Reply
Thu 24 Apr, 2003 10:36 pm
Springsteen defends Dixie Chicks
Knight Ridder Newspapers
Apr. 22, 2003 04:20 PM
The Boss has a message for all you Dixie Chicks haters out there: Shame on you!
Bruce Springsteen - probably America's most prominent symbol of rock 'n' roll patriotism - recently posted the following statement at brucespringsteen.net.
"The Dixie Chicks have taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express themselves. To me, they're terrific American artists expressing American values by using their American right to free speech. For them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire radio networks, for speaking out is un-American. The pressure coming from the government and big business to enforce conformity of thought concerning the war and politics goes against everything that this country is about - namely freedom.
"Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create free speech in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home. I don't know what happens next, but I do want to add my voice to those who think that the Dixie Chicks are getting a raw deal, and an un-American one to boot. I send them my support."
It's nice to see a rational defense like this. I watched part of a tv interview of the Dixie Chicks tonight, and almost all of the negative callers-in had the same southern accent, sort of like it was an organized effort. Good for Springsteen.
mamjuana wrote that Springsteen wrote:
Quote:some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home
Do you not find it interesting that the same argument could be used to defend those who are speaking AGAINST the Dixie Chicks?
Go Springsteen!
Is anyone suggesting that the people speaking against them should face economic loss (or ruin) and ostracism for their free speech?
max - huh? The relevance?
We are often lauded around the world for our freedom of speech in this country, as well we should.
What many fail to realize is that just because you have freedom of speech, this does not necessarily guarantee you a right to be heard.
Regardless of who you are.
Huh? Is this catch 22 - you can speak, as long as nobody hears you?
Not at all.
The Constitution does not guarantee a right to be heard.
The Dixie Chicks (or anyone else for that matter) may say whatever they wish.
The rest of us are not compelled to listen, however.
is that the point of what Springsteen was talking about?
of course you do not have to listen.
should an organised campaign of punishment occur, though?
in this sort of circumstance?
if they had promulgated mass murder of all canadians, or something of that ilk, sure - but for expressing an opinion?
Why is it ok for the Dixie Chicks to express their opinion but not ok for Rick Santorum?
Being the conspiracy theorist that I am, :wink: I suspect that this campaign of punishment such as destruction of their CDs and boycotting concerts is really the work of one or two (maybe both) factions.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that Sony Corporation has a hand in the fanning of the flames in retribution for the court case the Dixie Chicks won against them for non-payment of royalty fees. The other faction would be all those guys out there who got their egos bruised by a group of women making it big in what is mostly a male-dominated industry. Combine the marketing powerhouse of Sony, bruised male egos, and women intelligently speaking their minds and you have a recipe for overblown theatrics.
Personally, no matter what their views are, I'm impressed by the fact that they are so much aware of what is going on outside the world of entertainment. So many entertainers are so self-involved in their own little world and inarticulate it is embarrassing to hear them open their mouths just to ask for a glass of water.
Max wrote:Why is it ok for the Dixie Chicks to express their opinion but not ok for Rick Santorum?
The primary difference between the Dixie Chicks and Santorum is that Santorum isn't a country singer... and everyone knows that only country singers get to express their opinions
The KKK and neo-Nazis have a right to march in our cities, Santorum can say whatever he likes, and people are free to organize boycotts against anything or anyone they consider "un-American". Our job is to be critical and discerning listeners.
Personally I could care less what the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, etal have to say. I hear their comments and I move on. I can see how their opinions may inflame others who are not of the same opinion or who do not appreciate them using their fame/status to voice their feelings. I also believe that those who disagree and voice or act on their feelings in response to those statements made are entitled to do so.
We are all blathering on about "my rights to free speech" blah blah blah. Well we all have the same rights. If one bitches about something surely they know there are those who will disagree and if you are a public figure, whose popularity and career depend on public demand for your services then you can expect a backlash as others who disagree with you, do what they are free to do - chose to punish you by not buying your product/watching your movies, etc. I wish the media would let it go and the celebrities would stop whining about backlash. They were bold enough to speak out, now let others enjoy their rights too - the right to be unhappy with them. Plus they have plenty of support too. This item deserved a small comment and then it should have been over. How many times has any of us said something stupid that we would not wish plastered all over newspapers and radio-waves around the world? Yes it was stupid thing to say but a mountain has been made out of a molehill here.
I agree with you, Heeven.
Heeven wrote:a mountain has been made out of a molehill here.
Yes, it seems if those offened by the Dixie Chicks had not over reacted, this would be history by now. The attention the DC's are receiving ( an explanatory appearance on Diane Sawyer, magazine cover, just this week) have boosted sales of their music.
The right acted as if the singer had committed an act of treason.
It was just a comment.
Now if the DC's had launched into a rendition of Johnny Cash's anti war song "Man In Black"................. ahhhhhhh
And if Santorum, Lott, etc. would exercise a little restraint in their roles as public servants (we are, after all, the ones who pay them), and stay away from offensive comments about certain groups, this would never have happened.
The Dixie Chicks, although public entertainers, are still paid for their work by private companies, and so their words are by private individuals. Santorum is a public figure paid by the citizens of the country (all of them, including the gay groups) - and that's the difference.
Over-reaction leading to unnecessary fuss - are we so hard up for entertainment?
I don't agree with heevan that we are "blathering" about the right to free speech. Blather is more appropriate a term when speaking of the antics of Monica Lewinsky or Gary Condit.
"Blather": "to talk foolishly at length" Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
By definition, blather is indicated as foolish. I would use the term foolish to relate, not to the subject matter, but rather to the continuous harping about these rights that we are all so obviously well aware of. We do not need this rammed down our throats again and again so that people can justify the statements they make - whether they be right or wrong.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace