True enough. But if Brittany Boobs accepts her Golden Whateverthefuk and giggles into the microphone, then gets all solemn and sends a shout out to our troops…
CBS executives will dab thier eyes with thier hankies and bask in the special joy when noble virtue aligns with handsome profit.
But let someone object to sending our soldiers in harms way for a foolish and ignoble cause…well, thats in poor taste. Can’t have that sort of thing, a political statement simply isn’t appropriate.
If you honestly believe, as I do, that our nation is doing a a bad thing, a thing so bad that it is your duty to speak out against it…and further you have a public forum like the Grammys…and you don’t say anything…then you’re not a patriot nor a gentleman, you’re a careerist. Having determined what you are, from then on its only a matter of haggling for price.
These morons wanna dribble their opinions? Keen. Buy time and do it. They have no freedom of speech whatsoever in a format sponsored by someone else. And given the fact that we’re a free country, they can even choose to not attend if they don’t like CBS’s restrictions.
Gotta chime in on the side of those who see this as a tempest in a teapot. I really wish that the congenitally indignant™ would give an additional two minutes of thought before getting their panties in a bunch. As has been pointed out, the right to free speech does not mean being able to spout off whenever, wherever or on whatever topic you feel like.
I mean, think about it. What if Eminem, upon accepting his “most ‘fucks’ in an album” award decided to decided to spend the next twenty minutes discussing his views on, say, the metric system. Free speech right? Would you sit there and watch in rapt attention as he discussed deciliters, feeling all warm and cozy inside knowing that this, then, was democracy in action? Would you step out for a pee, or would you agree that CBS, who is putting on the whole shebang, might just be justified in cutting to a commercial?
And hey, what if someone went off on a rant * in favor* of a war?
Sheesh…some people have absolutely no sense of proportion…
and it’s usually the same ones…
Fenris I’m not sure I agree that they " have no freedom of
speech whatsoever in a format sponsored by someone else."
They have the freedom to TRY and say what they want, but most will obey the rules the sponsors have set. That’s what makes interesting yet uncomfortable moments like Richard Gere going on about Tibet (what was that the Academy Awards years ago?) or Sinead O’Connor trying to shout out Bob Marley, or Dylan playing “Masters of War” at West Point. We can’t all sit back and just do what we’re told - US history is all about breaking the rules no matter whose format it is.
RR:There is no ‘right’ in any meaningful way to speak out on topics which you have been asked not to speak about.
Except in the legal sense, which some of us do consider meaningful. If they can’t arrest or sue you for it—and AFAIK they can’t, unless as I said you entered into a legally binding contract not to do so—then as a pure matter of legal entitlement, you do have the right to say whatever you can manage to get away with before they exercise their right to boot you the hell out of there. They are legally entitled to make an unwritten rule that you will get thrown out if you talk about forbidden subjects, and you are legally entitled to disregard what they want and get thrown out as a result.
It is the Grammys party, they make the rules, and they determine what is, and what is not, appropriate.
Both petcat and I have acknowledged that all along. You act as though we were trying to argue that it would be actually illegal—i.e., an actual infringement of the right to free speech—for CBS to try to control or censor the awardees’ speeches. Neither of us has ever said that, and I don’t see therefore why you’re arguing about the use of the word “right”.
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.’
We didn’t. I think you’re the one who’s a little confused about the usage of “right” here.
Only as much as we’re willing to live it and protect it. Only as much as we’re willing to be sure that the other utterly dumb bigoted asshole get equal time.
The Grammys are nn entertainment product. There is a script. The whole script, and orchestration of the event, is contingent upon timing. Similarly, the advertising depends on timing. If several of the entertainers decide to go off script, it upsets everything. Nowadays if you start running long in thanking your staff, your director, the little people, etcetera, they have a beautiful girl in a evening gown wrestle you off to the side of the stage. Then, they cut your mike and pretend like you quit talking. Hmmm, that’s what they will do here.
Also, these people are hired to do a particular job, not whatever they choose to use the air time for. If famous Hollywood stars want air time, they know how to buy it. Furthermore, they have the means to buy it.
We don’t have an absolute ‘freedom of speech’, and that isn’t an entirely bad thing. I don’t want my movie-watching experience, already fucked by commercials, to be interrupted by constant cries of ‘FIRE!!!’. I don’t want people walking up to me, saying they want to kill me. Bomb threats are no fun. And what passes for a musician these days has no ‘right’ to be given a forum at a what is a private function.
Ah, but the Grammys could invite other guests. Then, the value of all the publicity derived from performing in front of a national television audience could go to someone else. The performers are compensated, just not in money.
And the network is making money off the muscians. CBS not only wants free performances out the artists, it also wants to dictate the content of those performances.
I’m not saying it’s not the networks legal right, I’m just saying they’re ass-pimples for doing it.
Just kidding. No really, ouch, stop that!