Whatever happened to free speech?

[SlowwHand]

Free speech still exists.
It's just that people like Sprayber, Lonestar, and countless others have to pay a deposit.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


And obviously, you haven't watched any of the late night talk shows or listened to any comedians who pick on Bush on a regular basis...

They pick on everyone in the public eye, making their comments inoffensive to most people. Why should the line be drawn for someone who normally doesn't base their act on lampooning public figures? It's OK to comment if you're a comedian but not a musician? Where's the justice there? It's one thing to disagree with what she said, it's another altogether to seek retribution for her comments, and destroy her career in the process. That's going to far IMO.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Our entertainers are, by and large, idiots. Haven't you noticed that by now?

-Arrian

Or maybe knee jerk reactions like this one have taught them to appear to be idiots, in order to secure their careers. Keep your mouth shut and do well in the business, and don't ever express your political views to your audience.

[Arrian]

Well, yeah. Or, on the other hand, have some guts and say what you think, and accept the fallout. They're getting some publicity, that's for sure.

I'm not defending the CD-burning morons. I'm just trying to explain that this isn't a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.

Get back to me when the feds arrest her.

-Arrian

[ixnay]

I'm willing to bet that 90% of these people that are boycotting the Dixie Chicks really couldn't care less what they said and are just doing it because everyone else is. The radio stations that are boycotting them are likely just doing it in an attempt for free publicity rather than out of outrage at what they said.

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, right, Ixnay.
And ACS is representative of the world.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Willem
How, by pointing out that she's not entitiled to a personal opinion just because she's a public figure?

No one said she is not entitled to her opinion, except you. She expressed her opinion & SOME fans don't have her world wide attention so they get their attention another way via freedom of speech.

I guess the American people don't like their entertainers to have minds of their own, and to say how they feel.

That's just your hatred for America clouding your judgment. If you want to believe a singer who announces they are a strict fundamentalist (all non-Christians go to Hell) would not lose any non-Americans fans, then that is your delusion.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
Well, yeah. Or, on the other hand, have some guts and say what you think, and accept the fallout. They're getting some publicity, that's for sure.

I'm not defending the CD-burning morons. I'm just trying to explain that this isn't a violation of anyone's freedom of speech.

Get back to me when the feds arrest her.

-Arrian

Seems to me that your definition of free speech is rather narrow. There's more ways to quell opinion and debate than time in prison, and they can be just as insidious as being hauled of to a re-education camp. How does threatening someone's livelihood promote the free flow of ideas and beliefs?

[Arrian]

*sigh*

The government is not threatening this woman with anything. Individual people are refusing to buy her (supposedly crappy) music. There is a BIG difference.

She is perfectly free to say what she wants. People are perfectly free to buy what they want.

I think your definition of free speech is overly broad... at least for people you agree with. Look, I don't agree with Pat Robertson. I therefore do not listen to him, do not buy things from him, and mock him whenever I have the opportunity. Am I infringing on his freedom of speech?

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew


No one said she is not entitled to her opinion, except you.

I'm not the one burning their CDs and boycotting their songs on the radio. If that's not indicating that she's not allowed to have an opinion, I don't know what other criteria you could possibly use.

[Richelieu]

I'm getting John Lennon flashbacks.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Arrian
*sigh*

The government is not threatening this woman with anything. Individual people are refusing to buy her (supposedly crappy) music. There is a BIG difference.

She is perfectly free to say what she wants. People are perfectly free to buy what they want.

I think your definition of free speech is overly broad... at least for people you agree with. Look, I don't agree with Pat Robertson. I therefore do not listen to him, do not buy things from him, and mock him whenever I have the opportunity. Am I infringing on his freedom of speech?

-Arrian

Is Pat Robertson being refused airtime? I've already stated that my beef is mainly with the radio stations. The fans are entitled to buy their music or not, as they choose. But IMO the radio stations have an obligation to be nonpartisan. They're public broadcasters, they have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial to all sides of the issue, and not take sides.

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by Willem
I'm not the one burning their CDs and boycotting their songs on the radio. If that's not indicating that she's not allowed to have an opinion,

As mentioned, that is the owners of the radio stations expressing their free speech (or more likely seeking publicity as mentioned). Likewise, the burning of those CDs does NOT mean they feel she is not entitled to her opinion, rather a representation of their free speech & means for publicity of it.

I don't know what other criteria you could possibly use.

Certainly there must be better criteria then assuming what others think.

[Arrian]

The radio stations are just playing up on the thing because they, like the TV news, are sensationalist bastards.

Do they have an obligation to be impartial? I don't necessarily think so. They're private companies, and it's not like the government has ordered them to do what they're doing. They doing it because they figure their target audiences will lap it up.

By the way, her opinion is getting a ****load more attention than it would have if everyone had just ignored her.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
I've already stated that my beef is mainly with the radio stations. The fans are entitled to buy their music or not, as they choose. But IMO the radio stations have an obligation to be nonpartisan. They're public broadcasters, they have a responsibilty to be fair and impartial to all sides of the issue, and not take sides.

Huh... they have an obligation to their listeners and their advertisers. If people stop listening to them because they don't want to support views they don't believe in, then the station losses money. It's a business decision. But you are saying that the stations shouldn't have the choice... they should be forced to play music that will turn off their audience... and loss money in the process... Talk about limiting free speech, and government control... You are the one advocating the limitations...