Now now, no weaseling. If you agree that you insulted Kerry or Gore or Clinton supporters by expressing negative opinions about Kerry or Gore or Clinton—and I don’t see how you can avoid that conclusion, if you’re going to insist that the Dixie Chicks insulted Bush supporters by expressing negative opinions about Bush—then naturally you should apologize for the insult. Even if the Kerry/Gore/Clinton supporters are magnanimous enough not to get upset about it.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
I simply do not understand why, if there is an interested audience, be they one, a few, or thousands, one should feel obliged to refrain from criticizing one’s own leaders.
[/QUOTE]
The key phrase there: “If there is an interested audience.” This was a group of Brits coming to hear the Dixie Chicks’ music. It wasn’t a political rally. It wasn’t a private party. It wasn’t a seminar where Natalie had been invited to express her opinions of American politics. It was a music concert in another country where she offered unsolicited criticism of an American politician. It’s rude and disrespectful.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
As an American, I should be able to speak well or ill of my leaders no matter where I am, and to whoever I like, free of any and all restrictions.
[/QUOTE]
I have never disagreed with that sentiment.
[QUOTE=Loopydude]
This “etiquette” looks like little more than political censorship to me.
[/QUOTE]
You still don’t understand me. If I say, “Loopy, belching at the dinner table is rude,” you are free to disagree and rip loose your finest belch. It isn’t illegal, it isn’t immoral, and it isn’t unethical. There’s no censorship, political or otherwise, involved. But I’ll think you’re a twit for doing it. I am not advocating political censorship or restricting the critique of the U.S. government to U.S. soil, nor have I ever. I’m adamantly opposed to censorship. But I’m still free to feel that Natalie was a twit for what she did.