Whatever happened to free speech?

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Ming

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

You've revealed youself here, Ming. The Dixie Chicks would have been alright if they'd just kept their mouths shut.

There's the free market solution to free speech in a nutshell.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
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.

You keep trying to make this an issue about the war... and it isn't...

You keep saying that all I care about is the bottom line...
When you are the one supporting special rights for musicians so that their bottom line isn't effected because of their own actions..

And please explain how this is stopping the public from getting the information they need to form an intelleigent opinion... oh that's right, it isn't... you are just trying to justify the bottom line for musicians at the expense of all others. You are trying to use this very serious War for your own agenda... so who is the one not taking this War seriously

It looks like you fell off your high horse pages ago in this thread

[Lawrence of Arabia]

hey take it easy you two - chill or be chilled.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Static23

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

You've revealed youself here, Ming. The Dixie Chicks would have been alright if they'd just kept their mouths shut.

There's the free market solution to free speech in a nutshell.

Jeez, that's a trolling disaster...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Static23
You've revealed youself here, Ming. The Dixie Chicks would have been alright if they'd just kept their mouths shut.

There's the free market solution to free speech in a nutshell.

Again... did anybody try to stop them from saying how they feel...

Is anybody trying to stop them from saying their opinions in the future...

NO, and NO... That's what we call free speech.

If fans want to react to what they said and make a statement about their own opinions, we also call that free speech.

And if people no longer want to buy their cd's or listen to them, that's freedom of choice.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
You keep trying to make this an issue about the war... and it isn't...

Certainly it is. She tried to express her dissatisfaction with the current policies of her government, Bush in particular. Very poorly perhaps, but her intent was certainly clear to me.

When you are the one supporting special rights for musicians so that their bottom line isn't effected because of their own actions..

Geez, again with your mantra!

And please explain how this is stopping the public from getting the information they need to form an intelleigent opinion...

One side of the issue was silenced by the other. How is that supposed to stimulate debate and discussion?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
One side of the issue was silenced by the other. How is that supposed to stimulate debate and discussion?

Uhhh... when was one side silenced... BOTH SIDES still are discussing the issue... The band can still say anything they want. Many Radio Stations are still playing their songs... Many people are still listening to their music... The discussion continues in all forms of media... Neither side has been "silenced"

But what I find is funny is that since they realized their income was dropping, they apologized for their remarks... So much for their ideals... they think money is more important than the war

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Neither side has been "silenced"

Aah Ming, the absence of sound is silence. Their songs aren't being played, therefore they've been silenced, at least in some markets. Or are you using a different dictionary than I am?

But what I find is funny is that since they realized their income was dropping, they apologized for their remarks... So much for their ideals... they think money is more important than the war

Yes, I was rather disappointed by their retraction myself, I would have liked to see them stick to their guns. So much for setting an example to others! If they're going to shoot their mouth off, they should at least stick to their convictions afterwards. I guess the radio station people aren't the only ones lacking guts.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
Aah Ming, the absence of sound is silence. Their songs aren't being played, therefore they've been silenced, at least in some markets. Or are you using a different dictionary than I am?

There isn't a SINGLE radio market in the country where you can't pick up a station that is still playing their music.
So that isn't what I would call "being silenced"

Yes, I was rather disappointed by their retraction myself, I would have liked to see them stick to their guns.

But you continue to defend these gutless wonders...

At least the radio stations and the fans have stuck to their guns on this issue. They aren't buying into this apology stuff... they see that money is the only real thing important to this band... so they are continuing their protected right with their economic sanctions... since they now have proof that it is just all about money to the band.

[SlowwHand]

I have to say, I'm ashamed The Dixie Chicks are from Texas.

[korn469]

Originally posted by 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.

Ming I disagree!
I think that corporations control the flow of information and that they can act in a way that has the same effect as government censorship

for example clear channel's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.4 billion dollars

http://www.clearchannel.com/documents/financial/ClearChannel_Earnings_2002_4Q.pdf

while Pakistan's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.9 billion

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2056.html

if america truly was a utopian perfect competition type market place it'd be one thing, but we have an oligopoly in the US radio market

if clear channel and the other major players take the Dixie Chix off of their play list, you don't hear their music anymore and it's de facto censorship

the same thing happens when the major retailers don't stock a cd

corporations should have to obey the constitution and they should not have the power to limit personal freedoms, especially when they have far more power than that wielded by the government when they were drafting the constitution

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
There isn't a SINGLE radio market in the country where you can't pick up a station that is still playing their music.
So that isn't what I would call "being silenced"

Yes, fortunately there are some stations that aren't willing to allow their hysterical listeners to sway their policies:

"One of the country stations in Dallas that helped champion the Chicks when they were scraping by in that city playing gigs on street corners for tips, "99.5 The Wolf," said they are listening to the listener's views but do not think it is right to immediately jump on the bandwagon and stop playing the Chicks, said program director Paul Williams."

Emphasis mine.

But you continue to defend these gutless wonders...

No I'm trying to speak out against this:

''The majority of our calls are from listeners who are upset and concerned with Natalie not backing our leader, our president,'' said DJ Dennis Mitchell, of Cat Country 106.7 in Harrisburg, Penn.

And this:

"Station managers said their decisions were prompted by calls from irate listeners who thought criticism of the president was unpatriotic."

Just because someone is a public figure doesn't mean that they must be a lap dog to the current administration. Everyone's entitled to hold their own political views, even pop icons.

[Verto]

So companies should be forced to sell everything, regardless of that product's quality, content, reputation, use, etc?

[korn469]

Originally posted by Verto
So companies should be forced to sell everything, regardless of that product's quality, content, reputation, use, etc?

this isn't about the quality of the Dixie Chix music (or lack there of ) but instead on the thoughts of their lead singer, which are quite tame as far as denounciations go

companies do have to follow guidelines when selling products, for example they can't sell pillow cases made out of abestos for example, it's one thing if the fans boycott them, that's freedom of expression which all people are entitled to, it's another thing if a corporation blacklists them, corporations AREN'T people and don't (or shouldn't) have the same rights as individuals

[Arrian]

for example clear channel's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.4 billion dollars

http://www.clearchannel.com/documen...ngs_2002_4Q.pdf

while Pakistan's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.9 billion

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ields/2056.html

First off, revenue does not equal profit. Second, 8.9 billion goes a LOT further in Pakistan than it does here.

Third, and more to the point, even if the numbers were comparable... so what? Clearchannel (whose programming I generally dislike and thus do not listen to more than once and a while) is a business. Businesses are motivated by profit. If you want them to abide by a higher standard, you are going to have to legislate what they can, cannot, and/or MUST put on the air. Who controls that? The government. Oh, MUCH better.

-Arrian