Fenris, the point is that Saranadon/Robbins’ never got the chance to “spew” their political points of view before they were kicked off the job. They were pre-emptively (whoops, there’s that word again…) punished for *possibly *speaking about politics at a gig, not fired after the fact.
I do think the Dixie Chicks issue is overblown- while I feel a stab of pity for those who can’t separate an artist’s music and an artist’s opinion when stated apart from said music, it is within their rights to boycott whomever they wish. It is cases like that of S/R that I have problems with. Your analogy about the neo-Nazi burger boy doesn’t hold, because S/R never aired their views in connection with Petroskey. In addition, they were already hired, and then subsequently fired once Petroskey realized their political affiliation. He admits as much in the letter quoted on ESPN. Therefore, he fired them based on their political beliefs, breaking a binding agreement specifically because he disagreed with their point of view.
Cross burning is an entirely different issue. It is often used to communicate an actual physical threat of violence to other people, and when it IS used in its threatening capacity it can be outlawed.
The flag is not the same, burning the flag simply means “I hate the government” and what the government stands for. It is not a physical threat. If I’m waving a burning flag in front of you, it might piss you off, but you probably aren’t in fear of your life.
Burning the flag as a protest originates as “The government has soiled the flag by its lack of respect for all that it stands for, and thus the flag must be given a respectful funeral by burning as is mandated in the Flag Code.”
It has been hijacked by actual people who might be characterised as hating what the government stands for primarily as a result of its portrayal as bordering on the treasonous in an attempt to discredit a potent and fundamentally patriotic act of symbolism.
It isn’t as simple as you want to make it out to be.
No shit, Sherlock.
To deny that media/government has no sway over you is delusional at best. If you think about it(this will make your head hurt again), you will realize that media and at times government do shape what you buy and what you believe.
Fair enough. I’m rather more concerned with the people who are going off on the immorality of boycotting musicians, and I won’t hold to this position because, to a large extent, I agree with you on this particular case.
Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t particularly pay attention to the political affiliations of various celebrities, even though I have a way of knowing. Not that I’ll ever be in any position to hire celebrities in the first place, but some of us do, in fact, live under rocks when it comes to things like this; it is utterly and completely immaterial to me what the politics of [insert celebrity here] happen to be. Heck, I don’t know the political affiliations of most of my co-workers, and I pay a lot more attention to them than I do to random actors and actresses.
Whoa, back that horse right up: was it cancelled because S/R are lefties, or because S/R are people who were suspected of interjecting politics at an inappropriate time? Is it a punishment for having political views, or for expressing them in ways which were not deemed compatible with the event for which they were hired? Given that S/R never had the chance to express their views on the job, I agree that this is merely a rationalization which should have occurred to Petroskey earlier, but I think you’re putting too much spin on things in your righteous indignation. And in fact, I think that’s been most of my source of disagreement with you throughout this thread.
Maybe I’m reading this incorrectly; are you suggesting that Petroskey would not have refused to go on with things were the speakers thought to be people who would make pro-war comments at the event? If so, I direct your attention this way:
Now, you may not believe this, which is your own business. But it does lend support to the contention that this wasn’t a case of being punished for being anti-war, but of punishment for being suspected of injecting politics in an event which was to be non-political.
This is still silly, of course, because it’s punishment for a crime which hadn’t happened yet, but it’s not necessarily punishment for disagreeing with the president.
You keep saying that. I do not think it means what you think it means.
my comments re: pro war sentiments were more directed at the Oscars, where several celebs (IIRC) made references to ‘the troops’. If that ain’t ‘commenting on politics/war’ then sure as hell flashing a peace sign on the way in to the building isn’t either.
‘feared they would espouse their views’, if that’s his rationale, then he should be able to support it w/evidence, and like I said, at the recent Oscars, where all were asked to leave politics outside, Sarandon/Robbins flashed a peace sign outside, which some (and apparently the baseball guy) are using as ‘them spewing their views, even after being asked not to’, while those who commented during the ceremony about the troops etc weren’t similarly chastized.
You may not have been aware of their views, but somehow or 'nother this guy got aquainted enough with them to not only spell it out, but to assert that they’d use his forum to ‘spew’.
I don’t keep a running scorecard myself on celebs, and am more likely to shun them based on non talent or dislike/like for the type of films they tend to make (example - Harrison Ford - haven’t a clue what side of politics he’s on, tend to like the types of films he makes. Jim Carrey, haven’t a clue and hate they types of films he generally makes. Robbins falls, for me, in the category of Carrey more often than not, Sarandon in neither). But if I were booking for an appearance and politics mattered to me to the extent that I’d risk a lawsuit for non performance, I’d sure as hell check ''em out before hand.
anyhow. what strikes me the most about all of this are the simliarities to the ‘blacklist’ and McCarthyism, that people’s livlihoods are effected by virtue of their stated political beliefs.
and that’s my beef. Our country was came into being over protest for the ruling party. I find it chilling that people may feel unsafe to voice opposition to their government because of financial repurcussions.
(I don’t give a rats ass what any performer believes ** politically**, but if they suffer professionally because of it, that’s my problem. I’d have just as much of a problem w/ Rush Limbaugh loosing a scheduled appearance 'cause of his stance. Just haven’t seen it lately ya know?? wonder why.)
This column addresses the point. I recall others even more specifically calling Ashcroft’s comments threats to free speech. I will stop here. I’m sure you can find other cites at the ACLU or other such organizations.
unless **John Ashcroft ** is a member of this board and you can prove it, your comment here does not address in any way, shape or form, the request for a ‘cite’ re: folks Ashcroft had commented on complaining their rights had been violated.
So, applying december/English/English/december translator, the above means ‘I don’t have a cite, so withdraw the comment’, apparently.
Uh, wring, Zoe had written, “I honestly don’t think that I know of any liberals who say that someone is violating their rights by disagreeing with them. Can you give an example?” That question was not about members of this board.
Note that Ascroft’s verbal disagreement with and criticism of certain comments was characterized by Ralph Neas as “intimidation” and “smothering dissent.”
That’s certainly, of course, a fair, reasonable, and valid sentiment. Obviously, I think that the freedom to respond to someone else’s stated political views is more important than any right to state one’s political views without fear of repercussions, just as the right to state one’s political views without fear of governmental repercussions is more important yet. It’s unfortunate that the climate right now is hyper-sensitive about this sort of thing, but ultimately, along with the right to upset some subset of your fellow citizens comes the responsibility to accept the consequences of doing so.
The villification of tax cut moderates as “Franco-Republicans” fits right in with this surge of Patriotic correctness. The pubbies are free to pull this sort of crap on their own people, and I’d like to see them do more of it. Their tent is far too crowded these days, and a bit more polarization might blow a few walls out for the dems.
Zoe’s question may have been broad enough to include what posters here at the SDMB have said that they felt, but this is the specific statement you were asked to provide evidence of. Note the specific parts of the claim:
Ashcroft critized certain people.
the people who had been criticized and their supporters alledge that their civil rights were violated by that criticism.
Now, your first response to request for the cite, was to reference this column (which I took to mean this thread, hence my comment that perplexed you, if you didn’t mean this thread, I’m not certain what column you’re talking of, and how it fufills claims # 1 and 2).
Your second attempt is closer, however, it does not fufill point #2, in that the claim specified is that dissenters were " being intimidated", no reference to civil rights. and that “smothering dissent is not the American way” (which is, as far as I’m concerned is a true statement, not a claim that civil rights have been violated).
You claimed a very specific thing, that people claimed that Ashcrofts comments violated their civil rights. IT is this claim that you’re being asked to substantiate. and haven’t yet.
The right to dissent is a key aspect of Freedom of Speech. If dissent truly were smothered, rather than just criticized, then that would be a violation of civil liberties IMHO.
My thought is that all this bellyaching about boycotts is pointless.
My parents and my peers had a much larger impact, I believe, but it doesn’t matter if my choices are influenced by my parents, siblings, friends, government, favourite TV shows or the Orbital Mind-Control Lasers: the choices are mine to make, and when someone says “such-and-such a person shouldn’t boycott performer X because of X’s political views”, I have to take offense because I’d resent anyone telling me that I couldn’t boycott performer X for any reason of my choosing.
Well, then Maher’s relation to me is identical to my relation to you.
What the hell are we gonna call French Dressing? Freedom Dressing?
The French’s company must be working overtime to come up with a new name for all the FRENCH’S products.
I haaaate all the fuckin bandwagons people build and parade on to declare their stance.
I’m sure as hell NOT for this Icracki War, but feel I must support the troops.
I’m sure as hell NOT for this Bush Admin and don’t feel in any way less than 100% full-blooded American for saying it.
It is my voting duty to critisize and or protest without hesitation.
