OT: Dixie Chicks Situation

well the issue isn't whether or not they're worried about free speech, it's that all of the bumpkin dixie chick fans are turning the act of free speech that offends people into unpatriotism, and then using that power to get their way, with boycotting radio stations, etc, which is just silly, and if i were them i'd completely disown that group of fans, and start trying to appeal to more enlightened people

~SDC~

I do wonder what fans they have left. The right boycotts them for questioning the wisdom of George Bush and the left boycotts them due to the racist overtones of the word 'dixie'.

I just find it odd that the comment 'Sometimes I feel ashamed that George Bush comes from Texas', which was later retracted, can cause such a stir in America.

Over here, they'd be boycotted if they said the opposite! If anyone here said 'Tony Blair makes me ashamed to be a Southerner', they'd attract no more than a raised eyebrow or a nod of acknowledgement.

who cares what the Dixie Chicks think about politics anyway? anyone that chooses their music based on the political opinion of the musician is an idiot.

I'm from Texas and I also happen to think that Bush is a boob, but it's not like being from Texas is some kind of special club. The point of the comment made by the DC was kind of silly.

It would be like me saying that I'm ashamed that Bill Clinton was left-handed.

well...they have that right to say whatever they said....BUT...ppl (aka, their fans) also have a right to boycott/ban their music....issue of free speech....

the only reason they are bringin up that their free speech rights are being violated is because they are losing money....losing popularity (although, i have NEVER cared for anything that they have put out on the radio or albums...). They can say what they want about anyone...that is a right given to them for being an American citizen...but ppl that boycott them also have that same right...

Personally, I just wish the Dixie Chicks would just fade away somewhere....even before all of this mess, I didn't like them...would always turn the station when they would come on.

But really, ppl says, "It is a shame that this country has come to the point where ppl cannot express what they feel without getting backlashed"

I say, "It is a shame that this country has come to the point where ppl cannot express what they feel about someone saying something without getting backlashed".

Were they wrong? No....not really....but one of the issues is this: Would she have said that comment in a stadium full of Texans waving big US flags? More likely, NO...why did she have to go over seas to excercise her right to freedom of speech? Probably becuase she knew she would be more "supported" saying it there....Men (and women) have died to give her the freedom of speech that she says she has lost...what is really happening here is this: she is trying to trample on the freedom of speech of others....yeah, others that oppose what she thinks and says...Unpatriotic? I have my own opinions concerning issue....is her rights being trampled on? NO

Terrible topic for this forum but my two cents is that Dixie chicks ARE NOT smarter than the President. Nor are they probably smarter than any other person on the planet. You know how the saying goes, better to have everyone think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove them right?

The Dixie Chicks are sitting on fat stacks of cash and while they might not be as rich as (though probably smarter than) the Texas oil emperor we currently have in office, I guarantee they're not going to be buying Ramen noodles at Save-Mor because of what some fan-inflated bumpkin said without a thought in her little head.

Feed them all to my Drengin slaves. It is my culture that will assimilate the galaxy.

Well, I disagree with those who say the people who choose to boycott them are 1) idiots, or 2) unenlightened or 3) bumpkins. I think that's making one helluva leap of an assumption as that one circumstance alone hardly serves as an intelligence test, but you guys are entitled to your opinion.

The Chicks clearly used their celebrity status in a situation in which they thought they would score some points with a particular crowd by making a statement which really isn't even related to the type of music they make. That's one mistake I think. Think of it this way, if you liked Rage Against the Machine, and your at their concert when they begin to express warm, fuzzy feelings for the US Government and George Bush, or they start encouraging people to buy stock in Exxon, you will likely be, shall we say, disappointed. Heck, you may even feel betrayed, given the subject matter of their music and how it tends to be ANTI government, ANTI corporation, and ANTI everything else. It's a loose analogy I know, but I think it gets my point across.

While I agree the remark itself wasn't that horrible, they took a risk and lost. I look at it like a poker hand, it was a gamble, but when they lost, they didn't want to pay up. They may have been in London when they said it, but it was incredibly short-sighted of them to think no one else in the world would ever know, particularly their fans back home. As Mythical put it, would they have made the same remark in Texas?

Aside from all that, my original assertion was, it's not a free speech issue. The government is not attempting to censor them. Now if some people were attempting to lobby the government to have their music banned from radio stations, yes, then free speech would be in play. But people calling up local radio stations is quite another matter. While some may say thinking people won't boycott them for their political views, I say thinking people won't buy their free speech argument. It's like saying a company wouldn't hire you because of your race. They may be violating federal laws relating to equal opportunity employment, but they are not violating anything set forth in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

Bobo say Dixie chicks say bad thing about president to ingratiate (ow. big word. Wampryre help Bobo spell) with audience. Bobo think, they say what they like; also think they must be more smart than Bobo to know world events better than governemnt. Bobo say, people who dont like what chicks say tell chicks by not buying chicks music. Same freedom of speech. No big deal to Bobo.
Bobo not like people who crazy over chicks and say want to hurt singers. That not right but Bobo know lots of people not right.
Wamprye tell Bobo this happen before in longtime past to Beatles. Lots people got mad because Beatles say they were taller than Jesus. Bobo not understand.

No, the point is that it is silly to choose what music you enjoy based upon the political views of the artist.

Do you guys have any idea of how many movies and TV shows you'd have to skip if you wanted to be logical and consistent with this approach?

What if Frogboy came out and said he was against the war in Iraq and that we were wrong to invade? Would you protest and stop playing GalCiv? If so, then you are an idiot. Sorry, but no apologies are forthcoming for that opinion.

NOTE: Frogboy never said anything about Iraq. I have no idea what his views on Iraq are... I was using that as a hypothetical to make a point.

Bobo agree with thongor it silly. But Bobo also say thongor must know world full of silly people.

Well you can tell they have no knowledge of politics they just jumped on badwagon. If you want to critisize Bush start with his energy policy! So easy to point to the obvious war yet its the environmental damage and pollution that in the end will cuase more death.

#1, #7

Vernmeister,

Agreed. Very good points that you raise, and reasoned analysis.

I do not look at the artist's "post-controversy" actions in these instances. As you state, the proper (i.e., logically consistent) position to take would be "I said what I said and I either: (a) stand by it, or (b) clearly retract it (and apologize if it was meanspirited or personally offensive to anyone)."

This is what John Lennon did in the aftermath of his controversial comments regarding Jesus. His point was not that he or the Beatles were "greater" (ie, holier or worthier of veneration) than Jesus - it was that they were as popular (and, given the height of Beatlemania in America at that time, arguably moreso). He apologized for his poor use of a simile - but he maintained his position and, even up to his 1980's RS interviews, continued to say the Beatles were, in his personal opinion, the most popular "thing" to hit America since Christianity.

Kudos to him for his integrity. I disagree with his position, but I respect his standing by it.

Rather (to return to my original thought), I look at the various artist's PR Agents' actions, and what those Agents instruct their clients to do in the aftermath.

In today's world, the music and film industries are all about one thing: money. PR agents industry-wide are concerned solely with how many sales their current "hot star" is going to make. These Agents had a collective cow when they discovered the various anti-Bush, anti-war sentiments expressed by Ms. Manes, Madonna (in her latest video, never released in America and now pulled from distribution in Europe), Tim Robbins & Susan Sarandon were not only controversial (good: there's never any "bad" publicity) but costly (bad: reduced sales = reduced profits).

And in a day where Hillary Rosen led the RIAA to self-immolation fighting tooth-and-nail to restrict consumer rights via the Digital Rights Management initiative and the crushing of file-sharing through Napster, etc., further loss of sales is not something the entertainment (esp. music) industry can tolerate.

Thus, the PR spin of trotting out the Dixie Chick's on Entertainment Weekly, Madonna on "Will and Grace", and Bill Maher to defend Mr. Robbins & Ms. Sarandon on various news programs.

However, to clearly label (and identify) the effort as a purely sales/profit ploy, would be (rightly) perceived by the American public (the only consumer base that really counts; even the European and Asian markets only equal, not exceed, America in aggregate consumer demand).

Thus, the effort to portray ("spin") it as a "First-Amendment issue" (which, I agree, it isn't).

Note there is no "ideal" or "right" truly being espoused by this approach. For example, Bill Maher asks the rhetorical question (on both the Today show and "MSNBC with Brian Williams") "Were any American lives lost as a consequence of Susan Sarandon's comments?". He does not ask "Were any other lives lost as a result of Congressman Santorini's comments?", or (to use an older analogy) "We forgave and maintained Bill Clinton in his Presidency. Should we forgive and maintain Bob Packwood in the Senate?".

Although I am a Democrat, I personally feel it is time the Left, especially Hollywood, learned to live by the same standards it imposes on others such as Charlton Heston or Anita Bryant.

Especially if it's going to invoke the First Amendment and try to defend America's Constitutional Rights.

Just my .02.





~SDC~

I have an opinion on this, but since I don't feel like discussing it on these boards I'll just say if any of the Dixie Chicks need a place to crash, they're more than welcome in my house.

The same invitation is open to Shania Twain, Natalie Portman, Gillian Anderson, and Linsey Dawn McKensie.

/drool

I couldn't agree more, Vernmeister2u. The First amendment only protects you from governmental consequences and says nothing about private citizens and corporations. If you want to roll those dice, fine (wrong as you may be), but if you want to play that game, you have to be willing to accept the consequences of losing. Pandering to an anti-Bush London crowd got them exactly what they deserved.

Although I am not a fan of country music, I feel compelled to defend its fans that have been repeatedly bashed as "bumkins" in this thread. While it may be true that some of their fans are less-sophisticated, fans of other types of music could sure take a lesson from them in terms of patriotism, moral clarity and a well-developed sense of right and wrong. In other words: Oppressive Dictator = BAD; Liberating 23 million Iraqis and making the world a safer place = Good. There is nothing gray about that.

I think that it would be great if we could view the tech tree in the game. That would be excellent.

:notsure:

If only the world knew the difference between cause and effect, we'd have so much less strife in the world . . . but only a few do, so we still have what we have.

When Bobo hear story longtime past how John say Beatles bigger than Jesus, Bobo though that mean Beatles taller than Jesus. That make sense. People not wear Beatleboots in olden times. Sandels not have Cuban heels in longtime past. Bobo get mixed up. Him sorry.

Bobo agree people who like country music not bumpkins.
Bobo say man who STILL have mullet is bumpkins.

Bobo say man who STILL have mullet is bumpkins.


Amen Bobo

What about those that give their kids mullets bobo?



Obviously, these people had Dixie Chicks albums, paid good money for em, and liked em. Thus, now suddenly they don't like em merely because of what the Dixie Trailer tr...er chicks said. Now that is dumb. I think what they said and their subsequent backpeddle are both lame. And I think that one hit wonder Charlie Daniels ought to take a shower for a change and shut up too. He's even more lame trying to coattail and revive his never was career on this. I can think of far better anti-Bush spokespersons than they. And I can think of far better pro-Bush spokespersons than he. But I think their music is * er junk anyway. So it's not like any boycott of mine would have any effect because I wasn't buying that junk anyway.

As for idiots: anyone that smashes a perfectly good cd that they could have taken back to the used store and gotten 7 bux for is an idiot.

Either that or they are stuck with Moo3 and the used store already has 20 copies they cannot sell and doesn't want it..... Oh but I digress.

Would they have said the same thing to an American audience?If not,and several people in the audience were asking about the war,they should have just kept on singin.It is pandering to the audience if you say something that you wouldnt say to the country that supports you ,by giving you the rights and the privelages you have.

LoL! What record store is gonna hand out $7 for the Dixie's CDs now?

Anyway, its probably not about weather the ex-fans still like the music or not, its about their right to express their displeasure with the statement made. What better way to express your disapproval of someones actions than by sticking it to them where it hurts (the pocket book, not the death threats)?

Call those people shallow, call them vindictive, call them idiots, it doesn't matter. They are making their point, in a stronger fashion than the DCs could ever make theirs. Hell if I owned a DC cd I'd probably smash it too, but in my case it's just because I don't like the music

Bobo say man who give kid mullet not man. Him criminal.

Long live Bobo!

~SDC~

*sigh*

Well, if you opened the can of worms, I might as well get my two cents in. Quite frankly, I think the whole situation has been blown way out of proportion. Nobody's banned BNL, or Bruce Springsteen, or Martin Sheen, or a whole bunch of other people who have spoken out against the war in Iraq. For some reason, the public in favour of the war and the powers that be have picked the Dixie Chicks as a lightning rod for their opinions.

*shrug* If you don't like what they said, they don't, but stop making a big fuss about it. The war is over, and the comments were made almost a month ago. It's a dead issue in my mind.

And, as per the arguments that this isn't a First Amendment issue -- how can a government of the people, by the people, and for the people protect the right of free speech if the people themselves refuse to protect it? In a democracy, WE are the government and we must take responsibility for it; or everything we say about it is a sham.

What? Who is suppressing anyones right to speak? The DCs said thier bit, their fans, and others said their bit, where's the problem?

Hell I'm surprised no one's brought up flag burning though, hehe.

Oh and by the way... don't tell me (or anyone else) what to 'not make a fuss about' if you're goint to argue about free speech, mmm'k...

I think it's all a desperate attempt to keep themselves in the spotlight. By no means are her Freedom of Speech rights being neglected. She said what she said and now people are using their right to Freedom of Speech in a different way ie. not playing her music, burning CDs etc.
I don't think the Gov. gives two craps about what she said. 'Like she matters?'
More than likely the only reason she appologized was because of the reaction it had on the majority of their fans.
I'm proud to be living in America and I disagree with what she said. I personally will never contribute to anything that would bring more attention or income to them ie. buying a mag with them on the cover, watching a documentary, buying a CD {not that i ever would, and this message thread doesn't count...}
Dixie Chicks should stop kissing butt and join the
I-League

Mass boycotts merely for what someone says are fascist. It's exactly what the Nazi's did before they came to power. I think it's total idiocy to pay attention to what a star says either way. I'm not boycotting Bull Durham (the second greatest sports movie ever) over Susan am I?

Now if she'd done something like Michael Jackson and his Mikey Club if you get my drift, Or actively encouraged crimial activity, or given her kid a mullet, that's different. But boycotting people for what they say is nothing more than bumpkin thugism. And Besides, If I boycotted everyone who disagreed with me on anything, I'd have to boycott all of the dang products out there. It borders on the ridiculous. I mean where did we get this stupid notion that we must punish everyone who disagrees with us merely for disagreeing with us? It's patently stupid and leads us to a totalitarian gov't of survival of the most powerful, or those that can stir up the mob most. Enjoy Hitler, that's what this kind of behavior leads to.


Boycott Mullets!!!!