Springsteen defends the Dixie Chicks

Heeven has it right, IMO.

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.
_________________________
No one impugned the DC's right to speech and expression. And, no one can violate the public's right to respond.

The reason for all the Southern voices calling in to voice their displeasure is easy enough to explain. Who do you think the main fans of the Dixie Chicks were? The Chicks probably didn't take into consideration that their money mostly comes from Southerners-- who are more vocally pro-military and politically Conservative.

Still, I don't think they are doing so badly. I think the media storm was worse than the actual money lost in sales. And look at them now, on the cover of some mag, nude-- After a while, this will probably enhance their careers--

The funniest thing is to see the 'freedom of speech' crowd, trying to use the argument that some don't deserve their right to freedom of speech. Can't have it both ways...

In re: to the Dixie Chicks and Santorum; I believe the issue is not freedom of speech.
Some pop singer saying she is ashamed of the President pales in comparision to a US Senator denigrating an entire group of people.

heevan, I don't think there is such a thing as "harping" too much about the right to free speech. And, when you say "we are all so obviously well aware of" I think you are ignoring a large part of the population that is not aware of the first amendment.

These girls have no country or blue grass history as in their
bringing up, they were trained as classical musicians and are
doing country just for the money, they don't care about the
people who supported them.

ibredd - I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

Dlowan - sorry, you asked who's Santorum. Well, he's a conservative Republican Senator from the state of Pennsylvania who had some things to say about homosexuality and related topics in regard to a related Supreme Court case currently being heard, and he came in for some sharp criticism. I believe there are several threads covering this here and there.

Thanks mamajuana - and someone gave a url back up there aways - thank you, too.

off to have a look.

exactly. And its nog against the law to think (and say in public) the president is a moron. pro-segregation remarks like those of Santorum are illegal. Santorum denies homosexuals the fundamental Right to Equality, and to be Free from all forms of Discrimination.

All creatures are equal, regardless of race, gender, religion, skin color,...

Pro-segregation remarks are illegal. Which law would that be violating?

Ibredd - the Chicks training has nothing to do with this. And if it did, you'd be wrong - all three - and particularly Ms. Maines, have good bluegrass credentials.

My take on all of this is that one of the more strongly held values in the U.S. is freedom of speech for its citizens. Shouldn't people who voted be defending the Chicks' freedom of speech? (i don't care to know what people who didn't vote, think or say)

Getting punished or attacked for voicing dissenting opinions goes with the territory, whether or not one has celebrity. It can cut both ways. I had never been interested in the DC at all, but have now bought their CDs. We have to speak out and act to preserve the right to free speach, whether or not we agree with what is said and no matter whom we bore or offend.

They should keep their clothes on and stop making people sick to their stomachs!

Unfortunately, it seems that the only one of the Hollywood/Professional Entertainment group that understands the point edgarblythe makes is Martin Sheen.

People make comments every single day and SOMEONE is always offended by them and criticizes them one way or the other.

The irony of the comments from people like the Dixie Chicks is that in complaining about the feedback they got they are doing exactly what they are accusing others of doing.

None of it has any impact on the 1st Amendment however. If anything, these types of controversies just make it clear that a whole lot of people don't understand the 1st Amendment at all. The government hasn't stepped in anywhere in any of these types of things with anything. Perhaps Natalie Maines ought to try reading the 1st Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech..."

I haven't heard a peep from the Congress on any of this...

Do you suppose the "Founders" had the naked Chicks in mind, when they wrote that statement?

They are quite comely in their pelts, NH. (spoken from the male point of view)

As a matter of fact, I think they had the exact situation in mind when they wrote the statement.

It doesn't say Congress shall make no law (except when someone is naked or except when someone is a female country singer who voiced her point of view or except when a fan dislikes a female country singer's point of view)...


That is the beauty of our Constitution and what makes our country so great.

I think maybe one of the things that has bothered me about this is the black-listing tilt there seems to be. During the days of the late and unlamented Senator Joe McCarthy, he conducted a terrible witch-hunt among - yes, the entertainment crowd. And he and his cronies created such an atmosphere of fear and distrust that it took years to bring back any sense of order and decency. It also took a few courageous people to stand up and say "no more."

There doesn't appear to be a republican out there who can laugh at himself, or not take himself seriously, and this can be a serious fault. Dixie Chicks will come and go, what is important is the ability of a private citizen to be able to voice a comment or a criticism. Otherwise, how different are we from the very places we say we are liberating?

I agree with you, mamajuana.

I don't know Springsteen nor the Dixie Chicks, so whatever he's support'n doesn't bother me none. c.i.

Yes, but I don't think we are seeing a blacklist here. That was an actual "do not hire" list. This seems to be a business decision, or series of decisions, arrived at independently. The comparison is apples to bathtubs.

In this era of conglomerate media ownership by a very few select individuals, I find it difficult to agree that it was a series of business decisions arrived at independently. I'd like to see ownership disclosures from all the radio stations, cable channels and other media outlets that are refusing to air Dixie Chick music or works of the other entertainers being singled out for their views.

As far as this not being a "do not hire" list, how do you think the entertainers earn their royalty payments? The stations "hire" their work for a few minutes of air time that their advertisers pay for.