Dixie Chicks and Freedom of Speech

by Stephanus 32 Replies latest jw friends

  • lovelylil

    ABC had the right to say whatever they want. The only limits on freedom of speech are: that it does not cause physical harm to any other citizen, such as yelling fire in a crowed place when people can get hurt trying to flee. And we cannot slander another person. If we do, they can sue us. This is according to the laws of this country. They are not my personal opinion.

    If people boycott ABC they would be trying to censor them and that would be wrong. I'm not saying they won't do it - and I am not saying they can't do it. I am saying they should not do it.

    The thing about our Country that makes others want to live her is our freedoms. Most of which we take for granted or do not fully understand how they work. By keeping free speech totally "free", we are protecting all of our citizen's rights - not only the Dixie chicks.

    But as you see in the Dixie Chicks case - this is good in theory but not always in practice. When people's emotions come into play, they do not think clearly. If we censor the Chicks or anyone else, we open the door to censor others as well. Possibly even you in the future. Lilly

  • frozen one
    frozen one

    My understanding is that speech is "free" in the US in the sense that the government cannot stop someone from expressing themselves with a few exceptions. There is no guarantee of free speech between individual people. People pay a price for expressing themselves. For example, if I were to make a comment to someone in the bar and they took offense, I could expect to pay a price ranging from icy silence to beging hit with a pool cue to ending up in court. If someone doesn't buy Dixie Chicks products because of a political statement, that is there business. If a privately owned radio station stopped playing Dixie Chicks music, that is their business. I like the Dixie Chicks and buy their product. I thought what Natalie Maines (?) said wasn't that big of a deal, but whatever. Apparently other people did.

  • Justice-One

    They have the right to speak their mind, and I have the right to use their CD's as targets.

  • Nancy Drake
    Nancy Drake

    I think that if Natalie had made a statement like that right now...there wouldn't be as much of a backlash as there was a couple years ago when she said that.

  • smellsgood

    I'll be honest with you. If I find a certain celebrity annoying, dumb, pampered, etc. I will get exceedingly irritated when they spout certain views off. Look, we know you're all politically correct hoosiers.

    But, if its somebody I like, respect, admire, and isn't pompous or pampered in their celebrityhood, I am more likely to give an ear.

  • Jankyn

    Well, I never would have discovered their music if it wasn't for the "backlash." I listened, I liked, I bought. Others listened, hated, and burned. That's freedom.

    I also listen to Steve Earle, James McMurtry, Nanci Griffith--see a pattern? Left-leaning alt-country. It's good stuff, if it's your bag. If not, there's always Toby Keith. Free country, right?


  • Country Girl
    Country Girl

    Follow the money.

    Where the money is, that's where Freedom of Speech shall be found. Money talks, bullsh*t walks, as the saying goes.


  • funkyderek


    If the ONLY reason you refuse to buy their cd's is because they SAID something you do not like - so you want to send them a message NOT to say anything like that again - that is a form of censorship.

    It is not censorship. Only the government can censor people.

    As you are putting "a condition" on their right to free speech.

    Not at all. You're simply acting freely on the information they have given you. If somebody says my mother is a whore, they're not getting invited to my party. They might be great fun to have at a party, but they're still not coming, for that one reason. It doesn't mean they don't have freedom of speech. It simply means there are consequences to saying certain things.

    In other words - You are saying they can have "free speech" as long as they don't say something we do not like. If you do, you will have reprecussions. Than the "free" is not "free" if it comes with attachments.

    No, I think what's being said is that they have the absolute right to free speech, but we as individuals and consumers have the right to form an opinion of them based on what they say, and to act on that opinion.

    This is the same arguement I used on the other thread and I stick by it. Unless someone else can prove that my view of "free" is wrong? Lilly

    I hope I've done that. It's completely wrong. Free speech laws protect individuals from government censorship. They do not give someone the right to say whatever they wish without consequence. Such a right would restrict other people's rights.

    I am only saying if (Individual) Americans want to say that our country is the land where "free speech" is allowed, they have to be more open minded and not get all bent out of shape by every stupid comment someone makes. And then start boycotting what that person is trying to make a living by selling. Do you understand? If they do this - they are taking the "free" out of free. Free means your choice is free from any reprecussions at all.

    It really doesn't and never has. The Dixie Chicks are free to express their opinions about anyone - even a negative opinion about the leader of their country. That is a remarkable and wonderful thing, and it should be applauded that nobody would even think of trying to have them arrested for saying it. They are not - and cannot be - free from any repercussions. My freedom of speech includes the right to say "Boycott the Dixie Chicks" or to turn up outside their concerts and boo them, and my freedom of action includes the right not to purchase their products, which I can choose to do for the most trivial of reasons.

  • lovelylil

    Hi Derek,

    I understand what you are saying about free speech laws but we americans make and vote for the laws. My point by playing devil's advocate is that we cannot have it both ways. We advertise our country as being one where we have much freedom and we do, so lets keep it that way. If there is enough public outcry, people will try to change the laws.

    For instance if enough people hold power to do so, they could make a law saying we have freedom of speech but not enough not to speak against the president. The freedoms we have today can change if enough people want them to change.

    I was just saying I am glad we have free speech here and thats why I try not to censor anyone. And I believe you are wrong with censorship. Censoring speech would be putting any restraints on another person's speech. By not buying the Chick's cds just because we did not like what they say, we are putting restraints on them. We are saying as a country that "you will not be able to thrive and support yourself here, unless you stop saying negative things about Bush f course this is not the same as not buying them because we don't like them. I was only addressing those who like them but will not buy any more cds "just" because of what they said about Bush. Lilly

  • SixofNine

    "and it should be applauded that nobody would even think of trying to have them arrested for saying it."

    lol, ok.

Share this