Whatever happened to free speech?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Flubber
Actually this is free speech in action. They said what they wanted to say and a whole bunch of other people are exercising their own freedoms as well.

People have every right to hold an unpopular opinion. And other people have every right to buy things or refuse to buy things from the person holding the unpopular opinion. Simple.

This is the essence of free speech. The government protects the right of everyone to speak. It does not, however, give them immunity from the consequences of what they say. For example, libel suits or boycotts.

[Dis]

MTG if the listeners don't like it, they wont' listen. The ratings drop and the DJ gets fired.

The system is working just fine!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Japher


Why is that different?

I was referring to pulling the song. Since Dixie Chicks were played before the one shot off her mouth, presumably the audience of the radio station had no problem with the music.

If an individual song is unpopular, obviously it ain't gonna sell air time (just like any crap filler on a bad album), so not playing that song is not at all the same as sponsoring CD burning parties or a boycott of everything produced by that group.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dissident
MTG if the listeners don't like it, they wont' listen. The ratings drop and the DJ gets fired.

The system is working just fine!

It worked just fine in the 50's, too!

[Japher]

I want to reitterate that the country music industry is less tolerable of these kinds of things than other industries. Why? Because of their audiences. You can't swear, be a female singer and look ugly, openly defy America, blah, blah, blah. Until recently it was still "taboo" to play two songs by female artists in a row!

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


A technical violation of First Amendment free speech rights only occurs in one of two types of situations: Active censorship by the government;

or direct government action or a refusal to act when government would otherwise ordinarily do so, (i.e. refusal to grant parade permits, provide customary security or inspection signoffs, etc.) that has the effect of blocking or intimidating the exercise of free speech.

This isn't the case.

This IS, however, more akin to the sort of blacklisting in the McCarthy era - people were "tainted" so nobody would hire them. What I have an issue with is not only the radio stations, but the general notion of acceptance that anyone who expresses an opinion that isn't subject to mob approval, will be subject to economic pressure or any other form of "influence" to keep their opinions "in line."

If I buy or don't buy the Dixie Chicks CD's, it's because I like or dislike their music, not because I give a **** about their politics, or because I want to support or limit any political opinion they might express.

Actually, the Congress was highly involved in blacklisting. This involvement so infected the blacklisting so as to make it unconstitutional. This is why Eisenhower did what he did to end it.

[Dis]

you can swear

listen to David Allen Coe

[Arrian]

A technical violation of First Amendment free speech rights only occurs in one of two types of situations: Active censorship by the government;

or direct government action or a refusal to act when government would otherwise ordinarily do so, (i.e. refusal to grant parade permits, provide customary security or inspection signoffs, etc.) that has the effect of blocking or intimidating the exercise of free speech.

This isn't the case.

Agreed. That was all I was arguing, actually.

I think the radio stations are being silly, but I mean it's TEXAS.

-Arrian

[Chemical Ollie]

This reminds me of the old Bruce Springsteen song "57 Channels and nothing on". That song was about TV, but you have about the same situation on radio.

With so many channels, you should expect them to have a multitude of angles on things, both in the news broadcasts and other programs. Surprisingly, they are all the same. Same news and same ideas in all channels within a country (but not necessarily between countries). That is a fact in Europe, but even more so in America.

[Ramo]

There's more to freedom than freedom from the state.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Japher
I want to reitterate that the country music industry is less tolerable of these kinds of things than other industries. Why? Because of their audiences. You can't swear, be a female singer and look ugly, openly defy America, blah, blah, blah. Until recently it was still "taboo" to play two songs by female artists in a row!

And how exactly does this make the current situation right? If these same people demanded a return to segregation, would that be right as well? Maybe if the industry as a whole showed some backbone and stood up for the principles that the US constitution is supposed to represent, then maybe their audiences might develop more tolerance towards differing views.

The US is trying to convince the world that they can be trusted in the role of global cop, but they can't even uphold the ideals of freedom in their own back yard. The minute it's no longer convenient to do so, they cave in to mob pressure. How on earth is some poorly informed schmuck in some impoverished country on the other side of the world supposed to have faith in that system after seeing this type of intolerance? How will their views be respected when the American public can't even tolerate differing views within their own population?

[Dis]

That's because all radio stations are owned by like 3 companies. There is no diversity. No one takes any chances.

[Flubber]

willem

who are the "they" that have given into mob rule?Here the only people acting are the "mob" itself as personified by some music consumers and DJs. As long as they do no violence and violate no one else's fundamental rights, I have no problem with what they are doing. Personally I think its silly but that the beauty of freedom . . . you don't necessarily have to do sensible things

[Jac de Molay]

That's because all radio stations are owned by like 3 companies. There is no diversity. No one takes any chances.

And because they're so averse to controversy, something like this can easily come back to bite em in the ass. Look what happened to clear channel post 9/11.

There's just as many people who can boycott a station if they don't like the "sound" of censorship.

[Arrian]

Clearchannel sucks.

-Arrian