God forbid an artist say that....Jahfin wrote:I'm not sure if this is what was meant but I'm guessing it's the destruction of Dixie Chick CDs, being banned from the radio, the comments made to Natalie about "being in bed with Osama" and the death threats she received. She only said what was on a lot of people's minds. Hell, it's not like she said the Dixie Chick were more popular than Jesus or anything.green1 wrote:What do you mean by "the way people are nowadays? And, what got out of hand?mermaidindisguise wrote:Was not a smart move on her part because of the way people are nowadays .... but it should have never gotten out of hand like it did.
Bush Gets No Respect From Chicks' Maines
Moderator: SMLCHNG
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 53938
- Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
- Location: Where payphones all are ringing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODJMJgSJWw
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
Thanks. And while I personally see these as over the top. Aren't they all an expression of other people's right to free speech? With the obvious exception that a threat on any person's life should be prosecuted. That is, in my opinion, something not covered by the first amendment.Jahfin wrote:I'm not sure if this is what was meant but I'm guessing it's the destruction of Dixie Chick CDs, being banned from the radio, the comments made to Natalie about "being in bed with Osama" and the death threats she received. She only said what was on a lot of people's minds. Hell, it's not like she said the Dixie Chick were more popular than Jesus or anything.
The Dixie Chicks were not banned from the radio. The people in that area called the radio station sponsors and told them that if they support any radio station that plays the Dixie Chicks they would refuse to buy their products. The sponsors called the radio station and relayed the message. This is people speaking with their pocket books. As distasteful as you may find it, it is these people's right to free speech that you are now questioning.
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 53938
- Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
- Location: Where payphones all are ringing
I think this is a bit more grey than black and white. After all, it is the public airwaves being used by a company granted a license by the government. While people can certainly choose to boycott a product or two, the appearance of an organized effort via the pocketbook carries a certain whiff of censorship. Were the airwaves private, and unregulated, it would be more black and white.green1 wrote:Thanks. And while I personally see these as over the top. Aren't they all an expression of other people's right to free speech? With the obvious exception that a threat on any person's life should be prosecuted. That is, in my opinion, something not covered by the first amendment.Jahfin wrote:I'm not sure if this is what was meant but I'm guessing it's the destruction of Dixie Chick CDs, being banned from the radio, the comments made to Natalie about "being in bed with Osama" and the death threats she received. She only said what was on a lot of people's minds. Hell, it's not like she said the Dixie Chick were more popular than Jesus or anything.
The Dixie Chicks were not banned from the radio. The people in that area called the radio station sponsors and told them that if they support any radio station that plays the Dixie Chicks they would refuse to buy their products. The sponsors called the radio station and relayed the message. This is people speaking with their pocket books. As distasteful as you may find it, it is these people's right to free speech that you are now questioning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODJMJgSJWw
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick thing was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their concerts. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
Last edited by Jahfin on May 24, 2006 2:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 53938
- Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
- Location: Where payphones all are ringing
D' oh......Jahfin wrote:I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their shows. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODJMJgSJWw
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I couldn't disagree more. You said that the airwaves are public. That means that the public can decide what gets transmitted. What better example of public control of a public asset is there than this? This is precisely what I was speaking of when I said that there are consequnces that must be accepted. Consequences, repsonsibility, duty, whatever you want to call it, is the natural check and balance to any Freedom. Freedom without check is chaos.RinglingRingling wrote:I think this is a bit more grey than black and white. After all, it is the public airwaves being used by a company granted a license by the government. While people can certainly choose to boycott a product or two, the appearance of an organized effort via the pocketbook carries a certain whiff of censorship. Were the airwaves private, and unregulated, it would be more black and white.
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 53938
- Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
- Location: Where payphones all are ringing
but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?green1 wrote:I couldn't disagree more. You said that the airwaves are public. That means that the public can decide what gets transmitted. What better example of public control of a public asset is there than this? This is precisely what I was speaking of when I said that there are consequnces that must be accepted. Consequences, repsonsibility, duty, whatever you want to call it, is the natural check and balance to any Freedom. Freedom without check is chaos.RinglingRingling wrote:I think this is a bit more grey than black and white. After all, it is the public airwaves being used by a company granted a license by the government. While people can certainly choose to boycott a product or two, the appearance of an organized effort via the pocketbook carries a certain whiff of censorship. Were the airwaves private, and unregulated, it would be more black and white.
In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODJMJgSJWw
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
It was silly. But those people were exercising their rights. Now this radio station. Did it loose it's sponsorship? I would liek to know that. Because people will call in and suport something as much as they will oppose it. It is only when there is a huge disparity will between the two sides will the radio station change it's position to b ein line with the people who listen to them. If they act out alone, people will stop listening to that station. I am sure that there are other country stations to be heard in that town.Jahfin wrote:I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their shows. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
Why get the government involved at all? All they do is take more money and solve no issues but rather discuss, agree to discuss more, and then issue restrictions on peoples freedoms. Equal time for equal views? This is a matter of free speech. Not government control over who can say what and when. These people voiced their opinion and you don't like their methods. So now you think we should get the government involved to restrict their free speech. Is this freedom only allowed when it is for something you agree with?RinglingRingling wrote:but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?
In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.
I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before and at this point it's going around in circles.green1 wrote:It was silly. But those people were exercising their rights. Now this radio station. Did it loose it's sponsorship? I would liek to know that. Because people will call in and suport something as much as they will oppose it. It is only when there is a huge disparity will between the two sides will the radio station change it's position to b ein line with the people who listen to them. If they act out alone, people will stop listening to that station. I am sure that there are other country stations to be heard in that town.Jahfin wrote:I'm not really questioning anything but I did misspeak regarding the nature of their banning from radio. The whole anti-Dixie Chick was overblown by the press beyond belief. Truth be told, their concerts continued to sell out and protestors were nearly (if not completely) non-existent at their concerts. The footage I saw on the CMT 60 Minutes special show something like a total of two protestors in the parking lot at one of their shows. In addition to the death threat(s), it really got out of hand when the programmer of a radio station in Texas also called for the banning of any record that featured Natalie's father, reknown pedal steel player Lloyd Maines. That eliminated a huge chunk of their music library since he appears on very many country records, dating back to the 60s and 70s.
I believe everyone of us (including entertainers) have the right to speak our minds, as well as accept the consequences of those actions (be they positive or negative). That said, even though it may be well within people's rights to do so, I never saw the point in burning Beatles and/or Dixie Chicks albums. It's not like it's going to silence the voice of oppostion. If anything, it empowers it.
We have, and I think we are more in agreement then not. We still have and listen to our Dixie Chicks albums from before the last outburst. But we won't buy anymore. I agree that the burning is wrong. Any positive message that was trying to be conveyed is lost in the emotional destructiveness of the event itself.Jahfin wrote:I'm pretty sure we've had this conversation before and at this point it's going around in circles.
I believe everyone of us (including entertainers) have the right to speak our minds, as well as accept the consequences of those actions (be they positive or negative). That said, even though it may be well within people's rights to do so, I never saw the point in burning Beatles and/or Dixie Chicks albums. It's not like it's going to silence the voice of oppostion. If anything, it empowers it.
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 53938
- Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
- Location: Where payphones all are ringing
it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.green1 wrote:Why get the government involved at all? All they do is take more money and solve no issues but rather discuss, agree to discuss more, and then issue restrictions on peoples freedoms. Equal time for equal views? This is a matter of free speech. Not government control over who can say what and when. These people voiced their opinion and you don't like their methods. So now you think we should get the government involved to restrict their free speech. Is this freedom only allowed when it is for something you agree with?RinglingRingling wrote:but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?
In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODJMJgSJWw
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 67702
- Joined: April 24, 2001 8:00 pm
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: my next beer, as long as it's not Blandshark
They're not restricting any broadcasts. They told sponsors they wouldn't spend money on the sponsors products so they were exercising their free speech right through their wallets. The corporations caved because management had no balls and wouldn't stand up to them.RinglingRingling wrote:it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.green1 wrote:Why get the government involved at all? All they do is take more money and solve no issues but rather discuss, agree to discuss more, and then issue restrictions on peoples freedoms. Equal time for equal views? This is a matter of free speech. Not government control over who can say what and when. These people voiced their opinion and you don't like their methods. So now you think we should get the government involved to restrict their free speech. Is this freedom only allowed when it is for something you agree with?RinglingRingling wrote:but is the public deciding, or is it a very narrowly-focused attempt to use money (or its removal) to silence dissent/opinions that a certain bloc does not find appealing for whatever reason?
In my book, a public decision would be a vote. Getting private sponsors to threaten publically-licensed broadcasters is not a public decision. Perhaps if the Communications Act of 1996 had not all but gutted the equal-time-for-equal-views concept, both sides could have had a fair and equitable opportunity.
what I really mean . . . I wish you were here
I don't see the government as evil. I see it as a bloated beaurocracy more interested in it's self fulfillment then the betterment of the country it is supposed to lead. For the sake of this argument let us say you are right. If the it really was a "narrow band of vocal people who are offended" than the majority of people not offended would be p*** off and call the sponsors demanding the opposite of what you rminority said. That is the equalizer. When everyone speaks and has a voice in the matter the will of the public is served best. Rather than the Dixie Chicks coming out with a song people don't like but are forced to listen to as they have no say in the porgramming of the radio stations. How do you think the top 40 countdowns are conducted. People call and request songs get played or not played. The results are tabulated and the favorite songs are played more often and the other ones are thrown out. Is this censorship?RinglingRingling wrote:it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 53938
- Joined: May 30, 2004 3:12 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Glory Days
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: Landshark, and Margaritaville products...
- Location: Where payphones all are ringing
match the red with the red.green1 wrote:I don't see the government as evil. I see it as a bloated beaurocracy more interested in it's self fulfillment then the betterment of the country it is supposed to lead. For the sake of this argument let us say you are right. If the it really was a "narrow band of vocal people who are offended" than the majority of people not offended would be p*** off and call the sponsors demanding the opposite of what you rminority said. That is the equalizer. When everyone speaks and has a voice in the matter the will of the public is served best. Rather than the Dixie Chicks coming out with a song people don't like but are forced to listen to as they have no say in the porgramming of the radio stations. How do you think the top 40 countdowns are conducted. People call and request songs get played or not played. The results are tabulated and the favorite songs are played more often and the other ones are thrown out. Is this censorship?RinglingRingling wrote:it is going in circles. You see the government as evil. I see it as a means by which (if it is held accountable), it levels the playing field. There is no accountability for a privately-held entity. It is a matter of free speech, and whether you want to see it or not, one side used money to restrict the other's voice. I am not seeing how preventing private money doing the restricting in the case of the sponsors threatening to pull radio spots if a station continues to play a record on the public airwaves, is "restricting" the rights of a narrow, vocal band of people who are offended by what she said. They have a right to say what they want, they don't have a right to restrict a broadcast that is legal under the FCC regs.
and in this case, it has nothing to do with the release of a song people are forced to listen to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pODJMJgSJWw
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
I was a lifeguard until that blue kid got me fired.
http://www.buffettnews.com/gallery/disp ... ?pos=-7695
-
- Last Man Standing
- Posts: 67702
- Joined: April 24, 2001 8:00 pm
- Number of Concerts: 0
- Favorite Boat Drink: my next beer, as long as it's not Blandshark
Except for the times the record company pays the radio station to play its artists more often.green1 wrote:How do you think the top 40 countdowns are conducted. People call and request songs get played or not played. The results are tabulated and the favorite songs are played more often and the other ones are thrown out.
what I really mean . . . I wish you were here
-
- Hoot!
- Posts: 2777
- Joined: April 27, 2004 1:04 pm
- Number of Concerts: 75
- Location: South of disorder
Wino you know wrote:She IS entitled to her opinion.a1aara wrote:Why are you entitled to an opinion and not her?Wino you know wrote:In ANY area of the entertainment industry, KEEP YOUR F'ING PIE HOLE SHUT!!!poolboy Bob wrote:In country music, "looks" is probably 75% of success. I can't recall any ugly woman who have had any success in the business. It seems to be look pretty, sing pretty and keep your mouth shut.
I wish someone would stuff cotton in that b*tch's mouth.
Thanks for a great post, Bob.
But she needs to realize she's an (ugh) entertainer and nothing more.
What if I pulled a motorist over for speeding and said I'd throw away the ticket if he'd/she'd vote republican?
DO YOUR "JOB" AND LEAVE THE POLITICS OUT OF IT!!!!
People don't go to concerts to hear some cow whine about what an a-hold the President of the United States is.
Jeez, f'ing Louise!
What if President Bush called for a news conference, and, once the cameras were rolling started singing "Margaritaville?"
You may have a point about entertainers and politics. Entertainers like Rush Limbough and Bill O'Rielly should shut up as well. Talk about a cow.
-
- God's Own Drunk
- Posts: 21467
- Joined: February 5, 2002 7:00 pm
- Favorite Buffett Song: Far Side of the World & Somewhere Over China
- Number of Concerts: 105
- Favorite Boat Drink: Beaujalais Villages French Burgundy
- Location: Plowin' straight ahead, come what may
Neither Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Rielly weigh over 180 pounds.a1aara wrote:You may have a point about entertainers and politics. Entertainers like Rush Limbough and Bill O'Rielly should shut up as well. Talk about a cow.
They BOTH did at one time, but they BOTH did something about it-can't say the same for her highness of the ditzi twits. But that's neither here nor there-
I EXPECT to hear political points of view from Rush and Bill O'Rielly. That's why I listen to them-and Alan Combes and James Carville, and the rest of them.
That's NOT why I go to concerts.
So AGAIN I say her highness Natalie should keep her political vitriol to herself and work on her singing.