Dixie Chicks are pretty good

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

So it is un-american to dislike someone or their opinion?

I am afraid you are mixed up. Just as they are free to say what they said...americans are free to not buy their music or ridicule them for those comments.

Nothing wrong with boycotting their music if you don't like their political views. THAT is part of freedom os speech, but all too often, anyone who speaks against the popular opinion gets censored. The Dixie Chicks have experienced a LOT of censorship by Clear Channel refusing to allow their stations to play their music since this has happened. Censorship is wrong, no matter which side of an argument you are on...

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Excelsior

So it is un-american to dislike someone or their opinion?

I am afraid you are mixed up. Just as they are free to say what they said...americans are free to not buy their music or ridicule them for those comments.

Nothing wrong with boycotting their music if you don't like their political views. THAT is part of freedom os speech, but all too often, anyone who speaks against the popular opinion gets censored. The Dixie Chicks have experienced a LOT of censorship by Clear Channel refusing to allow their stations to play their music since this has happened. Censorship is wrong, no matter which side of an argument you are on...

I think that censorship is only wrong when the government is doing it. Public opinion using their dollars to decide what is and is not ok, is a good thing.

 

[BoberFett]

Weren't they the ones that did that god awful Earl song? If so, they did suck, do suck, and always will suck.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Excelsior

So it is un-american to dislike someone or their opinion?

I am afraid you are mixed up. Just as they are free to say what they said...americans are free to not buy their music or ridicule them for those comments.

Nothing wrong with boycotting their music if you don't like their political views. THAT is part of freedom os speech, but all too often, anyone who speaks against the popular opinion gets censored. The Dixie Chicks have experienced a LOT of censorship by Clear Channel refusing to allow their stations to play their music since this has happened. Censorship is wrong, no matter which side of an argument you are on...

But Clear Channel is a privately owned company. Don't tell me that you want a private company to be forced to play a certain band....

 

[TheAudit]

Originally posted by: buck
They are pretty good..... AT SUCKING!

lol

 

[mcvickj]

There are far too many people who are just too damn senstitive. It takes a great deal to really piss me off. While I don't think the political comments they made were the greatest idea, it sure didn't turn me off from their music. It is a shame that the local stations have stopped playing their music. There are several songs on their new album that I enjoy and would like to hear from time to time.

 

[Slap]

Having just had our first kid, we seem to like the song "Lullaby" off the new cd. They have postponed the Memphis tour date for now. It may get cancelled. I hope not though. We went to the last two and they were sold out in advance.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: Excelsior

So it is un-american to dislike someone or their opinion?

I am afraid you are mixed up. Just as they are free to say what they said...americans are free to not buy their music or ridicule them for those comments.

Nothing wrong with boycotting their music if you don't like their political views. THAT is part of freedom os speech, but all too often, anyone who speaks against the popular opinion gets censored. The Dixie Chicks have experienced a LOT of censorship by Clear Channel refusing to allow their stations to play their music since this has happened. Censorship is wrong, no matter which side of an argument you are on...

But Clear Channel is a privately owned company. Don't tell me that you want a private company to be forced to play a certain band....

Right, Clear Channel is a privately owned company and another way the question could be asked is, Don't tell me you want a few individuals deciding what you get to hear or not hear based on those individuals' political views, opinions, or other personal interests. Especially when it's a communications giant that owns 1 out of every 10 radio stations in the country.

The problem a lot of people have with Clear Channel pulling the Dixie Chicks and others music is the connection between the company and the Bush family. It smacks of censorship when friends of the people in power decide that you aren't going to hear anything from people who have differing opinions or are critical of them. The founder of Clear Channel, Lowry Mays, his son who runs the company now, and Tom Hicks the vice-chairman have close ties to the Bush family going way back. In fact the senior Mays and Hicks were involved in a little scandal down in Texas when Bush was governor and they were on the University of Texas investmant board, that Hicks chaired, and they awarded large investment management contracts to several companies close to the Bush family, including the Carlyle Group.

Personally, I don't think you can lay that much blame on Clear Channel because once the anti-Dixie Chicks ball got rolling, radio stations owned by other, though smaller, companies were doing the same thing because it took on a life of its own. It had more to do with the country music fan base and their political leanings than anything else. It even started back before the remark in London when Maines was critical of some of Toby Keith's ultra-patriotic songs and they had a very public feud culminating with Keith showing a large screen photo mock up of Maines with Saddam Hussein at concerts and Maines wearing a shirt with the initials F.Y.T.K. during a televised performance. I think it was at one of the awards shows. But that brings up a couple of other things mentioned in this thread.

Someone said that a performer shouldn't state their political views when they have their performer's hat on without expecting people who disagree with them to voice their disagreement by boycotting their music. But on the other hand, some would be very critical of a performer who used politics to pander to like-minded individuals to increase his sales and personal wealth. Toby Keith greatly increased his fame and fortune with "Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue". Cynics would say that when he then followed that up with "Shock 'N Y'all" with "American Soldier" and "The Taliban Song" he had decided he could cash in on 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq by exploiting them for his own personal fame and fortune. Some could think that couldn't they? I'm not quite that cynical, I think he's just singing what he's feeling and that's what a musician does, but you can't deny that he's getting rich off of his patriotism.

The part I find so strange about the Dixie Chicks situation and for lack of a better term, un-American minded, is that they didn't use their music to state a political opinion, it was stated as a personal opinion, yet people who liked their music boycotted it as a result. I'd understand it much better if they'd written an anti-war or anti-Bush song and the fans boycotted it, but it seems more like an attempt to curtail freedom of speech to boycott their music in an attempt to make them pay for one remark they made. But like I said, it started before that and the fans had every right to use whatever means at their disposal to express their disagreement. It does make me wonder though why other celebrities who have made much more public and overt anti-Bush and anti-war statements haven't been boycotted as well. Where were the people pushing to boycott movies with Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Matt Damon, Scarlett Johannson, Rob Reiner, etc.?

I couldn't care less what a celebrity's political opinions are if it's not a part of the song or movie. They have a right to their own opinions. If I like the song or the movie I'll buy it, if I don't I won't. Who they're voting for makes no difference to me. I like the new song by the Dixie Chicks and I bought it, but if the rest of the album isn't as good, I won't buy it.

 

[Excelsior]

That was a long ass post.

"Don't tell me you want a few individuals deciding what you get to hear or not hear based on those individuals' political views, opinions, or other personal interests. Especially when it's a communications giant that owns 1 out of every 10 radio stations in the country. "

You are right, I would prefer it if there were many smaller companies in charge...but I rarely listen to the radio. When I do, it is often Jazz or Classical...which are public radio stations. I honestly don't give a damn what Clear Channel does.

I will admit..I don't like it when a performer (of any political persuasion) uses politics for publicity/etc...I like music, not music+politics. That Toby Keith crap does seem...like garbage..but I wouldn't know since I never listen to popular modern country.

Did Maines not say what she said at a fvcking concert? Did her fans pay to listen to her music, or hear her talk about how ashamed she is that the president of the USA is from her home state? If she had said this in a magazine interview when asked a question, or on the radio..etc...it might have been different. However..lets be honest, many of her fans (before she said that) were conservative and probably voted for Bush. This is why there was such an uproar.

And like I said before...this has nothing to do with free speech. I don't understand why you or anyone else keeps bringing that up. The american public is free to boycott a certain artists work, just as the Dixie Chicks are free to voice their opinions on politics. They can't expect to say what they want without suffering any consequences from their own fan base, who had supported them for many years before.

Concerning the actors...people feel much less of a connection to Actors/Actresses than they do to famous musicians. Also, we almost expect the folk in Holywood to voice their opinion. It is nothing new.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: GeneValgene
i love their past albums...haven't listened to the new stuff yet

I like their old albums too. The new one I have only heard a bit, but it has a lot of angst in it, and less country to the sounds as well. Or at least it attempts to. It is okay, but definitely not a home run.

 

[Tom]

Clear Channel can play or not play whoever they want.

What is wrong is that Clear Channel shouldn't have been able to monopolize the market in so many places, but it's our own fault for letting Congress ruin what was a good balanced system. And I consider pre-programmed radio, or whatever you call that crap, a waste of the public airwaves and it ought to be banned.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
That was a long ass post.

"Don't tell me you want a few individuals deciding what you get to hear or not hear based on those individuals' political views, opinions, or other personal interests. Especially when it's a communications giant that owns 1 out of every 10 radio stations in the country. "

You are right, I would prefer it if there were many smaller companies in charge...but I rarely listen to the radio. When I do, it is often Jazz or Classical...which are public radio stations. I honestly don't give a damn what Clear Channel does.

I will admit..I don't like it when a performer (of any political persuasion) uses politics for publicity/etc...I like music, not music+politics. That Toby Keith crap does seem...like garbage..but I wouldn't know since I never listen to popular modern country.

Did Maines not say what she said at a fvcking concert? Did her fans pay to listen to her music, or hear her talk about how ashamed she is that the president of the USA is from her home state? If she had said this in a magazine interview when asked a question, or on the radio..etc...it might have been different. However..lets be honest, many of her fans (before she said that) were conservative and probably voted for Bush. This is why there was such an uproar.

And like I said before...this has nothing to do with free speech. I don't understand why you or anyone else keeps bringing that up. The american public is free to boycott a certain artists work, just as the Dixie Chicks are free to voice their opinions on politics. They can't expect to say what they want without suffering any consequences from their own fan base, who had supported them for many years before.

Concerning the actors...people feel much less of a connection to Actors/Actresses than they do to famous musicians. Also, we almost expect the folk in Holywood to voice their opinion. It is nothing new.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the public has a right to boycott the music of anyone they want and it's a legitimate and effective method of sending a message. And she did make that remark in the context of a performance. The audience in London had anti-war and anti-Bush signs because they are involved with us in the war and I guess she wanted to them to know she was in agreement with them on that subject. Knowing the way their fan base back home felt on the subject, she should have expected a response from them, but I don't think she ever expected, or should have expected, the intensity of the backlash it produced. That's the part that moved it into a curtailment of freedom of speech in my opinion.

First of all, their music didn't contain any anti-war or anti-Bush messages, so boycotting their songs doesn't make much sense to me, but to each his own on that. So if the fans had just decided to not buy their music anymore that would have been okay, it's their right. The problem as far as freedom of speech goes was when radio stations started blacklisting them, very McCarthy era type stuff in my opinion. Then they wouldn't and some still won't accept ads for their tours or new album. They sponsored rallies to destroy their CDs with a tractor which reminded me of the time radio stations did the same thing to the Beatles after a remark one of them made. Then you had government officials getting involved in it. Some senator or representative down in South Carolina, I think, organized a rally to picket one of their shows down there to keep people from going to it. Then there was the radio station down in Texas that gave out their home addresses and encouraged people to go there and harass them. Not to mention the call in programs many of them had where people talked about beating them up or making death threats against them. Put all of that together and you had an atmosphere where anyone would be afraid to voice an unpopular opinion about something. When you try to scare someone out of saying how they feel about something by threatening to destroy their career or bring physical harm to them for it, that sounds like you're against freedom of speech to me.

I guess that part of it is particularly interesting to me because I teach Civics and tolerating the right of others to have an unpopular opinion is something we talk about when we cover that part of the Constitution. The Dixie Chicks situation made an interesting example and stimulated a lot of good debate in my classes.

 

[BoberFett]

So the right to sell CDs trumps the right to organized protest. Interesting copy of the US Constitution you have there.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So the right to sell CDs trumps the right to organized protest. Interesting copy of the US Constitution you have there.

Ah, exactly the point one of my Juniors made when we were debating the topic. Yes, the right to public assembly is protected by the first amendment so if you're talking about the rallies to destroy their CDs and the government official orgainizing a picket of their concert, those were just as legitimate rights as theirs to speak their opinion. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked her.

The rally was organized and sponsored by a radio station as a part of their blacklisting the Dixie Chicks. Do you think a business that makes its living using the airwaves which are considered owned by the public, or even leaving that aside, any business has the right to blacklist someone for having a political opinion contrary to their own?

The picketing of their concert was organized by a government representative of the people. Do you believe that someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States is fulfilling that oath by organizing a rally which has the sole purpose of displaying intolerance for someone expressing an opinion that differs from that of the majority? Doesn't he have an obligation to protect their right to freedom of speech?

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So the right to sell CDs trumps the right to organized protest. Interesting copy of the US Constitution you have there.

Ah, exactly the point one of my Juniors made when we were debating the topic. Yes, the right to public assembly is protected by the first amendment so if you're talking about the rallies to destroy their CDs and the government official orgainizing a picket of their concert, those were just as legitimate rights as theirs to speak their opinion. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked her.

The rally was organized and sponsored by a radio station as a part of their blacklisting the Dixie Chicks. Do you think a business that makes its living using the airwaves which are considered owned by the public, or even leaving that aside, any business has the right to blacklist someone for having a political opinion contrary to their own?

By the same token, protesters could be ordered to stop for using the streets paid for by taxes. Just because a protest makes use of a public resource does not make it government sponsored.

The picketing of their concert was organized by a government representative of the people. Do you believe that someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States is fulfilling that oath by organizing a rally which has the sole purpose of displaying intolerance for someone expressing an opinion that differs from that of the majority? Doesn't he have an obligation to protect their right to freedom of speech?

Government officials have the right to vote as citizens. Just because they're elected doesn't mean they no longer have the right to their opinion. And for the reason I stated above, it's not censorship and so he was in no way failing to uphold the constitution.

Try again.

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: Excelsior
That was a long ass post.

"Don't tell me you want a few individuals deciding what you get to hear or not hear based on those individuals' political views, opinions, or other personal interests. Especially when it's a communications giant that owns 1 out of every 10 radio stations in the country. "

You are right, I would prefer it if there were many smaller companies in charge...but I rarely listen to the radio. When I do, it is often Jazz or Classical...which are public radio stations. I honestly don't give a damn what Clear Channel does.

I will admit..I don't like it when a performer (of any political persuasion) uses politics for publicity/etc...I like music, not music+politics. That Toby Keith crap does seem...like garbage..but I wouldn't know since I never listen to popular modern country.

Did Maines not say what she said at a fvcking concert? Did her fans pay to listen to her music, or hear her talk about how ashamed she is that the president of the USA is from her home state? If she had said this in a magazine interview when asked a question, or on the radio..etc...it might have been different. However..lets be honest, many of her fans (before she said that) were conservative and probably voted for Bush. This is why there was such an uproar.

And like I said before...this has nothing to do with free speech. I don't understand why you or anyone else keeps bringing that up. The american public is free to boycott a certain artists work, just as the Dixie Chicks are free to voice their opinions on politics. They can't expect to say what they want without suffering any consequences from their own fan base, who had supported them for many years before.

Concerning the actors...people feel much less of a connection to Actors/Actresses than they do to famous musicians. Also, we almost expect the folk in Holywood to voice their opinion. It is nothing new.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you that the public has a right to boycott the music of anyone they want and it's a legitimate and effective method of sending a message. And she did make that remark in the context of a performance. The audience in London had anti-war and anti-Bush signs because they are involved with us in the war and I guess she wanted to them to know she was in agreement with them on that subject. Knowing the way their fan base back home felt on the subject, she should have expected a response from them, but I don't think she ever expected, or should have expected, the intensity of the backlash it produced. That's the part that moved it into a curtailment of freedom of speech in my opinion.

First of all, their music didn't contain any anti-war or anti-Bush messages, so boycotting their songs doesn't make much sense to me, but to each his own on that. So if the fans had just decided to not buy their music anymore that would have been okay, it's their right. The problem as far as freedom of speech goes was when radio stations started blacklisting them, very McCarthy era type stuff in my opinion. Then they wouldn't and some still won't accept ads for their tours or new album. They sponsored rallies to destroy their CDs with a tractor which reminded me of the time radio stations did the same thing to the Beatles after a remark one of them made. Then you had government officials getting involved in it. Some senator or representative down in South Carolina, I think, organized a rally to picket one of their shows down there to keep people from going to it. Then there was the radio station down in Texas that gave out their home addresses and encouraged people to go there and harass them. Not to mention the call in programs many of them had where people talked about beating them up or making death threats against them. Put all of that together and you had an atmosphere where anyone would be afraid to voice an unpopular opinion about something. When you try to scare someone out of saying how they feel about something by threatening to destroy their career or bring physical harm to them for it, that sounds like you're against freedom of speech to me.

I guess that part of it is particularly interesting to me because I teach Civics and tolerating the right of others to have an unpopular opinion is something we talk about when we cover that part of the Constitution. The Dixie Chicks situation made an interesting example and stimulated a lot of good debate in my classes.

Your posts are far too much for me to digest, I will admit. I will try to respond to a few points you made though.

Those fans were present to listen to the music, I doubt they needed any affirmation of their thoughts of the war on Maines' behalf. And..it is obvious that she wasn't thinking about the possible consequences at the time. Whether she would "go back in time and take the statement" back..who knows.

This is the only area where I really disagree with you on. Can a freedom be taken away from a group of people other than the governement? The Dixie Chicks are still free to make their music and state their mind. However, with fame, comes scrutiny by the public. If I said the same stuff she did, nothing would happen. However, I am also not a famous musician who depends on the public for my support (financially..). She can't expect to say whatever she wants without alienating at least some of her fanbase.

I agree, the actions taken by many of their ex-fans is quite ridiculous. It is one thing to simply stop buying an artists music...but to "destroy their CDs with a tractor" and "picket a show" is pretty screwed up. Still..it is their right to do so.

However, equating this to McCarthyism is a bit much. That concerned the government, as you know. Radio Stations/ClearChannel are not the government.

Thats all I have for now.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: montanafan

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So the right to sell CDs trumps the right to organized protest. Interesting copy of the US Constitution you have there.

Ah, exactly the point one of my Juniors made when we were debating the topic. Yes, the right to public assembly is protected by the first amendment so if you're talking about the rallies to destroy their CDs and the government official orgainizing a picket of their concert, those were just as legitimate rights as theirs to speak their opinion. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked her.

The rally was organized and sponsored by a radio station as a part of their blacklisting the Dixie Chicks. Do you think a business that makes its living using the airwaves which are considered owned by the public, or even leaving that aside, any business has the right to blacklist someone for having a political opinion contrary to their own?

By the same token, protesters could be ordered to stop for using the streets paid for by taxes. Just because a protest makes use of a public resource does not make it government sponsored.

The picketing of their concert was organized by a government representative of the people. Do you believe that someone who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States is fulfilling that oath by organizing a rally which has the sole purpose of displaying intolerance for someone expressing an opinion that differs from that of the majority? Doesn't he have an obligation to protect their right to freedom of speech?

Government officials have the right to vote as citizens. Just because they're elected doesn't mean they no longer have the right to their opinion. And for the reason I stated above, it's not censorship and so he was in no way failing to uphold the constitution.

Try again.

You didn't answer the part about blacklisting in the first question. Try again.

On the second question I didn't give you all the information, I just figured most people knew what happened in South Carolina. One representative was doing the pushing and organizing, but the South Carolina legislature passed a resolution about it:

(S.C. State) House Resolution H 3818

A HOUSE RESOLUTION

TO REQUEST THAT THE DIXIE CHICKS APOLOGIZE TO THE MILITARY FAMILIES IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA AND THE UNITED STATES FOR THE UNPATRIOTIC AND UNNECESSARY COMMENTS MADE BY THEIR LEAD SINGER BEFORE THEY BEGIN THEIR UNITED STATES TOUR ON MAY 1, 2003, IN GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND TO REQUEST THAT THEY PERFORM A FREE CONCERT FOR TROOPS AND MILITARY FAMILIES IN SOUTH CAROLINA AS AN EXPRESSION OF THEIR SINCERITY.

Whereas, the Dixie Chicks are a popular and influential country music group from Texas; and

Whereas, before a recent London concert, Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, said that she was ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas; and

Whereas, members of the United States Armed Forces are outraged at the anti-American sentiment expressed by the Dixie Chicks; and

Whereas, there is a large military presence in the State of South Carolina, whom the Dixie Chicks have offended by their comments; and

Whereas, before the Dixie Chicks kick off their United States tour in Greenville on May 1, 2003, the House of Representatives and the people of South Carolina request that Natalie Maines apologize and that the group perform a free concert for the South Carolina servicemen and women and their families.

So I'll give you a pass on your answer about him acting as a private citizen. So now that you know about the introduction and passing of the resolution along with the picketing of the concert and urging people not to attend the concert, do you still think he was just acting as a private citizen?

As to whether or not it's censorship. Censorship occurs in the private sector all the time. It's the responsibility of the government to protect us from it.

 

[compuwiz1]

The Chixydicks need to go away.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Excelsior

Your posts are far too much for me to digest, I will admit. I will try to respond to a few points you made though.

Those fans were present to listen to the music, I doubt they needed any affirmation of their thoughts of the war on Maines' behalf. And..it is obvious that she wasn't thinking about the possible consequences at the time. Whether she would "go back in time and take the statement" back..who knows.

This is the only area where I really disagree with you on. Can a freedom be taken away from a group of people other than the governement? The Dixie Chicks are still free to make their music and state their mind. However, with fame, comes scrutiny by the public. If I said the same stuff she did, nothing would happen. However, I am also not a famous musician who depends on the public for my support (financially..). She can't expect to say whatever she wants without alienating at least some of her fanbase.

I agree, the actions taken by many of their ex-fans is quite ridiculous. It is one thing to simply stop buying an artists music...but to "destroy their CDs with a tractor" and "picket a show" is pretty screwed up. Still..it is their right to do so.

However, equating this to McCarthyism is a bit much. That concerned the government, as you know. Radio Stations/ClearChannel are not the government.

Thats all I have for now.

Yeah, the remark she made at the concert wasn't necessary at all and really stupid from a business viewpoint in hindsight. It was probably one of those times when the artist is talking to the audience telling them how glad they are to be there, etc.

I agree with you that the fans who boycotted their music and expressed their disagreement with them in reasonable ways, sans the beating and death threats, could not be accused of trying to take away their right to freedom of speech, they were just exercising their own. The ones who were trying to incite violence were another matter altogether though.

I don't equate what the fans were doing with McCarthyism though. It was the blacklisting by the radio stations and the actions by some government officials like I posted above about South Carolina that I was comparing to the McCarthy era stuff. Sorry, if I didn't make that distinction before. I understand you not agreeing with the McCarthy comparison exactly. It is awfully reminiscent of the way some people were treated, especially in show business, during that time though, don't you think?

 

[Excelsior]

"It was the blacklisting by the radio stations and the actions by some government officials like I posted above about South Carolina that I was comparing to the McCarthy era stuff. Sorry, if I didn't make that distinction before. I understand you not agreeing with the McCarthy comparison exactly. It is awfully reminiscent of the way some people were treated, especially in show business, during that time though, don't you think?"

Yes, it is. I didn't know that a resolution was passed in the SC House of representatives. That is insane.

 

[BoberFett]

A house resolution is over the top, and probably unconstitutional.

Censorship occurs in the private sector all the time.. It's the responsibility of the government to protect us from it.

No. No it's not. That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. The government cannot protect people from private censorship. That's tantamount to forcing people to listen to you, which is essentially removing their freedom to ignore you, and quite frankly far more heinous than the original act of so-called "censorship".

If there was collusion in the music industry to get the Chicks out of radio, they might have an anti-trust case. But that's anti-trust and has nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech.

The fact is there is nothing prohibiting private citizens, and by proxy the private companies owned by private citizens, from "censoring" who they choose to listen to. If you think there is, well you're just wrong.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: Excelsior
"It was the blacklisting by the radio stations and the actions by some government officials like I posted above about South Carolina that I was comparing to the McCarthy era stuff. Sorry, if I didn't make that distinction before. I understand you not agreeing with the McCarthy comparison exactly. It is awfully reminiscent of the way some people were treated, especially in show business, during that time though, don't you think?"

Yes, it is. I didn't know that a resolution was passed in the SC House of representatives. That is insane.

Yeah, that was way over the line, I think. Especially when you consider the remark that was made and then a government body drafting a document using terms like anti-American and presuming to speak for the U.S. military. Crazy.

 

[montanafan]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
A house resolution is over the top, and probably unconstitutional.

Censorship occurs in the private sector all the time.. It's the responsibility of the government to protect us from it.

No. No it's not. That's the stupidest thing I've heard in a while. The government cannot protect people from private censorship. That's tantamount to forcing people to listen to you, which is essentially removing their freedom to ignore you, and quite frankly far more heinous than the original act of so-called "censorship".

If there was collusion in the music industry to get the Chicks out of radio, they might have an anti-trust case. But that's anti-trust and has nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech.

The fact is there is nothing prohibiting private citizens, and by proxy the private companies owned by private citizens, from "censoring" who they choose to listen to. If you think there is, well you're just wrong.

Yeah, I don?t see how they could get away with that in South Carolina.

Concerning the First Amendment, you are correct sir! The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect citizens from the federal government, and therefore state governments as well, when it came to curtailing freedom of speech, the press, etc. And in most cases it has been interpreted that way by the Supreme Court and does not protect citizens from censorship in other instances. Something that a lot of people don?t realize demonstrated by the slew of court cases and law suits filed unabated about everything from companies like Walmart refusing to sell Cds they find offensive, or people filing lawsuits about what they can or cannot say on privately owned forums like this one, to court fights over freedom of speech vs. sexual harassment, etc. But, you are not entirely correct because of the ambiguous ways the Supreme Court has ruled in some cases.

For example, in the cases where there is a ?public concern? like in some of the whistle blower cases in the private sector. In some cases the Court has ruled that private sector employees? right to freedom of speech is protected because of an overwhelming public concern therefore rendering their dismissal unlawful. Not in all cases though, so I guess it?s kind of a crap shoot for someone in that situation.

Other examples would be the right to strike, the right to file grievances, slander and libel cases, the right for states to pass at-will employment laws, federal and state laws concerning what constitutes a hostile work environment, etc. People may put down Unions a lot these days, but many first amendment protections that you would not have in the private sector have been protected because them.

So there are some things that do prohibit private companies and the private citizens who own them to ?censor? who they choose to listen to, but it?s certainly all up to interpretation, especially when it comes to the Courts.

I like your point about the Dixie Chicks and anti-trust laws. I didn?t use their situation when we were talking about monopolies and anti-trust laws, we used Microsoft as the main example, but I might add it in next year?s classes. It would be difficult for them to prove, but I?m interested in hearing what the students might come up with concerning it.