Whatever happened to free speech?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Willem


And others have the right to point out their cowardice. I'm simply exercising that right.

As you have every right to do

Originally posted by Willem
Stupidity is one thing, it's another altogether to encourage it. But hey, if it creates publicity why not? It's just business!

The right to be stupid (or smart) includes the right to encourage others to do the same.

Originally posted by Willem
Who's talking about implementing any system? What's wrong with simply showing a little moral fibre and not caving in at the first sign of trouble?

Well, you seemed to think there was something terribly wrong so I thought you were advocating some societal structure where this does not or could not happen. If you are merely disagreeing with the protestors and expressing the opinion that they SHOULD not protest thats very different than the idea that it is somehow WRONG or an infringement of someone's rights for them to do so.

Originally posted by Willem
Though level headedness seems to have been somewhat lacking.

The validity or thoughtfulness of the opinion is irrelevant to the the issue of the right to express it.

Originally posted by Willem
A price some of those radio stations obviously weren't willing to pay. And I've already said something very similar to your sentiments here somewhere in this thread. We don't disagree as much as you might think.

Radio stations each exercised their own free choice . Kowtowing is always an option. You might not respect the choice but people have the right to make it.

Your last few posts have seemed to soften or step back a little. If all you want to say is that the protestors are idiots and the radio stations are gutless, go ahead. But if you are trying to say there is something wrong here, that free speech has been infringed, well I vehemently disagree.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
I want the radio stations to accept the responsibility of showing both sides of the issue, as I feel a good public broadcaster should. Fair and unbiased regardless of any economic pressure group. The listeners can do as they please. Why is that such a difficult concept to comprehend?

Again... changing the subject.

This is about censorship... and there is no censorship here. The band can still say what they want. You keep seeming to ignore that simple truth.

The only problem you have is that they will lose money.
So you want somebody else to lose money instead of them.

That is your entire argument... everything else is just a smoke screen on your part.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Azazel

They're private, not public.

Privately owned, their product is public.

[Ming]

Uhhh... so is pretty much every other product/service.

Just like the musicians "product"

[Willem]

Originally posted by Flubber
The right to be stupid (or smart) includes the right to encourage others to do the same.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with it, or refrain from speaking out against it.

If you are merely disagreeing with the protestors and expressing the opinion that they SHOULD not protest thats very different than the idea that it is somehow WRONG or an infringement of someone's rights for them to do so.

My concern has nothing to do with the Dixie Chicks frankly. My issue is what kind of a signal does this action send to the rest of the industry, and how will it affect the ability of others, and not necessarily just musicians, to express their views in the future?

Detroit Dave and MtG seem to be the only ones so far who understand where I'm coming from. Will economic pressure be used to force everyone to toe the line, and follow the herd? How many musicians will be afraid to speak out about anything at all if they feel that they're careers will be destroyed because of it. Will this type of action spread if no one speaks out, until it also starts affecting television and movie production? It's happened once before, it can happen again, if people are willing to accept it. Which it seems they are if the responses on this forum are any indication.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh... so is pretty much every other product/service.

Just like the musicians "product"

I guess you just fail to see the distinction between a communication product and some car that rolls off the assembly line. It's all just about money with you isn't it?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
My concern has nothing to do with the Dixie Chicks frankly. My issue is what kind of a signal does this action send to the rest of the industry, and how will it affect the ability of others, and not necessarily just musicians, to express their views in the future?

And again... why should musicians be any different than anybody else in the public eye. You speak in public, and deal with what happens... it's that simple.

Nothing is stopping them from airing their views. NOTHING.

But if you want to claim the economics is stopping them, then don't radio stations have the same rights?

There is NO CENSORSHIP HERE... just choices. If you piss your fans off and lose some money in the deal, whose choice is that... Unless you are saying that only musicians shouldn't be held accountable for what the say in public. Because that's all you seem to be saying... that they have more rights than anybody else.

Again... show where any actual Censorship is...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
It's all just about money with you isn't it?

Uhhh... no, that's your argument.
You are saying that bands should be able to say what they want and somebody else besides them should lose money because of it.

My argument is that EVERYBODY, including radio stations have rights.

And I'm saying EVERYBODY has the right to say what they want in public... but have to live with what happens.

I'm for free speech and no censorship... You seem to be arguing for giving musicians special rights at the expense of others.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Ming
Uhhh... so is pretty much every other product/service.

Just like the musicians "product"

But radio stations are different in that they are granted a license to use something that doesn't belong to then, i.e. the public's airwaves.

Radio stations used to have some responsibilites regarding how they used them.

[Ming]

And they still do have those same responsibities... And they are still enforced.

But please explain how not playing music that their audience doesn't want to hear as violating those responsibilities.

It's the same thing as not playing bad music that their audience doesn't want to hear...

They ARE living up to their responsibility BY NOT PLAYING IT.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
My argument is that EVERYBODY, including radio stations have rights.

My argument is that radio stations have an obligation to present both sides of the issue in a fair and unbiased manner, just like you have an obligation to ensure that everyone on this forum has the opportunity of expressing themselves equally, and be treated fairly for their views. I don't see why you have such a problem with that.

The Dixie Chicks see things one way, their fans see it another. Sorry that the radio stations had to get caught in the middle; that happens sometimes in life. And some of them sure have handled the pressure well haven't they? They ran for cover at the first sign of trouble. How commendable!

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
My argument is that radio stations have an obligation to present both sides of the issue in a fair and unbiased manner

When it comes to the news, I would agree...

But when it comes down to what songs they play... they have the right to play what their audiences want to hear. They also have the right to promote themselves so that they can make a profit.

You want to take that right away. You want to give special rights to musicians. You want the radio stations to lose money based on actions of others, while protecting musicians from their own actions.

But you don't want to address those points...

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Ming

But please explain how not playing music that their audience doesn't want to hear as violating those responsibilities.

Because I don't hear groups of fans spontaneously assembling to burn CDs. Usually, it's some DJ informing the audience "Hey' did you hear what so and so said? We know you don't want to hear that kind of thing, so we're not going to play their music anymore."

[Ming]

Originally posted by Static23
Because I don't hear groups of fans spontaneously assembling to burn CDs. Usually, it's some DJ informing the audience "Hey' did you hear what so and so said? We know you don't want to hear that kind of thing, so we're not going to play their music anymore."

Ahhh... so musicians can have opinins, and nobody else can. And it was the FANS that started the boycott, and the radio stations went along with them... which is THEIR RIGHT.

If they wish to use it to promote themselves with THEIR audiences... that is ALSO THEIR RIGHT.

Again, why should musicians have "special" rights that protect them when they say things in public when others don't?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming


When it comes to the news, I would agree...

So simply dealing with an issue as serious as war is irrelevant to you is it? Who cares if the public is getting all the information they need to form an intelligent opinion, as long the bottom line isn't affected.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Ming

Again, why should musicians have "special" rights that protect them when they say things in public when others don't?

You've revealed youself here, Ming. The Dixie Chicks would have been alright if they'd just kept their mouths shut.

There's the free market solution to free speech in a nutshell.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
So simply dealing with an issue as serious as war is irrelevant to you is it? Who cares if the public is getting all the information they need to form an intelligent opinion, as long the bottom line isn't affected.

You keep trying to make this an issue about the war... and it isn't...

You keep saying that all I care about is the bottom line...
When you are the one supporting special rights for musicians so that their bottom line isn't effected because of their own actions..

And please explain how this is stopping the public from getting the information they need to form an intelleigent opinion... oh that's right, it isn't... you are just trying to justify the bottom line for musicians at the expense of all others. You are trying to use this very serious War for your own agenda... so who is the one not taking this War seriously

It looks like you fell off your high horse pages ago in this thread

[Lawrence of Arabia]

hey take it easy you two - chill or be chilled.

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Static23

Quote:

Originally posted by Ming Again, why should musicians have "special" rights that protect them when they say things in public when others don't?

You've revealed youself here, Ming. The Dixie Chicks would have been alright if they'd just kept their mouths shut.

There's the free market solution to free speech in a nutshell.

Jeez, that's a trolling disaster...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Static23
You've revealed youself here, Ming. The Dixie Chicks would have been alright if they'd just kept their mouths shut.

There's the free market solution to free speech in a nutshell.

Again... did anybody try to stop them from saying how they feel...

Is anybody trying to stop them from saying their opinions in the future...

NO, and NO... That's what we call free speech.

If fans want to react to what they said and make a statement about their own opinions, we also call that free speech.

And if people no longer want to buy their cd's or listen to them, that's freedom of choice.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
You keep trying to make this an issue about the war... and it isn't...

Certainly it is. She tried to express her dissatisfaction with the current policies of her government, Bush in particular. Very poorly perhaps, but her intent was certainly clear to me.

When you are the one supporting special rights for musicians so that their bottom line isn't effected because of their own actions..

Geez, again with your mantra!

And please explain how this is stopping the public from getting the information they need to form an intelleigent opinion...

One side of the issue was silenced by the other. How is that supposed to stimulate debate and discussion?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
One side of the issue was silenced by the other. How is that supposed to stimulate debate and discussion?

Uhhh... when was one side silenced... BOTH SIDES still are discussing the issue... The band can still say anything they want. Many Radio Stations are still playing their songs... Many people are still listening to their music... The discussion continues in all forms of media... Neither side has been "silenced"

But what I find is funny is that since they realized their income was dropping, they apologized for their remarks... So much for their ideals... they think money is more important than the war

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Neither side has been "silenced"

Aah Ming, the absence of sound is silence. Their songs aren't being played, therefore they've been silenced, at least in some markets. Or are you using a different dictionary than I am?

But what I find is funny is that since they realized their income was dropping, they apologized for their remarks... So much for their ideals... they think money is more important than the war

Yes, I was rather disappointed by their retraction myself, I would have liked to see them stick to their guns. So much for setting an example to others! If they're going to shoot their mouth off, they should at least stick to their convictions afterwards. I guess the radio station people aren't the only ones lacking guts.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Willem
Aah Ming, the absence of sound is silence. Their songs aren't being played, therefore they've been silenced, at least in some markets. Or are you using a different dictionary than I am?

There isn't a SINGLE radio market in the country where you can't pick up a station that is still playing their music.
So that isn't what I would call "being silenced"

Yes, I was rather disappointed by their retraction myself, I would have liked to see them stick to their guns.

But you continue to defend these gutless wonders...

At least the radio stations and the fans have stuck to their guns on this issue. They aren't buying into this apology stuff... they see that money is the only real thing important to this band... so they are continuing their protected right with their economic sanctions... since they now have proof that it is just all about money to the band.

[SlowwHand]

I have to say, I'm ashamed The Dixie Chicks are from Texas.

[korn469]

Originally posted by Ming
And again... this isn't about free expression. NOBODY is stopping them from playing their music... selling cd's...
It's just some people have decided with their OWN FREE EXPRESSION not to support them with dollars or time anymore.

There is no CENSORSHIP here... You can still HEAR THEM ON RADIO STATIONS... and still buy their CD's... and they weren't arrested.

Ming I disagree!
I think that corporations control the flow of information and that they can act in a way that has the same effect as government censorship

for example clear channel's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.4 billion dollars
http://www.clearchannel.com/document...gs_2002_4Q.pdf

while Pakistan's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.9 billion
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...elds/2056.html

if america truly was a utopian perfect competition type market place it'd be one thing, but we have an oligopoly in the US radio market

if clear channel and the other major players take the Dixie Chix off of their play list, you don't hear their music anymore and it's de facto censorship

the same thing happens when the major retailers don't stock a cd

corporations should have to obey the constitution and they should not have the power to limit personal freedoms, especially when they have far more power than that wielded by the government when they were drafting the constitution

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
There isn't a SINGLE radio market in the country where you can't pick up a station that is still playing their music.
So that isn't what I would call "being silenced"

Yes, fortunately there are some stations that aren't willing to allow their hysterical listeners to sway their policies:

"One of the country stations in Dallas that helped champion the Chicks when they were scraping by in that city playing gigs on street corners for tips, "99.5 The Wolf," said they are listening to the listener's views but do not think it is right to immediately jump on the bandwagon and stop playing the Chicks, said program director Paul Williams."

Emphasis mine.

But you continue to defend these gutless wonders...

No I'm trying to speak out against this:

''The majority of our calls are from listeners who are upset and concerned with Natalie not backing our leader, our president,'' said DJ Dennis Mitchell, of Cat Country 106.7 in Harrisburg, Penn.

And this:

"Station managers said their decisions were prompted by calls from irate listeners who thought criticism of the president was unpatriotic."

Just because someone is a public figure doesn't mean that they must be a lap dog to the current administration. Everyone's entitled to hold their own political views, even pop icons.

[Verto]

So companies should be forced to sell everything, regardless of that product's quality, content, reputation, use, etc?

[korn469]

Originally posted by Verto
So companies should be forced to sell everything, regardless of that product's quality, content, reputation, use, etc?

this isn't about the quality of the Dixie Chix music (or lack there of ) but instead on the thoughts of their lead singer, which are quite tame as far as denounciations go

companies do have to follow guidelines when selling products, for example they can't sell pillow cases made out of abestos for example, it's one thing if the fans boycott them, that's freedom of expression which all people are entitled to, it's another thing if a corporation blacklists them, corporations AREN'T people and don't (or shouldn't) have the same rights as individuals

[Arrian]

for example clear channel's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.4 billion dollars
http://www.clearchannel.com/documen...ngs_2002_4Q.pdf

while Pakistan's yearly revenues for 2002 was 8.9 billion
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications...ields/2056.html

First off, revenue does not equal profit. Second, 8.9 billion goes a LOT further in Pakistan than it does here.

Third, and more to the point, even if the numbers were comparable... so what? Clearchannel (whose programming I generally dislike and thus do not listen to more than once and a while) is a business. Businesses are motivated by profit. If you want them to abide by a higher standard, you are going to have to legislate what they can, cannot, and/or MUST put on the air. Who controls that? The government. Oh, MUCH better.

-Arrian