Sophia
It IS about wording, yes. And the intent which wording reveals. Constraints on free speech, that is, constraints which might become enacted in legislation, don't occur out of the blue upon that legislator's pen signing the bill. A certain frame of mind precedes, and that frame of mind holds that some speech act OUGHT to be curtailed.
The Dixie Chicks example is a pertinent one. The significance of death threats, grafitti/property damage, and organized boycotts isn't that the first two are illegal and the third legal, it is that they are all attempts to curtail a certain type of speech (criticism of Bush). Such intent is always precursor to legislation, but clearly, it isn't merely when legislation arrives that we ought to be concerned - then, it's too late.
and Elvis's hips were banned from the Ed Sullivan show
Kerry needs a new recipe for pickle juice.
One more thing -- there are real ties between the station that spearheaded the protests and the Bush administration.
Quote:
March 25, 2003
By PAUL KRUGMAN
By and large, recent pro-war rallies haven't drawn nearly as many people as antiwar rallies, but they have certainly been vehement. One of the most striking took place after Natalie Maines, lead singer for the Dixie Chicks, criticized President Bush: a crowd gathered in Louisiana to watch a 33,000-pound tractor smash a collection of Dixie Chicks CD's, tapes and other paraphernalia. To those familiar with 20th-century European history it seemed eerily reminiscent of. . . . But as Sinclair Lewis said, it can't happen here.
Who has been organizing those pro-war rallies? The answer, it turns out, is that they are being promoted by key players in the radio industry - with close links to the Bush administration.
The CD-smashing rally was organized by KRMD, part of Cumulus Media, a radio chain that has banned the Dixie Chicks from its playlists. Most of the pro-war demonstrations around the country have, however, been organized by stations owned by Clear Channel Communications, a behemoth based in San Antonio that controls more than 1,200 stations and increasingly dominates the airwaves.
The company claims that the demonstrations, which go under the name Rally for America, reflect the initiative of individual stations. But this is unlikely: according to Eric Boehlert, who has written revelatory articles about Clear Channel in Salon, the company is notorious - and widely hated - for its iron-fisted centralized control.
Until now, complaints about Clear Channel have focused on its business practices. Critics say it uses its power to squeeze recording companies and artists and contributes to the growing blandness of broadcast music. But now the company appears to be using its clout to help one side in a political dispute that deeply divides the nation.
Why would a media company insert itself into politics this way? It could, of course, simply be a matter of personal conviction on the part of management. But there are also good reasons for Clear Channel - which became a giant only in the last few years, after the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed many restrictions on media ownership - to curry favor with the ruling party. On one side, Clear Channel is feeling some heat: it is being sued over allegations that it threatens to curtail the airplay of artists who don't tour with its concert division, and there are even some politicians who want to roll back the deregulation that made the company's growth possible. On the other side, the Federal Communications Commission is considering further deregulation that would allow Clear Channel to expand even further, particularly into television.
Or perhaps the quid pro quo is more narrowly focused. Experienced Bushologists let out a collective "Aha!" when Clear Channel was revealed to be behind the pro-war rallies, because the company's top management has a history with George W. Bush. The vice chairman of Clear Channel is Tom Hicks, whose name may be familiar to readers of this column. When Mr. Bush was governor of Texas, Mr. Hicks was chairman of the University of Texas Investment Management Company, called Utimco, and Clear Channel's chairman, Lowry Mays, was on its board. Under Mr. Hicks, Utimco placed much of the university's endowment under the management of companies with strong Republican Party or Bush family ties. In 1998 Mr. Hicks purchased the Texas Rangers in a deal that made Mr. Bush a multimillionaire.
There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear, but a good guess is that we're now seeing the next stage in the evolution of a new American oligarchy. As Jonathan Chait has written in The New Republic, in the Bush administration "government and business have melded into one big `us.' " On almost every aspect of domestic policy, business interests rule: "Scores of midlevel appointees . . . now oversee industries for which they once worked." We should have realized that this is a two-way street: if politicians are busy doing favors for businesses that support them, why shouldn't we expect businesses to reciprocate by doing favors for those politicians - by, for example, organizing "grass roots" rallies on their behalf?
What makes it all possible, of course, is the absence of effective watchdogs. In the Clinton years the merest hint of impropriety quickly blew up into a huge scandal; these days, the scandalmongers are more likely to go after journalists who raise questions. Anyway, don't you know there's a war on?
http://www.pubtheo.com/page.asp?PID=1195
(A Paul Krugman Op-Ed piece republished on this site -- no longer in free archive on NYT.)
What will Kerry do, after he loses the election to President Bush?
Can pickles at his billionaire wife's pickle factory?
You bored, New Haven? Just wondering why you're sticking with the pickle juice jabs.
Now about Elvis Presley and those hips.......
Blatham said: "Second, that such celebrities are (often) able to influence the opinion of fans or the general citizenry moreso than can the normal citizen."
You know, this is the crux that I almost commented on yesterday.
It is the thing that gives me pause about celebrities using their position - I do not like it when Charlton Heston does it - I DO like it when Springsteen or Redford do - but, you know, I wonder if they DO have more power because of their celebrity?
The Dixie Chicks thing, and the John Lennon "we're more popular than Jesus" thing years ago, presumably amongst the young and, one would think most easily influenced fans, are two examples where a celebrity voice counter to the kids' beliefs were not taken on by a large number of fans - (that they misunderstood Lennon is due to other factors, I guess).
I wonder if we feel good when celebrities agree with us, and bad when they don't - but pass on pretty much unaffected - perhaps except for real fanatics, with other things going on for them anyway?
I genuinely don't understand at all why celebrities shouldn't speak up for their own opinions, political or otherwise. They've usually worked for their celebrity. They enjoy it because they're talented people and for this reason they have some influence with others. Likely celebrities do influence many and not only the young. There are many people in this country who either don't have the time or the inclination for whatever reason to keep up with the issues. For these people a celebrity's opinion may carry wieght one way or the other. But it's just part of the way life is. Why are we complaining about it? They aren't elected officials. Confidentiality isn't a necessary part of their job. They aren't the boss of anyone. I can't see why they shouldn't speak their mind on their own time as much as anyone does. Why are we talking about this?
Do I sound annoyed? If I do, sorry.
this is such a non-issue its bizarre
We are talking about this because it seems many people do not share your view, Lola - and because it has become a point of interest because of the campaign against the Dixie Chicks - about which Bruce Springsteen spoke out, adding mor einterest to the thing.
I think it has become especially interesting in your country, because it appears - to me, at least - that since 9/11 there has been increasing pressure on dissenting speech, it being labelled "unpatriotic" or "un-American' - even, it seems, beginning to bear a hysterical tendency towards being seen as seditious and traitorous.
I think this is an interesting discussion.
Dys.
I agree with you. Free speech is a very interesting issue. The first amendment is important. And I strongly recommend that those of us who feel free speech should be supported, go out and buy out the stores with Dixie Chicks CDs. But it' beyond me what rationale there could be for complaining about celebrities doing whatever they do with their own free time. Celebrities are human beings like the rest of us. We don't own them.
did you fall down, dlowan?
no, no - just stumbled a bit - I am quite shober, shank you...
dlowan, I think this is an interesting discussion as well. May I join you in partaking of whatever has made you so shober? I feel I need to calm down and relax. Maybe even fall down a bit. Lie on the ground and sleep, laugh or give up. Which ever comes first.
Lola, I read your main point as why are people making a big deal over what the Dixie Chicks said, which I agree with. I think this discussion is important though largely because of the Krugman piece I posted -- the implications of a "grass roots" protest that is orchestrated by businesspeople with close ties to the Bush administration gives me the heebie-jeebies on several levels.
Indeed, Sozobe.
Lola - I have partaken only of water and coffee - I seem to have a sort of inner intoxicate, who needs but the flimsiest of excuses to emerge.
It is my manic side.
Yes, Sozobe, it's true. I was mainly complaining about the idea that celibrities should or should not do what ever they see as helpful in their own way, just as anyone else might. I see no reason to argue that a person, just because they are popular or well known should behave in any way differently than another person less well known. Charleton Heston (who retired today from the NRA leadership) irratates me, not because he's using his celebrity to work for a cause he believes in, but rather because I don't agree with his cause.
I bought my first Dixie Chicks CD the other day. I recommend everyone who dislikes the power tactics of the right, go out and do the same. This is the way we fight the opposition (what ever any one of us is opposing.)
Dlowan,
I do understand about the manic side. I have mine too. It's the source of great fun at times, but at others.............well, I try to keep it under control. However tonight, I've had more than water and coffee. And I'm feeling so much better for it. :-)
All the best to all. Good night until tomorrow.
This ought not to be an issue. The principle of free speech holds that anyone should be able to speak freely, and that constraints on such speech are where the danger lies.
There is no justification within the principle of free speech to suggest that any individual or group ought to shut up. Such suggestions, or the more serious sorts of actions as I mentioned above (threats, boycotts) seek to limit certain voices being heard. They clearly work in opposition to the free speech principle.
However, as this thread demonstrates, and as the example of what occured with the Dixie Chicks or with anti-war protestors demonstrates, such attempts to curtail speech are not at all uncommon in the country which has this principle as its first ammendment. That makes the issue very important.
To suggest that actors ought to shut up about politics is not much different from suggesting that jews ought to shut up about the space program. One can validly query what special knowledge or expertise a speaker has on the subject spoken of, in order to ascertain credibility, and one can subsequently point out to other listeners that this speaker has no special knowledge, but one can't act to shut them up and still maintain the free speech principle.
Sofia's initial wording then, is in conflict with this principle. So, very clearly, are threats, intimidation, and boycotts. Their intent and goal is to shut the person up, rather than to present a more convincing counter-argument.
That such anti-free speech strategies are being forwarded so commonly in the culture, and by broadcast media, and implicitly (if not explicitly) forwarded by the government itself suggests to me that America is less freedom loving than it pretends to itself that it is.
