Wamprye and Bobo are totally Sweet! And when I say sweet I mean Awesome!

Hanrow,

I wasn't trying to open a can of worms, I was trying to get opinions on a subject allegedly about free speech.

While you are correct in saying that this is a government, of, by and for the people, that does not fit the context of the Bill of Rights, and the protection provided thereof. The Bill of Rights protects us from Government officials, government actions, laws, etc., NOT the actions of private individuals or companies. It's fairly clear.

However, in this case, "the people" are not "refusing to protect it". Several people have come out, including their record label (go figure), saying they acted under the banner of free speech. Though I disagree with their statement, I "defend their right to say it" (how cliche). In fact, I have yet to hear anyone say they shouldn't be able to speak their opinion, though I wouldn't doubt if there were some people out there who may have said that, which brings me to my next concern.

It doesn't appear you are much of a supporter of free speech, if you would tell the DC "opponents" (as it were) to stop making a big fuss about it if the don't like the comments. (The old shut up if you don't like thing I guess) I could be wrong, and would open the opportunity for you to clarify. It may be a dead issue to you, but it's not a dead issue to a lot of folks when a month after the fact the appear nude on the front cover of a national magazine (May 2 issue of Entertainment Weekly), for the expressed purpose of bringing the topic well back into the light.



~SDC~

If there is one thing I am asick of is celebrities speaking out about thei rtopic of teh day on teh grounds thay have some sort of social responsibility to do so. hey jusy because you are rich and famous doesnt mean you a) voice opinion c) intelligence is better than that of anyone else. What celebs say has no mor eand no less value than that of the avegare joe. the only reason difference is they get air time. Indeed IMHO celebs usually are so removed from reality; by nature of their wealth and "society" logic that one could argue that they're world view is actually less grounded.

Just because one is rich an famous does not give one any greater sort of moral, legal, intellectual vision of truth or justice. Indeed given how celebs often behave I have hard time sometimes beleving that their opinions have any bearing on reality at all.

Despite that logic I; adevrstisers have my argument beat; celebrity endorsements are still the rage simply because ther will always be a segment of society that Looks up to" celebs as having a monopoly on truth. They worship teh spin doctore dimage; try to fashion themselves into that and gain more and more distant from their own reality. Any wonder why some folsk think modern western society is so messe dup by consuerism.

dawg

Pontius,

"I'm not boycotting Bull Durham (the second greatest sports movie ever) over Susan am I?"

You made a choice, others make different choices based on their own motivations.

"If I boycotted everyone who disagreed with me on anything, I'd have to boycott all of the dang products out there. It borders on the ridiculous. I mean where did we get this stupid notion that we must punish everyone who disagrees with us merely for disagreeing with us?"

This is not an issue of "all or nothing". Consistency alone is not evidence for or against idiocy. There is no "stupid notion" that we "must" punish everyone because of disagreement. There are specific instances where it happens sometimes, in light of certain circumstances, and based on different peoples ability to tolerate things, or not as the case may be.

Its patently smart to hold people accountable for their words and actions. The "yelling fire in a crowded movie house" analogy comes to mind. Yes, I agree that their specific statement was not the same in it's level of seriousness, but the priniciple holds in my opinion. And there is nothing about this that leads to a totalitarian government. Its nothing more than considering who your fans are before opening your mouth and saying something you will regret later.

~SDC~

I agree that it is just a desperate attempt to save face. They stuck their foot in their mouths. The Commander-in-Chief of our country made a choice, as an American you support it. Period. Let em live over there, then let them talk.

Look at Madonna and her new BS. She is now putting down the very method she achieved fame with. She is trying to be the Leave It To Beaver mom now after doing whatever it took to get rich. NOW she is putting down that very "do whatever it takes" method she used forever. Basically, they are all hypocrates.

I found this on the Battlefront board, what the "government" (or President Bush to be more specific) said with regards to the DC's. An interview with Tom Brokaw from last week;

Brokaw: One of the things that you said was that you wanted to liberate the Iraqi people so they could speak their minds. But in this country, when some people spoke their minds when it happened to be in opposition of the war, they got jumped on by a lot of folks.

President Bush: Oh, I don’t think so.

Brokaw: Well, the Dixie Chicks, for example. Would you have them come to the White House?

President Bush: I mean, the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say. And just because - they shouldn’t have their feelings hurt just because some people don’t want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street. But I have - 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, by the way.

Here is a link to the article: http://www.msnbc.com/news/905108.asp?0cv=CA01

Doesn't sound like the government censoring them to me.

~SDC~

Comparing the DC haters to Nazis is a poor choice. As nmeister2u has pointed out there is a difference between goverment and the private sector. The goverment is not sponsering any kind of action for or against the DC, it is solely in the private sector, hence a comarison to the Nazis, a political party with goverment support is waaaay off base.

Furthermore, while its fine to say that no one should pay any mind to the drivel that spews forth from celebrites, its ignorant at best to think that no one does. What's the difference between their drivel and the drivel that we are spewing here? The difference is the audiance, and (even if you don't want to admit it) the mere fact that you are an 'important' person does lend a certain amount of credibility to whatever you say. If we just let the celebrites off the hook by never making them understand that there is a consequence for speaking off the cuff, then they will simply feed on that indifference and become more aggresive with their statments, and begin to lobby as political entities (Barbra Streisand anyone?) with no more knowlegde or wisdom than any of us here posses (well probably less actually ).

The responce to the DCs should have been expected, there is nothing sinister about it, its just the common man expressing his discontent about whatever it is that he's pi$$ed about. That he is free to do so only scores the point that the DCs were free to do so, and that you are free to critisize him, while I am free to critisize your critique... endless isn't it? LOL

Wow, another political thread =P

So, my thoughts in brief:

The Dixie Chicks have the right to critisize the President or say anything else they want. (With the usual exceptions of "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre, etc)

Everyone else has the right to choose to buy or not to buy Dixie Chicks records, or burn them, or buy them and then burn them although that would be rather stupid.

Despite the fact that everyone has the right to do that, choosing to say that critisizing the president is unamerican and unpatriotic is stupid, and taking actions based on that belief is even more stupid. One of the founding principles of of the US was the right and _duty_ to critisze our leaders, to question what's going on. That's what democracy is all about. It's not democracy if you just let the people currently in charge tell you what to think and blindly go along with it.

I was glad at first that the Dixie Chicks stood up against public opinion and voiced their own opinions. Then they caved and started apologizing for what they said, which made me think less of them.

Wrath of Dog:

I think it's stupid that celebrities get more attention paid to them than your average joe in terms of political views and beliefs. Unfortunatly it's true, and it's not really the celebrities fault. Everyone wants their views listened to, look at everyone shouting out their opinions here! It's not really the celebrities fault that when they say something there are instantly reporters with cameras there to record what they say and millions of americans who choose to listen to it.

I suppose celebrities could just choose not to express their views, but A: like i said, they're just doing what you and i do all the time, it seems unfair to try and force them not to express their views just because of their position, B: it's like the Prisoners' Dilema. Any one artist or group of artists could choose to be quiet about their views, but all that means is that their views won't be heard while other celebrities speak out anyway. And if people only hear one side of a view being expressed they tend to think that it's the only view, so any celebrities who choose to remain silent aren't really reducing america's obsession with celebrities' opinions, they're just shooting their own cause in the foot.

The way to fix the problem is not to get celebrities to shut up, but to make sure that everyone else is heard. Unfortunatly i have no idea as to how to accomplish that

Well put, Daetrinn. The issue isn't whether the DC were free to say what they did, or that their former fans aren't free to do what they've done, it's that those former fan's are doing it out some sense of outrage that what they did was un-American when nothing could be farther from the truth. In that sense, it does become a free speech issue because I've heard people express some pretty serious death wishes against the DC over the fact that they had the audacity to criticize the president.

Good lord, if what they was worth a death threat from these yokels, I'm certainly glad I generally keep my mouth shut about political matters in public or I'd be drawn and quartered on the spot

I'm sorry, how did the DCs statement critisize Bush? Well give it context and maybe it did, but theres a difference between a reasoned critism and some ad hoc statement to the effect that you think so and so or such and such is an idiot.

The responce to the DCs may not be any better in reason than their first statement, but so what? The stones that flew from the DCs and their detractors appear to have been motivated by emotion (though some will conjecture that the DCs words were a publicity stunt), how are we to put bounds on this kind of emotion? Calling it stupid or whatever only feeds the fire, much as calling the anti-war crowd unpatriotic fans their fire.

I'd agree with one thing, I wish celebs would just shut up.

I don't care what they say or do. I don't listen to them anyway.

RE: vernmeister2u

Howdy,

1) Have I actually tried to suppress your right to speak by attacking this board or you personally? If all opinions are allowed, I'm also allowed the opinion that everybody involved in this argument, pro and con, including myself should get back to playing Galciv. (My comments weren't meant only for the opponents, it was meant for everybody, though, your comment about the DC's themselves bring the subject back up are well taken.)

2) The Constitution of the US is only worth the value that people put in it. Face it, otherwise, it's just a piece of paper. If society as a whole doesn't value it, how can expect government (elected, and supposedly reflecting that society's views) to value it? I'm well aware that it 'legally' only applies to the government -- I'm just pointing out that ethically, if we do not uphold those values, how can expect the government to? After all, the goverment IS us. (Or you. I suppose I should point out my point of view is that of a Canadian, and I have my own Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I have to uphold and defend. )

Look, I'm not trying to offend anybody, and I'm not out to troll or inflame. My main point still stands; in my opinion, given what other more public people have said about the war, the backlash against the group was out of the ordinary and overblown. People have the right to boycott, but, I have the right to question whether or not a boycott is appropriate. *shrug*

Okay, I'll shut up now.

Since everyone's talking, I'll jump on the bandwagon. I don't particularly like President Bush, the Dixie Chicks or country/western music. I do think that boycotting the Dixie Chicks over some lame remarks is on par with the whole "freedom fries" sillyness. Makes us look foolish to the world at large.

~SDC~

Edit: Silliness.

~SDC~

Goo dpoint daetrin.
However my idea here is not so much that celebs have no right to speak is that they make two very presumptive ideas when they speak.
1) what they say has some greater inherent truth - based on the old Calvinist inspired notion that those who are successful have been imbued with some kind of greater grace and throught that a superior understanding that allows them "pass on the message" to the masses like Moses descending from the mount.

2) That through using precept #1 they tend to codescendingly believe that they speak for not just themselves but for soem segment of society. Thsi is especially the case when those selfsame celebs get more famous because they take stand on an issue that gives them more gloss; than the issue they represent; or blatantly misrepresnt the issue. Secondly, related to this is the notion that they are natural spokespeople for whatever constituency they choose.

dawg

Hanrow,

I'm not trying to make you shut up, it was not meant that way. I criticized what appeared to be a contradictory opinion, giving you the option to explain further, which you did.

However;
"2) The Constitution of the US is only worth the value that people put in it. Face it, otherwise, it's just a piece of paper. If society as a whole doesn't value it, how can expect government (elected, and supposedly reflecting that society's views) to value it? I'm well aware that it 'legally' only applies to the government -- I'm just pointing out that ethically, if we do not uphold those values, how can expect the government to? After all, the goverment IS us. (Or you. I suppose I should point out my point of view is that of a Canadian, and I have my own Charter of Rights and Freedoms that I have to uphold and defend. )"

The people put LOTS of value in that piece of paper, hence all the lawsuits against the government (federal state and local) alleging civil rights abuses. Most people in the US revere the constitution, IMO. I know police officers who have been sued / tried for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of others. We have all seen high profile stories about the governments abuses of the people, which are then addressed in courts with constitutional jurisdiction. It's not a matter that the people don't hold the Bill of Rights in high regard just because they exercise their rights in opposition of other people exercising their rights. It is the fact that it is so highly valued that people exercise their right NOT to support the DC by giving them their hard earned money.

The logical progression of this, in my mind, is that if I can't refuse to buy someones products based on something IMPORTANT (to me) (which keep in mind as I said before, I do have all their CD's and DVD's and I'm personally not likely to boycott them at this point), like political ideas, how can I then refuse to buy a product on some smaller grounds, such as I don't like the lyrics or the backbeat? What grounds are sufficient NOT to buy something you don't want? Do you go out and buy music you don't like just to support the free speech of the artist? Do you set some criteria on your purchases, whether you agree with another person' criteria or not, before you spend your money on something. People pay money to the Dixie Chicks because they like their music, not because they want to hear their political views. In all honesty, there are artists I won't support because of the use of their celebrity status to promote politics, Alec Baldwin and Susan Sarandon being high on that list. Yes, they are fine actors, but they contribute to causes that I dont share, therefore, they will not get my money. Which brings me to another way to look at this:

(yes, it's a bit of a stretch, but I think it happens) Would you contribute money to a political cause you didn't believe in? If I support an artist who espouses a political belief, there's a fair chance they contribute money to causes that I don't share. Indirectly, me giving them money consequently contributes to that cause as well. Am I not allowed to NOT support something I don't believe in, while still recognizing the power and importance of the Bill of Rights?

~SDC~

Bobo tired of Dixie Chick talk. All people have good points Sometime Bobo agree, sometime not. Who cares? Bobo not care much anynmore. One time people say Bobo have good point. Then say too bad it top of Bobo head. People say that joke. Bobo not laugh but when Bobo see head in mirror, it true. Bobo loose thought train now. Think too hard. Change subject.
Bobo want to talk about SINEAD OCONNOR now!! Bobo sad Sinead quit. Bobo not be sad Sinead quit until Sinead make big stink about quit. Before big stink about all bad attention Sinead get, Bobo FORGET about Sinead. Not think about for years. Now Bobo sad. Him now miss all wonderful music Sinead made. Never again to hear. Bobo not think of any songs right now. Him need more time. Maybe come back later with songs. Maybe not. Head hurt. Maybe go on tire swing now.

Daetrinn,

We are pretty close to agreement here, unlike or previous political idea exchanges. Welcome to the thread.

My only disagreement with you comments are some of the things you characterize as stupid, but that really doesn't matter to me.

I wouldn't choose to censor artists for expressing their views either. I rather like the system as it is. Say or do something I disagree with and I reserve the right to place my support elsewhere. I believe that is a good check and balance system. It often separates those with true convictions from those who just like to run off at the mouth to cause hate and discontent.

My only significant disagreement with your comments are that they weren't doing what we do every day. I don't know how many times you have been on the cover of Entertainment Weekly, in concert in front of the world, on variety of talk and news shows, but I sure haven't had those experiences. Because of their status, they have a significantly larger exposure than you or me. They *may* be ambushed sometimes, but they also use their celebrity status as well to their benefit. And when they made their initial comment, their weren't reporters that ambushed them while they were off-guard, they were in front of thousands of people with cameras running that they KNEW were there when they expressed their viewpoint. They took a (poorly) calculated risk, which backfired.

By all means, let them speak freely. But as with everything else, sometimes you have to take the good with the bad, the consequences with the reward. I can only have so much sympathy for their plight, considering how many income tax brackets my salary is below theirs, and given that my job frequently puts my life at risk. (No, that's not a complaint, I chose my profession knowing this, its just a comparison) Their not hurting for cash, they just ain't racking in the piles quite as large as before.

Shouldn't there be consequences to our speech sometimes? I think so. This forum is a good example. Do you not judge a person's intelligence and credibility by what they write in this forum? Is it not a consequence if you come to the conclusion that they are stupid or are liars? (I'm sure this post is having that effect on people ) Whether it's monetary or thoughts or feelings, we ALL suffer consequences from some of the things that come out of our mouths.

Let me make it abundantly clear, I don't support criminal action being taken against them for what they said. If I had a chance, I'd lock those people up myself, and with probable cause, I can do that. Civilly, however, they are reaping what they sowed.

~SDC~

Does Bobo like the Cranberries? I like the Cranberries. Sure, they aren't like Sinead, but they are irish, right?

Theres a mixture of politics in music that has enjoyed a moderate degree of success.

~SDC~

Vernmeister2u,

"Am I not allowed to NOT support something I don't believe in, while still recognizing the power and importance of the Bill of Rights? "

Of course. But, here's the analogous question, at what point am I expressing my opinion on something, and at what point am I tramping on somebody else's rights?

If a million people decide not to buy something, that's democracy at work. If those million people decide to burn things and make threats, I think there's something there that needs to be examined. (For example, I have a feeling that, if people were burning American flags as opposed to Dixie Chick's CDs, this argument would be running in completely different directions. ) And if the Corus Radio Network or some other major corporation takes action that implicitly supports it, then, I think there's a real problem here.

Free speech is not an absolute right, it is relative. I'm the first to recognize that. I guess I'm just trying to highlight the responsibility all people have; our goal should not just be to make our own opinion heard, but to foster an environment where all our opinions can be heard without reprecussion. And, in this particular case, I don't think that's what happened. *shrug*

Oh, and just to make something clear (because I know there are people reading this thread who are thinking in), I was in favour of the military action in Iraq. This isn't me being a sore loser.

JGH

Hmm, people boycott companies all the time, for god knows what reasons. If we look at the DC as a company, which in a way they are, the boycott of their product because they took an unpopular stand (with the boycotters) is completely natural and understandable. The death threats and actual vandalism of their property is another matter, but note that their cds (almost said DC CDs) are not their property, they are the propertiy of whomever purchases it, and as such those people can do whatever they want with their property. It would be different if mobs were going into Sam Goody and simply smashing DC CDs (there I did it) on the racks.

I understand that there is a feeling that the DC haters took it too far with their boycott and CD smashing, but really what else are they to do? The DC are in the spotlight, their fans and former fans are not. If you want to make a public statment, like the DC did, then you have take public action. So long as that action is not illegal (which none of the boycott or smashings were) so what?

-- From #2, Camp Freddie
I just find it odd that the comment 'Sometimes I feel ashamed that George Bush comes from Texas', which was later retracted, can cause such a stir in America.
--

There are a couple of reasons for this. A lot of it stems from the American idea of patriotism. As you may know, a lot of American history, especially the early history and revolutionary times, contains a couple of men who would be considered patriots, lovers of their country. School children here are taught basically to idolize these men, which is why the name recognition of such patriots as Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln (I know, not a revolutionary, but still), George Washington, etc., is much higher than that of many recent Presidents such as Ronald Raegen and Jimmy Carter. Also, school-children are taught to revile anyone considered traitor to the country; case-in-point, Benedict Arnold, to the extent that to call someone a "Benedict Arnold," is to call them a traitor.

The result of this is that we don't like people who express their negative opinions about our country in general, and especially when they are expressing it to a foreign population, and -especially- when we are at war or some other sort of crisis. Now, with the postmodernism that is quickly overtaking the country (and this is not a bad thing either), patriotism will likely begin dying down a little bit.

Second, there is an element of diplomatic etiquette involved. It is considered extremely improper for citizens of one country to insult leaders of their own country to members of another country, especially through mass media. This is true of every country in the world. Naturally, the press is slightly immune from this, and it doesn't mean that citizens of other countries cannot insult leaders of our country, but we are supposed to keep it in the family, so to speak.

Lastly, many feel indignant that anyone who sings love songs for a living could profess to be intelligent enough to second-guess the President who has had an extremely high level university eductation. Especially if the many we are talking about (your average country music fan) picked the President. There is a definite negative reaction to celebrities expressing their opinions on politics, even among people who hold the same opinion, because over here, most celebrities are perceived to be less intelligent than your average person (whether or not this is true is immaterial, and I will decline to express an opinion on that issue).

Hanrow,

"Let me make it abundantly clear, I don't support criminal action being taken against them for what they said. If I had a chance, I'd lock those people up myself, and with probable cause, I can do that. Civilly, however, they are reaping what they sowed."

That was what I said two posts above yours. I think we are in agreement on that. But me (or anyone else) not spending our money on something we don't wish to support is not "trampling on someone elses rights."

What our "goal" should or should not be is a matter of some subjectivity, and you, like the next guy, certainly have an opinion on how things "should be". I don't agree that all opinions should be heard in all circumstances, anytime, any place, without reprecussion. I think that focuses too much on rights, and neglects the other side of rights, which is responsibilities. Should President Bush be able to come on TV and state to the world that the Prime Minister of France is a stupid, wimpy, ignorant f***, and be free from reprecussion? (not stating my opinion, just making an analogy) When Trent Lott expressed his views on Strom Thurman (sp?), where were the free speech advocates then? There were plenty of people calling for his head. Granted, he did have some defenders, but in the end, he paid a price for his words.


~SDC~

vernmeister2u:

When i said that they do the same things we do, i meant it from a certain philisophical standpoint. They speak out about issues they belive in, you and i speak out about issues we beleive in. In a certain sense whether or not there's a reporter there taking notes or running film for an interview isn't an action they are taking, it's an action the reporters are taking. I don't think the knoweldge that the reporters are listening to them is causing them to speak out, after all, we have no problem motivating ourself to do so with just a dozen or so other people in the thread paying attention.

However...

Wrath_of_Dog:

Agreed, some celebrities probably get inflated ideas about their own importance, which annoys the heck out of me. However i do actually believe that some of them don't believe that they themselves are any more important, but choose to advertise their views knowing that they will be heard more then less-famous people who share the same views.

One group is a bunch of arrogant assholes, the other is just doing their best to deal with the the scrwed up world that mass-media has created. Unfortunatly it's often not easy to tell which group a particulary celebrity belongs in.

all i know is this...

1)Dub-Yuh is the worst president *EVER*
2)He has an IQ of 5
3)I'm pretty sure he's the anti-christ

And I too am embarrased that our President is from TexAss, however, unlike the Dixie Chicks, I'm not embarrased because I'm from TexAss, I'm embarrased because only idiots and loosers come from TexAss.