Obviously the death threats they received were criminal and deplorable. But that fact that people chose not to buy their albums because they disagreed with their public statements… that strikes me as a great example of the consumer’s freedom to vote with his or her wallet. What’s so special about the Dixie Chicks that they deserve to sell a particular number of albums no matter what? And what would you propose as a solution to this problem-- having the government require people to purchase Dixie Chicks albums? Or maybe you can choose not to purchase their CD, but only if you cite an “approved” reason: don’t like country music, okay; offends my political sensibilities, not okay.
What I propose is that everyone stop pretending that we have free speech when we have so many willing to take away your livelihood if you don’t toe the patriotic line. Sure people can vote with their wallets, you can’t stop that. Just don’t pretend that the US tolerates dissent.
FWIW, gasoline’s a dollar a gallon in Libya.
Shoulda packed in your own condoms, amigo. 
Personally I’m quite grateful for the freedom to spend or not spend my money whichever (legal) way I please, and not to have to justify my choices to anyone, especially the government.
And by the way, the next time Toby Keith threatens to put a boot up some Muslim guy’s ass, I’m sure you’ll run right out to buy his album. After all, you wouldn’t want to be one of those evil fascists who takes away someone’s livelihood just because you don’t agree with their politics… right? 
One area for consideration is free speech. My understanding that the free speech protections are much stronger in the US than elsewhere (see, e.g., Germany’s criminalization of some forms of political speech, restrictions on hate speech in UK, etc.).
Depends on how you define “freedom.” You’re applying a definition that reflects a particular ideological view. It isn’t necessarily the same definition others would use.
Something we all enjoy, of course.
Well, of course. I’m just annoyed by BobLibDem’s assertion that we don’t have freedom of speech here in America because a few people decided not to patronize the Dixie Chicks because of their political statements. That’s simply nonsense.
That’s exactly right. I think that generally speaking, freedom is traded for security. Think of “at-will” employment laws. Basically, these laws say that I can quit my job any time, and I can lose my job any time. If a law was passed that is designed to give me job security, let’s say that my employer is not allowed to fire me except for cause (regulated by strict guidelines), I am not more free, and he is decided less free.
Feel free too tell the Europeans about it, ehe?
Well, it’s a point.
American’s can legally travel too Cuba (I’ve actually been there myself, but don’t tell anyone). Does this change whether you think we are free now?
Me thinks you don’t actually understand the concept of ‘free speech’, Bob. I also think that you are drinking the kool aide regarding the supposed negative effects it had on the Dixie Chicks…even in 2003 when your BBC article was written. You claimed they took a huge financial and emotional hit…but when asked for a cite you gave one from 2003 (by the BBC for gods sake). We’ve now had a bit of time to judge the effect…why not show an up too date article clearly showing the Dixie Chicks languishing in poverty and crushing social stigmatization due too their heroic anti-war stance?
Seriously…what is your alternative too people being able too decide for themselves if they want to buy Dixie Chick albums based on their political mouthings? Force American’s to buy the same number of CD’s as before their stance? Do you suppose this will make us free? Free as our Euro buddies, some of who make it illegal to discuss some subjects (like aspects of the holocaust)?
-XT
Well, you have to get a license to do so (unless you’re someone deemed an “unlawful combatant”) according to travel.state.gov. Or if you cheat in some way.
AFAIK, I don’t need a license from my government to go anywhere in the world. I think in this one respect you are in fact less free than I am.
By aspects I assume you mean like trying to teach it didn’t happen happen in Germany. I guess it is a horrible shame some countries don’t allower deniers to stand out in the street, set up websites or openly teach in their view in a classroom to rally folks to their cause. But in this case I don’t see that limitation as a great loss to humanity.
Well, maybe it’s not. But that’s not really the point when we are speaking of freedom, is it?
And as I said above, it isn’t just limited to holocaust denial. The UK is well-known, for example, for it’s strict anti-defamation laws (which are a limit on the freedom of speech).
Doesn’t the US have Slander and libel laws as well?
That’s “freedom” bought by passing the costs on to our children. Our extravagance and neglect will be paid for by them more than us, but it will be paid for. How free are they going to be ?
And as pointed out, security allows freedom. If your every choice is dictated by survival or your debts or the boss you can’t afford to irritate, you aren’t free at all.
Being put on a terrorist watch list comes to mind. Getting strip seached at airports. Having your phone tapped and e-mail read. Having your boss find an excuse to fire you. Getting beaten in an alley by some patriots.
Of course you are more free with such laws. Your employer then has less power to pressure you into, say, dressing like he likes, or in the absence of sexual harassment laws his sexual advances. And those laws were written precisely because your employer has power over you, and just walking away isn’t an option for many or most people.
One of the common threads I’ve noticed in discussions about American freedom, is the idea that only coercion from the government counts. A corporation can be every bit as oppressive as any government.
Yes, but I think it is much harder to prove your case as a plaintiff in the US than in Commonwealth countries. This is why many corporations choose to sue potential defamers in the UK if they have the choice of venue.
Can you provide specific examples? Being “well-known” for something, and actually exhibiting that, are often a distance away from each other.
There are similar laws in the US and UK, with different means of application. In English law, you can say what you like, but if I object to what you say about me, then the burden of proof is on the person who made the allegation (which seems fair to me). That’s a difference of application in the courts, rather than “limiting freedom of speech”, IMO.
Ultimately, no matter who you are or what your job is, you can quit that job and walk out the door if you want to. You’ll lose your income and have to deal with the consequences of that, but you are always free to make that choice. If the government puts you in jail, you are absolutely not free to leave. They will kill you if you try. That’s a pretty fundamental difference.
The laws are different, and the means of application are different. The result is a difference in what you’re free to say in the US versus what you’re free to say in the UK.
It isn’t limited to defamation, either. It is harder to get a protest permit in the UK as well, for example.