Thanks for the list of more irrelevant kooks, Bridget.
It didn’t sound like it from your posts.
This is about a vital freedom and yet you compare the Dixie Chicks to someone lighting a firework in their hand? 
I’m sure you know about the fights to end slavery, give women the vote and even the US civil rights campaign.
The opponents of those have exactly the same attitudes as those who made death threats.
And the best you can do is say ‘death threats are out of line’?
Sheesh- littering is out of line.
The movie may be good, the story certainly is interesting, but I fail to see how the Constitutional Right of Freedom of Speach enters into it. That’s a government concern, and any restriction on speach was done by private parties. You can argue about whether it was right or wrong, but it ain’t a Constitutional issue.
What’s wrong with not wanting to advertise, sell, or play music by someone you disagree with? You may not like it, but it’s not like a death threat.
Well, those people didn’t get death threats because they’re nobodies. Celebrities get stalkers, death threats, and paparrazi breaking into their homes; nobodies don’t get those things. (Well, not in the same quantity.) Nobody wants to threaten Earl Z. Nurphleshit from Grabass, North Dakota when he says he hates the Dixie Chicks because nobody gives a crap about him.
I admire the Dixie Chicks for NOT backing down over this and taking the flack. But it’s not a First Amendment issue in any way that matters. The government didn’t stop Natalie Maines from saying what she wanted to say, and then a whole buttload of people said what THEY wanted to say, and that’s the way it works. To their credit, the Dixie Chicks took it in stride and just plowed ahead.
This is not to say I don’t want to see the movie, because I do, but it’s not about the First Amendment, at least not directly. What it’s about, actually, is political correctness. When I use that term I don’t mean the early 90’s half-mythical bugaboo of campus speech where people with burn injuries were called " the excessively tanned," but in the sense that all societies, even free ones, struggle with there being an overwhelming political orthodoxy that damages public discourse. At any time, there are opinions that are arguably legitimate that you will be shouted down for saying. I don’t mean genuinely nutty shit like “the Jews are evil” but perfectly legitimate opinions, like, Bill Maher pointing out that the 9/11 terrorists were not “cowards.” In Canada, much of the media will say you’re evil and in league with George Bush if you suggest any changes at all to the Medicare system. (What can I say, we have boring debates up here.)
At the present time, the political orthodoxy in much of the USA is one of radical, insular patriotism tinged with Christianity. Soldiers must be publicly venerated. Tribute must be given to Christians. The supremacy of all things American cannot be questioned. This is exacerbated by the fact that the country is politically polarized, and as it happen the side that the Dixie Chicks offended seems to have the more shrill and intolerant offenderadi. (Not all Republicans/conservatives are like that, but they definitely have the stronger bullpen of screamers.)
So what I find interesting about the story is not that it’s about the First Amendment, because it’s not, but that it’s an object lesson in how the population can do harm to their own rights all by themselves. These discussions/threads always tend to split along two lines, both of which are wrong; some people will eventually come into the thread screaming “Their free speech was violated!”, which is wrong, and then some others will come in saying “The government didn’t stop them from saying what they wanted so that’s just fine, nothing is wrong, except for the death threats.” Both positions are simplistic and wrong.
What this case stody shows is that it’s not necessary for the government to violate our rights for things like free expression, public discourse, and open debate to be muzzled. The populace can do this sort of thing on its own. Public discourse - I’m sorry to keep using that term but it’s the most accurate one I can think of - is NOT just kept open and productive by having a First Amendment. It requires a population that’s willing to really argue, rather than just screaming. “Shut Up and Sing” shows what happens when a country is more interested in screaming.
How were the Dixie Chicks denied any freedom? The first amendment protects the right to say unpopular things, not the right to make others listen. If people want to burn CDs or refuse to play the new single on their radio stations, that’s their right. It sucks for the Dixie Chicks, and I think it’s disgraceful that these radio conglomerates would censor a group for expressing an unpopular political opinion. But to compare that to slavery and the civil rights campain is ridiculous.
I love this. Should be a sig line. I know a place in IMHO it belongs in, too.
No - the amendment should be this:
“I disapprove of what you say,
and I will defend to the death your right to say it,
but don’t expect me to treat you the same way if what you say is repugnant to me”.
If a top country star went on a radio show and said “I’m embarassed to be from a state that seems to embrace NASCAR, NASCAR is for assholes”; do you think that star would see a change in their record sales, ticket sales, or treatment in general? Hell yes, and deservedly so. If you’re in the public eye, you have to excercise common sense and think twice about what you say.
People keep bringing up the first amendment.
Could somebody please clarify for me what the first amendment issue is supposed to be wrt the Dixie Chicks?
I recognize that it is due to the fact that the first amendment exists that no law can be passed which would lead to their being prosecuted for saying what they said.
That, as far as I can see, is the sum total of the relevance of the first amendment to the Dixie Chicks quotes under discussion. But this thread seems to be presupposing there is more to say about the first amendment in this regard. I’m not seeing it. What is it?
-FrL-
This is what I’m talking about. What are you talking about? Who was deprived of a right, and how? Whose first amendment rights were trampled on, by whom, and in what way?
I never realized there was a first amendment issue involved in this situation, and I’d like to become informed.
-FrL-
Nope. sorry, your argument is without merit. The aforementioned “kooks” were the ones issuing death threats, not the ones who refuse to support the Dixie Chicks because of their politics. The ones not supporting the Dixie Chicks are exercising THEIR first amendment rights, just like Natalie Maines. Here’s a clue for you, bud, the first amendment doesn’t guarantee the right to UNOPPOSED speech or speech without consequences. All it guarantees is that you can say what you like without government interference. If someone doesn’t like what you say and decides not to support you financially, tough shit…that’s life.
What is reprehensible is NBC’s refusal to air ads for the movie.
It won’t accept spots that are disparaging to Bush? It seems to me that part of getting a public resource, the airwaves, comes with the responsibility of airing viewpoints you may not agree with. So the Dixie Chicks were blackballed, and now their movie about being blackballed is itself being blackballed.
When this brouhaha started, the main thing that irritated me about the Dixie Chicks is that Natalie picked London to make her statement, naively thinking that her comment would be cheered and then be forgotten. She forgot about satellite television and other forms of communication that can transmit information around the world seemingly instantaneously. For what it’s worth, I agree with her statement and am even more ashamed that Bush has made such a mess. My beef with Natalie is that she brushed off the criticism as “censorship” because her statement wasn’t applauded. That wasn’t censorship; that was democracy in action. She wasn’t arrested when the Dixie Chicks returned to the U.S., she wasn’t even detained anywhere for that. I would have respected the Dixie Chicks a lot more if they had held a press conference in Texas and made that statement. Instead, they waited until they were in a receptive, foreign land. I consider that cowardly. Now, I totally disagree with the death threats; those are totally indefensible and the perpetrators should be prosecuted. But it seems to me that celebrities cry “censorship” at the first sign of opposition to their statements.
I doubt the refusal stems from someone at NBC disagreeing with the view. Rather, I think the refusal stems from an expectation that airing the ads would lead to a backlash from NBC’s viewers, which could very well lead to a loss of income.
-FrL-
The liberal media strikes again.
Not every network share’s NBC’s concerns.
www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061030.NOTE30-5/TPStory/TPEntertainment/Movies/
The coverage of NBC’s refusal has given the film more publicity. This review indicates that the film is not exactly a plea for pity by the poor, downtrodden Dixie Chicks.
www.e.bell.ca/filmfest/2006/films_schedules/films_description.asp?id=96
By the way, Shut Up & Sing; How Elites from Hollywood, Politics, and the UN are Subverting America is the title of a book by the esteemed Laura Ingraham. Is the movie’s title another instance of the Chicks being rude & sarcastic? Lloyd Maines, Natalie’s father, is a pedal steel player & record producer who hails from Lubbock. Gues that makes her one of the Hollywood “elite.”
Evidently, this is a common misconception. When they appeared on Oprah, she said that alot of the backlash was because she made the comment “off american soil”. She claims that, not only did she not plan it that way, she hadn’t given much thought about what she was going to say before she actually said it. Oprah asked if she had been in TX when the thought came to her, would she had said it?. Before she could answer, the other two chicks both said “yes”. So she probably makes a habit of speaking without thinking first.
I wasn’t a Dixie Chicks fan before this happened, but I can tolerate them more now, knowing that they aren’t typical narrow minded country music cyborgs, that feel they must mention God, America or both, in every other song, or the fans will retaliate.
That’s exactly right. The Dixie Chicks have no more or less right to freedom of speech as anyone else. They are perfectly within their rights to exercise the first amendment by making negative statements about the president, and likewise, the public is perfectly within its rights to exercise the first amendment as well, by protesting, boycotting, etc. And, for that matter, a business is within its rights to do business with the Dixie Chicks or not, based on what they think is good for their bottom line. Seems like this is exactly how democracy is SUPPOSED to work…here in the US, we should be grateful that the Dixie Chicks have the right to say things we may disagree with, and we should be grateful that we have the right choose to support those statements or not.
I don’t understand the brouhaha about this, either. My attitude seems to mirror a lot of other people’s: I have the first amendment right to criticize my country and my government, and I often sit around with friends and family and do exactly that. I don’t, however, like Americans who go around the world criticizing our country and government to other people. I prefer to “keep it in the family,” as it were. I’m also annoyed when I go to a show (of any kind) expecting entertainment and performers treat it as their own special bully pulpit. I don’t care what celebrities think about politics. I really don’t.
All of that said, Natalie did something that bothered me. Fine, she has the right to do so. I stopped buying her CDs. Fine, I have the right to do so. The local country radio station, after fielding hundreds of calls, pulled Dixie Chicks from their playlist. Fine, they have the right to do so. Now, the Dixie Chicks have a movie about it. Fine, they have the right to do so. I’m not planning on seeing it. Fine… (you get the idea)
What’s the big deal? Why is there any part of this that gets people so upset?
I think they not only said the wrong thing, but they picked the wrong time to say it. If they said the same thing today, I don’t think it raise that many hackles, because it’s far from a minority opinion these days. (Not that it necessarily was at the time, but sometime since the last election it became less politically incorrect to criticize Bush.)
Of course, had they said the same thing about Clinton, the kooks in question just would have waved their beers and given a “Woo-hoo!”
I was a little put off when I saw the ads for the movie, just as I was with the EW cover and the song they wrote about the whole thing. It’s hard to explain why; I guess I felt that their critics didn’t deserve that much consideration, and that the way to get past it would be, well, to get past it, and not harp on it. Especially three years later.
But people deal with things in different ways, and even though I’m not a big fan of their music, I want to see the movie.
I find it discouraging that the most insightful and intelligent post in this thread has been roundly ignored. People keep asking what the big brouhaha is about and how anyone was deprived of their rights, when RickJay has addressed these points admirably. More interested in screaming, indeed.