn't affected.