Whatever happened to free speech?

[Dis]

DJ's have been doing that for years. DJ's are people too ya know

In any case the article said something about people calling up and complaining. so in this case they are going with what the people want.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DetroitDave
Sounds like a good start. Maybe they ban All the other bands that express politically controversial viewpoints.

Perhaps a list of no-no artists and songs should be circulated as well among the radio stations like Clear Channel did after 9/11.

Glad to see free speech working so well.

We need to start a program to encourage those radio stations to play only good, wholesome, music, and to promote patriotism.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


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...

To bad they don't have the guts to stand up to their audiences and state publicly that people are entitled to their own opinions, instead of jumping on the bandwagon along with thier narrow minded listeners. They're frontline when it comes to spreading information and political views, and if they can't handle the responsibility that goes along with that, then maybe they should think about some other business to get into.

[SlowwHand]

Well, I have to say, the banning of certain songs following 9/11 was stupid.
None of them had anything at all to do with, anything.

[Dis]

DJ's have a right to be as narrowminded as they want

If the public doesn't like it, their ratings dropped and the dj gets fired.

The system isn't broke, so don't fix it.

[Willem]

Re: Re: Whatever happened to free speech?

Originally posted by Sinapus


So... freedom of speech means people are obligated to buy albums of performers. Even (or especially) if said performers express views a particular buyer disagrees with?

Do you have a problem with people expressing their views?

Do you have a problem with reading my views? How many times do I have to say it, my beef is with the radio stations.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Ming


Yeah... stations aren't playing what people don't want to listen to... Free Choice and Free Speech are doing just great.

Funny, radio stations with audiences of tens of thousands are pulling the Dixie Chicks based on the protests of a few hundred - a small fraction of one percent, not even a large fraction of one percent of their listener base, and they're doing it based on "what people don't want to listen to?"

Your years in advertising are showing.

If they had a song that slammed Bush, and people were offended by the song, that's a different story.

But hey, I suppose nobody wanted to see those ******y Godless pinko fellow traveler actors and directors back in the '50s, either, so those blacklists were A-OK too, after all, they were done because the people didn't want to see them.

[SlowwHand]

What The World Needs Now was "banned", for instance.


People call dusting Hussein overkill. No.
Banning songs like the above? Yes.

[Arrian]

Ok, I'll admit to being a tad puzzled by your reaction, MtG.

In your opinion, this is a violation of free speech?

Or are you just registering displeasure with the Radio stations?

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Funny, radio stations with audiences of tens of thousands are pulling the Dixie Chicks based on the protests of a few hundred - a small fraction of one percent, not even a large fraction of one percent of their listener base, and they're doing it based on "what people don't want to listen to?"

Yeah, I guess mob mentality is becoming the rule down south, and no one has the guts to stand up to it. The vocal minority wins this round I guess, and sadly no one seems to care.

[Ming]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Funny, radio stations with audiences of tens of thousands are pulling the Dixie Chicks based on the protests of a few hundred - a small fraction of one percent, not even a large fraction of one percent of their listener base, and they're doing it based on "what people don't want to listen to?"

Your years in advertising are showing.

Yes, my years in advertising are showing...

The people that complain are the only people that get heard.

First, they really don't have a clue what total percentage of their audience is complaining...

Second, any percentage is enough to drop their ratings, and cost them money.

Why should they risk their profits. I don't see hundreds of people standing up saying they won't listen to the stations until they put them back on.

The math is simple on this one

[Flubber]

Willem

IT WORKS BOTH WAYS !!

The Dixie Chicks can say what they want. Then radio station DJs and consumers can say what they want including " I don't like what you just said and don't want to associate with you"

Thats the basis of FREEDOM. Whether or not I agree with a boycott is irrelevant. In fact isn't there a quote that goes something like " I would defend with my life your right to promote that which I would spend my dying breath fighting against"

[Japher]

If they had a song that slammed Bush, and people were offended by the song, that's a different story.

Why is that different?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


Why should they risk their profits.

To stand up to the principles of your constitution? Isn't that what you guys are supposed to be going to war over, freedom and liberty and all that? Or does that only apply when it's convenient to do so?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Arrian
Ok, I'll admit to being a tad puzzled by your reaction, MtG.

In your opinion, this is a violation of free speech?

Or are you just registering displeasure with the Radio stations?

-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.

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.