Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Mon 13/05/24 10:39:20 GMT |
Message # 17011.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic Date: Fri 08/07/05 13:16:26 GMT Name: Desert Hawk |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
The Democrat Chicks (as I call them) were banned from last year's Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, but they made up for it by appearing in the "rock for change" concert series to benefit John Kerry for president! What a waste of time that turned out to be! (thank God)! |
In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1) Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic
By G.O.P. - Fri 08/07/05 13:00:28 GMT It does have a lot to do with marketplace demand. The audience for country music is majority conservative. Countyr listeners are mostly happy with radio stations' not playing the Dixie Chicks, but rock fans still want to hear Chrissie Hynde and the Pretenders, Bruce Springsteen, and Green Day. Just like the audience for talk radio is overwhelmingly conservatice, and that's why Rush Limbaugh and other conservative shows are hits, but liberal talk shows bomb in the ratings. Like it or not, marketplace economics largely determine who gets heard. |
In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1.1.1.1.1) Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic
By Paul - Fri 08/07/05 08:03:50 GMT I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, here, and I hope I've respectful of your opinions. But let's look at the facts:
"Intolerance is calling someone an asshole or doing violence to them simply for having a different opinion than you do."
In none of these posts have there been alleged any acts which meet your definition of intolerance. To quote:
"So what happens when they do? Their CDs are crunched up, and they're banned from TV, radio, and awards shows. And I don't believe they've had a hit record since."
That's called "economic sanctions," something the left has always viewed as a desirable way to punish right-wing zealots or bad-guys. Apparently, when used against left-wingers, it's call "intolerance."
"It could be a violation of free speech to either defame someone or incite a revolution."
No, it probably is a violation of libel or criminal statutes. However, political speech has been broadly interpreted by the courts, and just about anything goes unless you take up a weapon and shout "Follow me to the White House!" If you want to hear intolerant political speech, just listen to Howard Dean sometime.
"If I recall correctly, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks simply expressed an opinion that the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq."
No, that was her opinion, but she expressed it by saying she was embarassed that President Bush was a resident of her home state. Whether that, in itself, in "intolerant," I don't know and don't care. The fact that she was faced with consequences for that, none of which violated her free speech rights as guaranteed by the Consitution, is really not up for debate. But as long as no one violated the law in exacting their sanctions on her and her band, then is there really something to debate? How can American radio stations and music companies be "anti free speech" by exercising their right to free speech? And, as to who is running our country -- bottom line, it's a bunch of old dead white guys who took up arms against your prior government, sacrificied almost everything they had, and then sat down and wrote a document that they hoped would prevent the same conditions from occurring in this country. We can certainly debate the results, but I think you'll find that, given all its flaws, people are still breaking down fences to get here.
Paul |
In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1.1.1.1) Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Fri 08/07/05 07:38:11 GMT Intolerance is calling someone an asshole or doing violence to them simply for having a different opinion than you do.
I may disagree with President Bush for one or more of his policies, and his policy decisions may make me very angry. Free speech allows me the right to express that disagreement and anger, so long as I do it without resorting to personal attacks. It would not be a violation of free speech to say that Bush may not be the most suitable choice for president of the U.S., or to say that Paul Martin should definitely not be prime minister of Canada, and that the populations of both countries should replace them (vote them out).
It could be a violation of free speech to either defame someone or incite a revolution.
If I recall correctly, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks simply expressed an opinion that the U.S. should not have gone into Iraq. That was simply an exercise of her right to free speech guaranteed under the American constitution. I do not recall whether what she said was actually a personal attack, and even if it was, a case of defamation should be decided by the courts, not public opinion.
The reaction to that statement was by citizens of the U.S. (public opinion). One might conclude that American radio stations and music companies are anti free speech because of their reaction to the 'Chicks. Almost makes you wonder who's really running your country - the guys on Capital Hill or the guys on Wall Street.
|
In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1.1.1) Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic
By Paul - Fri 08/07/05 05:06:04 GMT But you're making what amounts to a circular argument. Are you saying that once someone expresses their opinion, exercising their "free speech" rights, that no one else can respond or react to it because that would be "intolerant?" Suppose I feel that the statement or expression they make is itself "intolerant?" Don't I have an obligation to oppose it? Am I obligated to buy Dixie Chicks CD's, or, as a station owner, voluntarily play their music because not to do so makes me a Nazi?
Our soldiers are not only defending the right of the Dixie Chicks to be stupid, but my right to object to their views in any legal way I see fit. How is it intolerant of me to express what I believe, and not intolerant of them to say what they believe? I find no logic at all in your statements, merely emotion. To say "can't we all just get along" applies equally to both sides of the argument.
Paul |
In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1.1) Re: Re: Re: Re: Way off topic
By Waterspaniel - Fri 08/07/05 04:46:02 GMT That's my point. I'm perfectly aware of all the points Paul has made, that these actions were taken by individuals, not the government, and they also had every right to do it. But as I noted, what I find disturbing is the total intolerance and animosity with which it was done. It seems to me that good American citizens would be following the principles of frre speech, freedom of religion, etc. Because once the citizens stop recognizing those rights, how long is it before the government also stops recognizing those rights as well, a la Iraq under Saddam Hussein or Nazi Germany? Hitler was able to rise to power because the masses supported him. Once a leader or principle (like free speech) loses support of the masses, it tends to fade away. That was my point, and that's what I find disturbing. As Voltaire said, I might not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. And that was Voltaire, a good citizen speaking, not the government. |
In reply to Message (17011.1.1.1) Re: Re: Re: Way off topic
By waterjoe - Fri 08/07/05 00:08:07 GMT But the way, how quite a lot of people in the U.S. are reacting on other opinions (like from the Dixie Chicks), is not good. It's hysterical, fanatic and even paranoic. And this shows a very big problem. It shows, how low is the education, the tolerance and the knowledge about other people.
|
In reply to Message (17011.1.1) Re: Re: Way off topic
By Paul - Thu 07/07/05 19:55:53 GMT It always amazes me how people, both in the US and elsewhere, simply do not understand the concept of "free speech." Free speech, in its simplest terms, means that the GOVERNMENT cannot prosecute you for your political speech, no matter how stupid, ignorant, relevant, etc. it might be. It does NOT mean that you are guaranteed not to suffer the consequences accorded by those outside the government, who, by the way, also choose to exercise their free speech by denouncing yours. All the reactions you site were taken, not by government entitities, but by commercial producers and distributors, or individuals exercising their right to purchase the material and destroy it. In a broader sense, the US Constitution is a delineation of the things the government CAN NOT do - it imposes no limitations on individuals (the laws passed by the various legislative bodies do that).
In the incidents mentioned, the Dixie Chicks made a perfectly legal, albeit studpid remark. They were not arrested, prosecuted or fined. However, they did suffer some consequences because many of those who would normally buy their music CHOSE NOT TO, or bought it and then destroyed it, in the same protected free speech manner that the band itself utilized. If you don't understand the difference, then perhaps you need to study up on history and government theory. Just remember, FREE is not the same as NO CONSEQUENCES.
Paul |
In reply to Message (17011.1) Re: Way off topic
By Waterspaniel - Thu 07/07/05 17:28:03 GMT That's something that has bothered me for awhile here in the U.S. - increasing intolerance for opposing viewpoints. Some people get so caught up in their own rhetoric and ideas they forget what freedom of speech means. Look at the Dixie Chicks, for example. Granted, insulting the president at a music concert isn't the smartest PR move - people go to a music concert to hear music, not politics. But, they had the right to do it, even President Bush said they had the right to do it. So what happens when they do? Their CDs are crunched up, and they're banned from TV, radio, and awards shows. And I don't believe they've had a hit record since. Is that the freedom of speech the United States of America is about? I sure as hell hope not. |
In reply to Message (17011) Way off topic
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Thu 07/07/05 16:55:38 GMT I wasn't going to say anything on this subject, but after seeing all the other threads, here's my two cents...
Yes, it was a despicable act of indiscriminate violence committed against innocent civilians. And it was indiscriminate. London is very much a cosmopolitan city these days, making the bombings an act committed against people of every race, religion, and walk of life. Although on a smaller scale, it is reminiscent of 9/11. I feel for those who have been touched by this incident and am thankful that noone I know was in harm's way. It may only be a matter of time before such things happen on Canadian soil.
This has been a tragic day, and there are divided opinions as to who was responsible. It is reasonable to assume that Al Qaeda was behind it, but without some form of confirmation, it is only opinion and speculation. There are at least a few other possibilities besides Al Qaeda, even if that's where all the clues are currently pointing. Why shout down an opinion just because it differs from yours, especially when the facts aren't all in?
At what point will enough have been said on this topic within this forum? It's geopolitics and we come to this forum for other purposes... don't we?
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.065 seconds to generate ]