So what happens if an artist decides to make a politcal speech and CBS pulls the audio? Will the television audience be treated to silent footage of someone talking? Or will they cut to a commercial? What happens if a large number of artists want to send a political message? Will the whole 20 hours (hyperbole referring to over-long awards shows) of coverage be broadcast without sound? Would anyone watch? If such a thing happened, would CBS be better off allowing the artists to speak (and give the television audience something to watch), or go silent (causing viewers to watch another channel)?
Petcat, have you met Sweetlucy? For the sake of all humanity I hope you have not, lest your relationship give rise to spawn. One generation of idiocy is enough. Free speech has nothing to do with the Grammy Awards. It has to do with the police coming to your house and locking you up for saying what you want. If the news reports and internet are to be believed, celebrities are not having a difficult time getting their all important views out to the public. Why anyone gives a fuck what Martin Sheen thinks about the war I don’t pretend to understand, but he is able to get the to the cameras when he wants them. CBS is well within its rights to limit discussion to music because it is, after all, a show about music and not war. Try to get that simple concept through your incredibly thick skull.
The only people more idiotic than empty-headed “musicians” trying to express their political beliefs are those who take the imbeciles’ opinions to heart.
Johnny L.A.
Actually, as far as ratings go, cutting mikes, burly security guards dragging away NSYNC and giant hooks suddenly snatching Britney Spears off-camera can’t be beat. There’s a real possibility that this controversy is, in part, a ploy by CBS to generate viewer interest.
Actually, it’s not. Whether it be the RIAA, the NAB, DiMA, or even KaZaa, they must all abide by the statutes set forth within the United State Code and interpreted by the courts. That makes it very political as far as I’m concerned.
That would be ‘legal’, not ‘political’. Or sumthin like that…
You speak the truth.
Why can’t they just come up with another ribbon to wear to show everybody how warm and caring they are, unlike the insincere bastards of the world, rather than thinking it would be sooo cute to hijack the proceedings.
<barf smiley> HAWRRFF!!!
Are we talking Vaudeville hooks or Hellraiser hooks here?
Seriously, this is not a governmental function. It sucks that CBS assumes that this is a non-moronic approach, but it is their damn approach.
Doc N: -Recording-industry people speaking out against what they see as recorded-media theft during a recording-industry event, is political? That seems an odd definition of politics.
It may not be as sexy as international diplomacy, but yes, I’d describe polemics about intellectual-property crime as “politics”. I certainly wouldn’t call them “celebrating the best in the business and honoring creativity and service in the music industry”. If you want to say that political speeches at the Grammys should only involve recording-industry issues, fine, but that’s not quite the same as saying that “politics doesn’t belong in the Grammys”.
RR: Free speech has nothing to do with the Grammy Awards. It has to do with the police coming to your house and locking you up for saying what you want.
I didn’t see petcat saying that CBS censorship of anti-war statements was in any way parallel to “the police locking you up for saying what you want”; on the contrary, s/he stated very clearly that “there may be consequences” for an award recipient using the occasion as a political soapbox, “but that’s the price you pay”.
In other words, according to petcat, the industry is legitimately entitled to try to suppress or retaliate against political speechifying at the Grammy, but award recipients should go ahead and do it anyway and accept the consequences, as a matter of principle. You personally may not agree with that opinion, but it’s not “idiotic” or illogical, as you’re trying to suggest.
But petcat is trying to make this a freedom of speech issue, which it most clearly is not. Any Grammy winner is free to say whatever they want, whenever they want (short of inciting riots).
CBS doesn’t have to broadcast it, though.
So if somebody gets up there, say some country star or some rapper, standing there holding whatever it is they get, and starts in about how much he admires GeeDubya…
Think that will get cut?
Hmm, I see CBS as trying to silence an artists (right?) to say what they wish if given the podium. CBS has a right to do so if they are putting on the show, and the artists have a right to try and use the exposure to say what they want - I like my artists rebellious. I don’t want them to stay “within the lines” - those lines are usually drawn by people who want nice shiny things to turn out like they planned. Too bad. Great art isn’t made that way.
Now I am definitely NOT saying that being awarded a Grammy makes one a great artist.
-(Thanks Kimstu)
Yeah, that Britney – she’s a Barbie without a cause.
You have a fucked up conception of what a right is.
Truth Seeker I guess that’s re-belly-us.
Did we want to have a debate about ridiculous award shows? Or the fact that the awarded are usually not generally the best artists? Can’t we all just turn off the tv and look to the internet as a source of good, sound, balanced, non-commercial opinion?
and on that note…better get the hook.
The artists should be entitled to say whatever they want.
They should not be entitled to use the Grammys as a megaphone if the Grammys don’t want them to.
RR: You have a fucked up conception of what a right is.
How ya figure? petcat says that CBS has a right to try to control or censor the artist’s speech at CBS’s own show, while at the same time the artist has a right to try to evade that censorship and make whatever statements s/he wants until they snatch the mike away. As far as I’m aware, according to the legal definition of the right to free speech, both those statements are absolutely correct. (Unless the artist has voluntarily signed a contract or entered into some other kind of legally binding agreement restricting what s/he is allowed to talk about, which AFAIK isn’t required of Grammy recipients.)
Sorry petcat, I know you can stand up for yourself, and I don’t mind if RR disagrees with you; I’m just puzzled why s/he keeps complaining about your use of the term “right”, which as far as I can tell is perfectly consistent with its legal definition.
The Grammys are the most worthless, meaningless, trivial, chickenshit, phony award show in the universe. They are not, in any way, important. They richly deserve to be hijacked and sabotaged by anti-war sentiments. They are not forbidding all political speech, only a certain political speech. As elucidator sagely pointed out, if some country music jack-off gets up there and gives some maudlin pitch to “pray for our president,” CBS will not do a thing.
I don’t care about the legality of this. I didn’t start the thread because I thought it was illegal, I started it because I think that CBS executives are behaving like good little butt-boys for the government. In my opinion, if CBS is going to behave this fascistically, I think the artists ought to stage a massive boycott of the event. The reason award shows exist is to showcase the stars. Without star power there is no show. So the network wants to exploit the artists for ratings but doesn’t want them to express their art honestly while performing.
Sure, a lot of the artists are brain dead, but so are the vast majority of politicians, radio talk show hosts, television talk show hosts, news anchors, and the president.
There are at least some musicians however, who can articulate an intelligent thought now and then, (ever heard of Woody Guthrie). Bruce Springsteen is one such artist and I hope he plays some blistering anti-war song right the fuck in the networks face. They won’t dare pull the plug on the Boss.
A person at the Grammys is a guest. An invitee. It is not a public forum, and the Grammys are not the state. There is no ‘right’ in any meaningful way to speak out on topics which you have been asked not to speak about. It isn’t a cat and mouse game of try to sneak in an anti-war message. If a person were to stand in the audience and scream and yell obscenities they would be quickly escorted from the premises because such behavior is inappropriate. Similarly, a person who violates the code of conduct that the Grammys promulgate for acceptance speeches can be removed or cut off. It is the Grammys party, they make the rules, and they determine what is, and what is not, appropriate. If they have said that anti-war speech is inappropriate then that is the rule, and it makes no sense whatsoever to try and suggest that this is in any way a violation of anyone’s ‘rights.’
And, its he, for the record. 
More like good little butt boys for their advertisers. If the entertainment audience is annoyed by every single leftie entertainer giving an off script meandering screed against the president, the business suffers.
Meanwhile, if all the entertainers want to pay for a series of anti-war advertisements, CBS would love that.