posted on May 22, 2003 12:26:00 PM new
While I don't agree with how they said what they did, they've apologized. I think it's now time for everyone to move on and get on with their lives. Talk about grudge holding.
posted on May 22, 2003 01:52:06 PM new
And where does it say in the Bible "Better keep your mouth shut about a popular administration even if your conscience dictates otherwise?"
posted on May 22, 2003 02:42:11 PM new
The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it.
- George Bernard Shaw
posted on May 22, 2003 03:22:18 PM newAnd where does it say in the Bible "Better keep your mouth shut about a popular administration even if your conscience dictates otherwise?"
...and where does it say that other people besides the Dixie Chicks can't voice their opinions?
So they got booed... nowhere does it say the price of fame is all glamour and glory.
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on May 22, 2003 05:22 PM ]
posted on May 22, 2003 05:01:21 PM new
Keep in mind that their mainstream fans were NOT in attendance at the music awards, and their mainstream fans have been packing their recent concerts...
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 22, 2003 05:23:44 PM new
and keep in mind that only 20,000 people show up for those concerts, but millions watched the awards... their fans will remain so, but new ones maybe hard to come by.
WTCR; Huntington, West Virginia... ahhh the memories...
Aposter.... lets see they have freedom to bash our President, but others don't have the freedom to express their views...everyone doesn't take your supposed "high" moral tone, makes the USA a wonderful place...
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
[ edited by Twelvepole on May 22, 2003 06:26 PM ]
[ edited by Twelvepole on May 22, 2003 06:29 PM ]
posted on May 22, 2003 09:36:34 PM newOne of America's freedoms is the right of its citizens to give his or her opinion without fear of reprisal - in this case the removal of an artist's music from the airwaves
Where does this freedom to "give his or her opinion without fear of reprisal" come from ?
There is no such freedom other than freedom from government reprisal due to your opinion.
There is not now and never has been a freedom from reprisal from private citizens, employers, friends, neighbors, arising from expressing one's opinion.
The Dixie Chicks weren't prevented from expressing their opinion, and the government has not taken any reprisal.
We are free to boo them, not buy their music, or listen to radio stations that play their music. We are also free to encourage others to do the same.
Liberals apparently do not believe in free speech, at least speech they don't agree with.
posted on May 22, 2003 10:06:12 PM new"We are also free to encourage others to do the same."
Don't you think the friends, you would try to encourage to not listen to the Dixie Chicks, would laugh at you Reamond? "Hey, pssst... don't listen to the Dixie Chicks because I don't like what the one said one night."
posted on May 23, 2003 05:03:50 AM new
reamond's absolutely right..the DC's had a perfect right to say what they wanted to, and the public has a perfect right to express it's opinion about what they said...that their concerts are largely sold out speaks volumes
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
posted on May 23, 2003 08:36:13 AM new
In the name of patriotism, the Dixie Chicks are knocked off their pedestal. What a pitiful and weak target for such badass, macho male misogynists.
posted on May 23, 2003 12:30:09 PM new
Well how come no one noticed what the 'Chick' was wearing that very night at the concert? a T shirt that had F.U.T.K
Maines wore a shirt with the letters "F.U.T.K." Considering their public battles, it can be assumed the last two letters signify "Toby Keith," and the first two letters probably don't need to be deciphered.
posted on May 23, 2003 01:18:30 PM new
Oh, it was noticed, and it was mentioned on the entertainment news. Natalie said it meant something else but......
But it was a rebuff, it wasn't like lying and calling him an Anti-American Pro-Saddam Communist Whore Slut.
But considering that the Dixie Chicks are no longer number one and a male has taken that spot, they will probably kiss and make up. I mean, that was the REAL reason.
A politician will call you intelligent to keep you ignorant. I tell you that you are ignorant so that you may want to be intelligent - Eugene Debs
[ edited by mlecher on May 23, 2003 01:23 PM ]
posted on May 23, 2003 02:28:52 PM new
What ever happened to freedom of expression, and the right to dissent...is that now outdated, like our constitution, the United Nations,and counting votes in a presidential election? Should we as a free people not be allowed to criticize our governments policies if we do not agree with them? Heaven knows that the "conservative" point of view certainly gets plenty of air time. Are we reduced to shouting down differing points of view, through intimidation? sounds more like Saddams Iraq than the good old USA!
Eegnats
posted on May 23, 2003 05:47:37 PM new
Reamond,
I read your post,and in part it inspired mine. You are certainly free to choose to listen or not listen to whatever you like, but when radio stations refuse to play artists music because of their political views,(and this has happened across the country) to me it smacks of McCarthy era blacklisting, and calling people vulgar hateful names and calling their patriotism into question, because of their point of view, IS intimidation...not to mention hate mail and death threats. Certainly Rush Limbaugh and his many right wing extremist clones across the country don't seem to be in any danger of having their work yanked from radio stations because of their political points of view, nor should it be. That is what freedom of speech is supposed to be about. All sides of the political spectrum should, in a free society be able to express themselves without fear of blacklisting, death threats, and denial of media exposure. Again, listen to whatever you want, boycott whatever you want and express yourself freely, but allow others the same right, even if their point of view should differ radically from your own...isn't (wasn't??)that the American way?
eegnats
posted on May 23, 2003 06:58:52 PM newbut when radio stations refuse to play artists music because of their political views,(and this has happened across the country) to me it smacks of McCarthy era blacklisting
So radio stations do not have the right of free speech ?
What you term blacklisting I call free association. Are you against free association too ?
That is what freedom of speech is supposed to be about
No it isn't and it never has been. Free speech has always meant that the government can not prohibit your exercise of your speech franchise, it does not now and has never meant that individuals can not discriminate based on your political speech.
No one has a free speech right for their music to be played on a radio station, just as no one has a right to keep their job if their employer disagrees with their political views and fires them.
If such were the case, then the Democratic party would be forced to hire Republicans, churches would be required to hire atheists.
I have no idea where you folks get the idea that free speech rights include some guarantee from non-governmental reprisals, job loss, counter opinions, labels, etc.. This freedom you claim has never existed.
posted on May 23, 2003 07:11:41 PM new
No Reamond, most radio stations do not have free speech. They are controlled by the interests that own them. There's nothing free about it. That's why I listen to public radio because it is non-profit and not owned by right wing interests who are going to decide what I am free to listen to on the radio. I think free speech does mean that we should be free to say what we think without fear of government reprisals as you say, providing it is not threatening to national security. The Dixie Chicks comment was certainly not that. It was an insult to the W. That's all. I think it was blown all out of proportion by the repressive political climate of the day.
posted on May 23, 2003 07:17:55 PM newNo Reamond, most radio stations do not have free speech. They are controlled by the interests that own them
So a private property owner has no free speech rights ? Can I come to your house and place a sign in your front yard or paint a sign on the side of your home ?
That's why I listen to public radio because it is non-profit and not owned by right wing interests who are going to decide what I am free to listen to on the radio
You're kidding right. You don't think that public radio stations make decisions regarding what they will put on the air and what they won't?
Again, free speech only means that the government may not interfer with your speech rights, it does not now and never did mean that private interests can not refuse to provide you air time, a platform, an audience, agreement, a job, etc..
posted on May 23, 2003 08:02:28 PM new
Your logic eludes me, so radio stations are exercising their right of free speech by not allowing different points of view to be heard, and the actors in Hollywood who were victimized and denied their livlihood, rights and good names as American citizens by US senator McCarthy in the 50s were not blacklisted, but were merely victims of the right "free association". The fact is that most if not all of the big media in this country is owned by big money "conservative" interests, whose views which very often are very close to to those of the more right wing elements in our government. Poor people really cannot afford to own chains of radio stations such as clear channel, which owns hundreds of radio stations across the country, all of which espouse right wing doctrine on a daily basis. freedom of speech and expression should not be predicated on ones finacial situation. The trend in this country is ever increasing media consolidation, as evidenced by the very recent move by the FCC to allow even more media consolidation, and cross media ownership by people like Rupert Murdoch, and clear channel radio.These media giants may then pick and choose, who has the right to be heard, with no attempt whatever at evenhandedness. This to me is an example of the Bush administration working hand in hand with right wing media interests to control the information that the public receives. The rule changes will allow a single media company to reach 45% of the homes in America, an increase from the present 35%. This was done very quietly, with liitle public input or discussion. Is freedom of speech only for the wealthy? This change can only benefit the big money interests, as our information is coming from fewer souces everyday, and the government greasing the skids for these interests, says to me that the government wants to limit freedom of speech by allowing only rich conservative interests to be heard...what other reason could there be for this change...who benefits from narrowing the information that we have access to. The point is the government is involved in this type of censorship by encouraging and allowing the media to be controlled and consolidated by interests which agree with with the radical right wing point of view of the Bush administration. Freedom of speech is alive in the USA, as long as you can afford to own the media. Funding for alternate points of view, such as NPR is being cut to the bone. Thanks for your time,
eegnats
posted on May 23, 2003 09:37:59 PM new
Dixie Chicks spoke their minds...good for them..that wild meat guy and lots of other people got pi$$ed..spoke their minds...good for them too. DC's concerts are still selling out, the music buying public is speaking it's mind, good for it...I don't see a problem here...gotta love the USA..
________________________________________
If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.
- Elbert Hubbard
[ edited by Twelvepole on May 22, 2003 05:22 PM ]