Subsandwich's blog

Nobody's got anything to say about this one... I'd like to hear different opinions. Aka Subsandwich

This is hardly a novel topic on these forums, so don't expect that you're breaking any new ground here.

As for the Dixie Chicks, how exactly has their freedom of speech been violated?

President George Bush:

"The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I ... don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ..."

Boycotts/blacklists by private industry and citizens have nothing to do with free speech. The Dixie Chicks don't weild the right to be given international attention.

I beg to differ. Natalie Maines said something that any one of us could say at any time on the street, in any public demonstration any day of the week. She said something so mild by American standards that nobody would have paid any attention. The only thing was, she said it at the wrong time, when Bush's approval ratings were at 47%.

It was not a matter of having their feelings hurt. Because Natalie exercised her right as an American to speak out, and even she said she was surprised that her comment was taken so viciously by extreme right wingers. She had death threats against her, the "nationalistic" country music stations around the country dropped her from their playlists because they were catering to their right wing Republican audiences. Effigies of the Chicks were burned, and heavy equipment hired at riot rallies to crush their CDs. It was, IMHO, a "book burning" of the type we associate with medieval times. We don't like what the Chicks said, they're unAmerican, so we're going to erase them from our culture type of thinking. This type of thinking, gone too far, can become extremely dangerous. It's okay that certain people didn't like what she said. It's not okay to threaten someone with death because you didn't like it. It's not okay for the President to say they shouldn't care "if their feelings are hurt." He's so stupid to make such a simplistic comment like that.

I wouldn't expect a conservative to agree with my opinion, however. I have found that it is nearly impossible to talk to a conservative these days. Either they attempt to make me look stupid and uneducated, or they talk around the argument illogically and then proclaim "they won" the argument. They have learned well from Mr. Bush. I have been accused, as an academic of catering to "liberals" and even being a "liberal" simply because I do not agree with Bush or his policies (suspension of habeas corpus, no real definition of what a "terrorist" is, Patriot Act passage...the list goes on).

You people in Canada are very fortunate. You live in a country where it's still okay to be part of the political process. It is no longer "okay" to be a Democrat down here. If you are, AM conservative talk radio pundits tell their listeners that Democrats are part of the terrorist problem, or that they are traitors, or dangerous to national security.

So now you understand the problem surrounding the Dixie Chicks.

Death threats aside, which are illegal in themselves, boycotts are not limiting her freedom of speech, period. If every single person who's heard of the Dixie Chicks decided that the Dixie Chicks were garbage, that's entirely their decision.

Nobody, including the Dixie Chicks, has the right to be free of judgement for making statements to an international audience. If I had a Dixie Chicks CD, I have every right to burn it, tell all my friends they suck, and make any comment on their statements I see fit - that's my right to free speech and demonstration.

You claim to want to defend free speech by limiting that of others, which is a little ironic, and a little more idiotic.

It's not a matter of people boycotting their music though. As TS said, most stations removed them from their playlists.

If this is to be a discussion, I'd rather it were moved to the forum. This is bothersome.

It doesn't matter, lily - radio stations are privately owned businesses, and have the right to make such a decision, just like they have the right not to play any other music for any other reason. Similarly, I don't have the right to hear a particular musician on any radio station that I choose - Nobody's rights are being violated in boycotts. You're confusing free speech with free publicity, which isn't a right.

A lot of people heard the statement and disagreed with it, and they all have the right to criticize them for it. The fact that a lot of people felt the same way about the issue to the point that it actually affected the popularity of the Dixie Chicks is irrelevant.

Blue Nose illustrates my point regarding this entire discussion.

If you are American, Blue Nose, you have the right to criticize the Chicks, as an American. If you are Canadian, you still have the right to criticize the Chicks--but I hesitate to take you seriously regarding any knowledge, preconceived or not, that you have of conservative ideology in the United States, which differs wildly from that in Canada. However, I also, as an American, have the right to disagree with your opinion. President Bush essentially, by his overly simplistic reaction, condoned everything that happened to the Chicks. One memorable right wing comment captured on the new Chicks documentary entitled "Shut Up and Sing" was:

"Free speech, fine. Just don't do it in public."

Yep. That is the spirit of the Consitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. *sarcasm intended*

I don't think we need to move this to the forum. I'm pretty much done discussing it, and while I respect your opinion, I really do not believe you understand the implications of what happened, and the slow erosion of civil rights in America today.

Best of luck to you all!

BTW, Blue Nose:

I do not remember advocating limiting anyone's free speech by defending the Chicks' right to free speech. It seems you pulled that argument out of your very large hat. (Do you watch "Masters of the Universe?")

My argument is precisely that--some conservatives (who happen to be controlling the US government at the moment), feel threatened by citizenry using criticial thinking skills, so rather than engaging in intelligent parlance with those who disagree, they seek to throw out thought-stoppers like "You're either for us, or against us," or "Liberals hate America." They do not define who the "liberals" are, nor have they defined either by legislation or dialogue who the "terrorists" are. By current verbiage in the Patriot Act, the Chicks could be "terrorists." Anyone could be. It seems to me that conservative thought such as this seeks to limit MY free speech while using their right to free speech to advocate intolerance and divisiveness.

You sound very much like an American conservative when you use that argument. In other words, if someone disagrees with a conservative, then that person is somehow limiting the conservative's right to free speech.

You're right. It is just a little idiotic.

My apologies that you are annoyed at the tack this has taken--having read your initial post, I believe you thought that your post would be the end of the conversation.

Free speech swings both ways.

[quote="torontoscholar"]If you are American, Blue Nose, you have the right to criticize the Chicks, as an American. If you are Canadian, you still have the right to criticize the Chicks--but I hesitate to take you seriously regarding any knowledge, preconceived or not, that you have of conservative ideology in the United States, which differs wildly from that in Canada. However, I also, as an American, have the right to disagree with your opinion. President Bush essentially, by his overly simplistic reaction, condoned everything that happened to the Chicks. [/quote]I'm not criticizing the "Chicks" - I care very little for them or their opinions, or the opinions of Bush, and they weren't the focus of my argument. I raise issue with the interpretation of what free speech is in this "blog".

[quote="torontoscholar"]One memorable right wing comment captured on the new Chicks documentary entitled "Shut Up and Sing" was:

"Free speech, fine. Just don't do it in public."

Yep. That is the spirit of the Consitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence. *sarcasm intended* [/quote]A stupid comment made by someone who wasn't interfering with anybody's free speech in saying so. So who cares? Are citizens not allowed to hold opinions?

[quote="torontoscholar"]I don't think we need to move this to the forum. I'm pretty much done discussing it, and while I respect your opinion, I really do not believe you understand the implications of what happened, and the slow erosion of civil rights in America today. [/quote]As I've stated, I don't care how drastic the boycotts were, or how much the "Chicks" were chastised. They made the choice to make controversial statements to an international audience, and have to deal with the "implications" making political statements entails.

[quote="torontoscholar"]I do not remember advocating limiting anyone's free speech by defending the Chicks' right to free speech. It seems you pulled that argument out of your very large hat. (Do you watch "Masters of the Universe?") [/quote]Bravestarr, actually.

You seem to be making the argument that by the actions of private media and citizens, the rights of the Dixie Chicks are being violated. They are not being violated.

Your First Amendment states that Congress will pass no law which limits free speech. That is your right to free speech. The actions of the Dixie Chicks were not subject to any legal action, so there's no way in which their rights have been violated. You can blather on about the Patriot Act, but it's not relevant in the issue surrounding the Dixie Chicks. You are not guaranteed the right to not be humiliated or tormented for your opinions.

[quote="torontoscholar"]You sound very much like an American conservative when you use that argument. In other words, if someone disagrees with a conservative, then that person is somehow limiting the conservative's right to free speech. [/quote]I sound like an American conservative, do I? Well, since we're in the mood for hasty assumptions (you're 0 for 2), I'll point out that you sound very little like a Torontonian scholar; you're suggesting that the media is wrong to cater "to their right wing Republican audiences", when that's exactly what they should be expected to do, provided their audience is composed of "right wing Republicans" - they are a business which functions by catering to their audience. By not playing the music of the Dixie Chicks, they have in no way prevented them from saying whatever they want, and neither has the government.

[quote="torontoscholar"]My apologies that you are annoyed at the tack this has taken--having read your initial post, I believe you thought that your post would be the end of the conversation.

Free speech swings both ways.[/quote]I did believe it would be the end - this is elementary stuff in the free speech debate which you can't seem to grasp.