 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ming
You're just pissed that they disagree with your view on this. What they are doing is perfectly legal, and ISN'T a free speech issue... no matter how much you continue to whine that it is  |
Again I ask, why should the First Amendment (?) only apply to the government? Is it not the main principle of American society? What's the difference who stifles someone's opinions and views, it's still blocking the free flow of ideas and values, which is what your politicians are flouting as the supreme achievement of your society. Why the double standard?
And I'm not pissed because they disagree with my view. Frankly I could care less what the Dixie Chicks believe in. I just don't think they deserve the kind of reaction they're getting, and feel that it is an injustice to them. They worked hard to get to where they are, and they shouldn't have it snatched away simply because they dared to have an opinion.
Frankly I'm appalled at the apathy and indifference I'm coming across here regarding the issue. Like Detroit Dave said, it's a bad omen if this type of thing can be allowed to happen, with no one caring. I would think that you people would have learned that lesson after the McCarthy era, but I guess I'm wrong about that. How many lives were ruined then, how many more will be ruined this time around, if this sort of thing continues?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
My main beef here isn't with the fans, it's with the radio stations. People have the option to buy what they want, but I don't see how the stations have any right to refuse them airplay. Actions like that are treading on dangerous ground IMO. What kind of an example is that setting for others that might have an opinion either way? |
Unlike in Canada, the vast majority of radio stations in the U.S. are privately owned. There are thousands of them, and IIRC less than 10 of them have taken part in the boycott. Those that did seemed to have done so out of respect for the feelings of their listeners, though I'm sure that the individual station manager's opinion on the matter had an impact as well. To put things in perspective, radio stations refuse me airplay as well. It turns out that no one has a right to receive airplay on a particular station. I think it's silly, but I'm not worried about the state of free speech. Everyone seems to have made their point.
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
It's basically saying that if you want a career in entertainment, you keep your mouth shut, which isn't fair or just. She's entitled to her opinions just like everyone else, and no corporate body has the right to say otherwise. |
Look at all the Hollywood people who are much more to the left of the Dixie Chicks. No one is boycotting them, in large part because they have a much wider audience. The Dixie Chicks are a commodity marketed to a more conservative section of the population. Their partners are the record companies and the radio stations. The Dixie Chicks have alienated (to some extent) the customer base that they share with their partners, and their partners are seeking to distance themselves from them, while some of their fans are expressing their disapproval by taking an active part in these boycotts. None of this is particularly surprising, or IMO disturbing. The only reason that the Dixie Chicks opinion was ever made known to anyone publicly is because of the fame that they have achieved due to their business dealings and conscious image building.
Imagine the outcry if an artist publicly proclaimed his support for the Clan. His record company would find a way to dump him, and he would face radio boycotts on a scale that would show this incident up for what it is, as minor blip on the radar. I wouldn't blame people for boycotting such an artist, nor would I blame a business for severing its contacts with him. It is the same in this case, just more controversial because there is more support for Bush bashing than the Clan in the U.S.
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
Frankly, as a public figure I think she has an obligation to speak out, either for or against. I personally think that Bush is a moron, but that opinion doesn't give anyone the right to destroy my career, such as it is. |
Again I disagree. These people are commerical public figures, they are chosen for the way they look, or sing or whatever, not on the basis of their opinions on the issues of the day. I don't give a damn about their opinions on these issues, I'd rather hear what normal people who don't suffer from any of the several personality disorders that are the lot of most entertainers think about it. What they are doing when they make public pronouncements is using their commercially acquired fame to pump up the volume of their personal opinions. It is their call whether they want to risk their commercial viability by doing so. I don't give a damn about what Mr. Whipple thinks about Bush, and if I find his attempt to cash in on his celebrity annoying enough I'll boycott Charmon. If he wants to become an opinion leader, then let him do so based on the viability of his opinions, and not on his fame purchased to push toilet paper.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
I'd be saying the very same things. I'm a musician, most of my friends are musicians, a few of whom having been playing the Country & Western circuit around here for a number of years now. And we're entitled to have opinions on issues just like everyone else, without having to worry whether our careers will be destroyed. How would you react if your supervisor at work came up to you and said that you would have to change your political views or risk being fired from your job? Would that be fair and just? Would you just go along quietly and toe the line like a good little patriot? |
There is a difference between being able to have an opinion and being able to propogate it along the commercial pathways that are a joint responsibility between yourself and your business partners. This woman made her statement in front of an audience that came to see the Dixie Chicks inc. They did not pay to witness an interview with woman, nor to hear her wane poetic on her political opinions. This effects the business partners of the speaker, and they have every right to complain if they feel that their interests are compromised for the personal interests of the speaker.
If I was approached by my employer and asked to change my views or be fired I would have a lawsuit and injunction ready in a matter of minutes. If however I worked as a receptionist for my company, plastered signs supporting David Duke for President around my work area and answered the phone, "Vote for Duke, or We'll all Puke!" my employer would be perfectly within his rights to tell me to stick to business and to stop using the company as a platform to propogate my beliefs, or find another job.
As far as your right to a career is concerned, in this country you certainly have the right to pursue happiness, but we make no guarantee that what your talent earns you on the one hand will not be lost by your indifference to your customers on the other. So have at it, and use that microphone as you see fit. Just remember that you don't own it, and people will wrest it from you the moment that they'd rather hear something else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
|
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sikander
Unlike in Canada, the vast majority of radio stations in the U.S. are privately owned. |
Don't be buying into Pat Robertson's views on "Canuckistan", the same holds true here. There's one main public radio system with one or two stations in each major city, maybe a dozen or two in total. All the rest are private.
quote:
It turns out that no one has a right to receive airplay on a particular station. I think it's silly, but I'm not worried about the state of free speech. Everyone seems to have made their point. |
But no one deserves to be suddenly villified simply because their views run counter to the norm. It's an artist's job to share ideas and views, to express things in ways that others may have difficulty doing themselves. If we have to start writing songs and creating musical images that only satisfy the expectations of the status quo, then music is going to get stale rather quickly. Kind of like some of the boring stuff that was around during the 50's. That sure was a golden age wasn't it?
quote:
The Dixie Chicks have alienated (to some extent) the customer base that they share with their partners, and their partners are seeking to distance themselves from them... |
Yes, and that's my point. They don't have the guts to stand up for anything but the bottom line.
quote:
...while some of their fans are expressing their disapproval by taking an active part in these boycotts. None of this is particularly surprising, or IMO disturbing. |
CD burnings organized by radio stations aren't disturbing? Didn't the same sort of thing happen during the Nazi regime? Oh, but your Americans, it's alright for you do that, you believe in freedom! Do you not see the hypocricy in acts like that?
quote:
It is the same in this case, just more controversial because there is more support for Bush bashing than the Clan in the U.S. |
It's not the same thing at all. Whether or not someone agrees with the upcoming war and how his/her leaders are dealing with it has no comparison to supporting an organization whose very ideal is the suppresion of another race of people. You're comparing apples to oranges.
quote:
What they are doing when they make public pronouncements is using their commercially acquired fame to pump up the volume of their personal opinions. |
Quite the cynic aren't you? Maybe they were just sharing some of their feelings with their audience, who they no doubt think of as friends. Are they not allowed to feel remorse over what their government is about to do to the Iraqi people, and hold Bush accountable for it? Maybe it's their way of apologizing beforehand. I'm not saying I agree or not, but I could certainly see their viewpoint on it, especially after touring throughout Europe. In another article I read they said they were amazed at the anti-American sentiment they came across. Don't they have the right to distance themselves from an administration they don't agree with?
quote:
If he wants to become an opinion leader, then let him do so based on the viability of his opinions, and not on his fame purchased to push toilet paper. |
So you're saying that only politicians are allowed to hold a view, and everyone else has to mind their own business and do as they're told? Now there's freedom for you!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
THE BROCKIE CASE - Statement by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada
A newly-formed legal intervention alliance, known as The Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance (made up of The Evangelical Fellowship of Canada and The Catholic Civil Rights League), has been granted intervenor status in the Brockie case.
On February 24, 2000, a Board of Inquiry under the Ontario Human Rights Code found that the rights of Ray Brillinger and the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (of which Mr. Brillinger was current vice president) had been infringed by Scott Brockie when he refused to provide them with a printing service. Mr. Brockie testified that "he endeavours to live his life according to biblical principles" and that "providing printing services to lesbian and gay organizations was in direct opposition to his beliefs."
The Board found that Brockie discriminated against the complainants on the ground of sexual orientation for which Brockie was ordered to pay damages in the amount of $5,000.00, notwithstanding acceptance by the Board that Brockie's beliefs were sincerely held. The Board went on to say that "it is reasonable to limit Brockie's freedom of religion in order to prevent the very real harm to members of the lesbian and gay community..." and that "Brockie remains free to hold his religious belief and practice them in his home and in his Christian community".
The application for intervention by the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance was successfully argued before the Ontario Divisional Court on May 23. The appeal is tentatively scheduled for hearing on November 29 and 30. Represented by CLF member, David M. Brown of Stikeman Elliott, the Alliance will argue among other things that:
"The freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes the freedom to refuse to provide services to a cause or activity to which an individual objects on bona fide conscientious or religious grounds. The obligations imposed by section 1 of the Ontario Human Rights Code (the "Code") must be read in light of such a constitutional freedom; and
If left undisturbed, the decision of the Board of Inquiry would eliminate, for all intents and purposes, the practical ability of any person who provides services to the public to refuse to service a cause or activity to which he or she objects on bona fide conscientious or religious grounds..."
Only in Canada.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-03-2003 04:55
.
|