Back When You'd Get Fired for Supporting Free Speech That Criticized the President

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Stephen M. Silverman, People

Tuesday May 06, 2003

Just when it seemed the Dixie Chicks controversy was dying down, a Colorado Springs, Colo., radio station has suspended two disc jockeys for playing the music of the Texas trio -- violating a ban that went into place after the group criticized President Bush.

On March 10, on the eve of the war in Iraq, lead singer Natalie Maines, 29, told a London concert audience she was "ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas."

KKCS station manager Jerry Grant tells the Associated Press, "We pulled their music two months ago, and it's been a difficult decision because how can you ignore the hottest group in country music."

Although there has been some discussion about whether to reinstate the Chicks on the KKCS playlist, station DJs Dave Moore and Jeff Singer became impatient, Grant says.

"They made it very clear that they support wholeheartedly the president of the United States. They support wholeheartedly the troops, the military. But they also support the right of free speech," the station manager said.

The station reportedly received a couple hundred calls about the suspension, with an overwhelming majority -- 75 percent -- in favor of playing the Chicks' music, reports AP.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,626124,00.html

Edited December 4, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[SMR 368]

By Stephen M. Silverman, People

Tuesday May 06, 2003

Just when it seemed the Dixie Chicks controversy was dying down, a Colorado Springs, Colo., radio station has suspended two disc jockeys for playing the music of the Texas trio -- violating a ban that went into place after the group criticized President Bush.

On March 10, on the eve of the war in Iraq, lead singer Natalie Maines, 29, told a London concert audience she was "ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas."

KKCS station manager Jerry Grant tells the Associated Press, "We pulled their music two months ago, and it's been a difficult decision because how can you ignore the hottest group in country music."

Although there has been some discussion about whether to reinstate the Chicks on the KKCS playlist, station DJs Dave Moore and Jeff Singer became impatient, Grant says.

"They made it very clear that they support wholeheartedly the president of the United States. They support wholeheartedly the troops, the military. But they also support the right of free speech," the station manager said.

The station reportedly received a couple hundred calls about the suspension, with an overwhelming majority -- 75 percent -- in favor of playing the Chicks' music, reports AP.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,626124,00.html

Free speech is not what you seem to think it is. If you read the Bill of Rights, it says, "Congress shall make no law...". That's all that free speech is. A statement that Congress shall make no law. If the owner of a radio station wants to limit or control what is said on his radio station, that's his right. If his employees don't follow his instructions, it's his right to fire them. If he disagrees with a group and doesn't want to play their music, you guessed it, that's his right, too.

The American misunderstanding of rights causes a lot of problems currently. The freedom of religion doesn't mean that someone has to build you a church. The right to bear arms doesn't mean someone should buy you a gun. The right to healthcare, which although not mentioned in the constitution may exist, at most simply means the government can't prohibit you from receiving healthcare. It doesn't require anyone to give you healthcare (the Hippocratic Oath doesn't deal with fundamental rights, it deals with responsibilities of doctors). The freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you airtime and doesn't mean that people can't boycott you for saying something they disagree with.

[HAL 9000 96]

By Stephen M. Silverman, People

Tuesday May 06, 2003

Just when it seemed the Dixie Chicks controversy was dying down, a Colorado Springs, Colo., radio station has suspended two disc jockeys for playing the music of the Texas trio -- violating a ban that went into place after the group criticized President Bush.

On March 10, on the eve of the war in Iraq, lead singer Natalie Maines, 29, told a London concert audience she was "ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas."

KKCS station manager Jerry Grant tells the Associated Press, "We pulled their music two months ago, and it's been a difficult decision because how can you ignore the hottest group in country music."

Although there has been some discussion about whether to reinstate the Chicks on the KKCS playlist, station DJs Dave Moore and Jeff Singer became impatient, Grant says.

"They made it very clear that they support wholeheartedly the president of the United States. They support wholeheartedly the troops, the military. But they also support the right of free speech," the station manager said.

The station reportedly received a couple hundred calls about the suspension, with an overwhelming majority -- 75 percent -- in favor of playing the Chicks' music, reports AP.

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,626124,00.html

Free speech is not what you seem to think it is. If you read the Bill of Rights, it says, "Congress shall make no law...". That's all that free speech is. A statement that Congress shall make no law. If the owner of a radio station wants to limit or control what is said on his radio station, that's his right. If his employees don't follow his instructions, it's his right to fire them. If he disagrees with a group and doesn't want to play their music, you guessed it, that's his right, too.

The American misunderstanding of rights causes a lot of problems currently. The freedom of religion doesn't mean that someone has to build you a church. The right to bear arms doesn't mean someone should buy you a gun. The right to healthcare, which although not mentioned in the constitution may exist, at most simply means the government can't prohibit you from receiving healthcare. It doesn't require anyone to give you healthcare (the Hippocratic Oath doesn't deal with fundamental rights, it deals with responsibilities of doctors). The freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you airtime and doesn't mean that people can't boycott you for saying something they disagree with.

[side thought] Criticizing the invasion of Iraq vs criticizing non-existent legislation. Yeah I see the parallels, definitely.[end of side thought]

I think you are definitely right as to the dynamic in the workplace though. This philosophy should be defended for all other hierarchical relationships not covered by the Constitution so that we don't have any misunderstandings or inconvenient selective memory loss when, say... someone making crazy paranoid sh!t up about Obama gets canned from work for doing exactly that.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Free speech is not what you seem to think it is. If you read the Bill of Rights, it says, "Congress shall make no law...". That's all that free speech is. A statement that Congress shall make no law. If the owner of a radio station wants to limit or control what is said on his radio station, that's his right. If his employees don't follow his instructions, it's his right to fire them. If he disagrees with a group and doesn't want to play their music, you guessed it, that's his right, too.

The American misunderstanding of rights causes a lot of problems currently. The freedom of religion doesn't mean that someone has to build you a church. The right to bear arms doesn't mean someone should buy you a gun. The right to healthcare, which although not mentioned in the constitution may exist, at most simply means the government can't prohibit you from receiving healthcare. It doesn't require anyone to give you healthcare (the Hippocratic Oath doesn't deal with fundamental rights, it deals with responsibilities of doctors). The freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you airtime and doesn't mean that people can't boycott you for saying something they disagree with.

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks was expressing her freedom of speech when she said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. The DJ's got in trouble for playing their music on the radio, regardless of their popularity, because the radio stations buckled under threats by groups like Free Republic, who were boycotting radio stations if they so much as played any of the Dixie Chicks music. How can you defend that? My God.

[NickD 203]

In my civil service and corporate days, discussing politics was strictly taboo, and you certainly didn't go around passing pamphlets for a candidate. But no one did that and no one to my knowledge was fired for that. Really can't sympathized for these disk jockeys, it's okay to appeal the rules of your employer, but not to break them, they broke them, so got what they deserved.

Your workplace is not a democracy, but a dictatorship, did see a guy fired for refusing to wear a tie after several warnings. They can make any kind of rule they so desire.

Really searching where we actually have freedom in this country, I did own a home where I could walk outside naked if I wanted to, but mainly because nobody could see me. Wouldn't dare to that where I live now. And I sure in the hell didn't have any freedom even as a general manager of a fortune 500 company. Work always came first.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Workplace ban on Christmas

MORE than 70 per cent of bosses in Bolton are planning to ban Christmas decorations in their workplace for fear of offending other faiths.

A survey of 428 employers from various sectors across the town were polled by Peninsula BusinessWise, a Manchester-based employment law firm.

The survey revealed that 77 per cent of employers said they were banning decorations because they were worried about offending other faiths, while 84 per cent admitted they were not aware of a legal requirement to celebrate all faiths.

Nearly half of the bosses polled said that decorations make the workplace look "unprofessional", and almost 40 per cent said they believed decorations have a negative impact on productivity.

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/104292...n_on_christmas/

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

i don't care if one of my co-workers is offended or not. if i put up christmas decorations, they can go suck ice cubes.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I was fired for wearing this shirt. When my phone didn't ring I knew it was the ACLU.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

i don't care if one of my co-workers is offended or not. if i put up christmas decorations, they can go suck ice cubes.

Just don't play any Dixie Chicks CD's while you do it.

[alienlovechild 75]

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks was expressing her freedom of speech when she said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. The DJ's got in trouble for playing their music on the radio, regardless of their popularity, because the radio stations buckled under threats by groups like Free Republic, who were boycotting radio stations if they so much as played any of the Dixie Chicks music. How can you defend that? My God.

The poor Dixie Sluts.

There's a whole cottage industry of people trying to put regulations on certain political radio talk shows and a certain cable news outlet. Some them were called unpatriotic for wanting Obama to fail.

I'm worried about the government placing restrictions on unpopular speech than private groups boycotting people they don't like.

[dalegg 143]

Free speech is not what you seem to think it is. If you read the Bill of Rights, it says, "Congress shall make no law...". That's all that free speech is. A statement that Congress shall make no law. If the owner of a radio station wants to limit or control what is said on his radio station, that's his right. If his employees don't follow his instructions, it's his right to fire them. If he disagrees with a group and doesn't want to play their music, you guessed it, that's his right, too.

The American misunderstanding of rights causes a lot of problems currently. The freedom of religion doesn't mean that someone has to build you a church. The right to bear arms doesn't mean someone should buy you a gun. The right to healthcare, which although not mentioned in the constitution may exist, at most simply means the government can't prohibit you from receiving healthcare. It doesn't require anyone to give you healthcare (the Hippocratic Oath doesn't deal with fundamental rights, it deals with responsibilities of doctors). The freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you airtime and doesn't mean that people can't boycott you for saying something they disagree with.

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks was expressing her freedom of speech when she said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. The DJ's got in trouble for playing their music on the radio, regardless of their popularity, because the radio stations buckled under threats by groups like Free Republic, who were boycotting radio stations if they so much as played any of the Dixie Chicks music. How can you defend that? My God.

The radio station is not in the business of giving its employees a forum for expressing their opinions, its in the business of making money. The radio station made the decision that its audience is turned off by the Dixie Chicks- not an unreasonable decision knowing who their audience is, so playing their music could give their audience the opinion that they support them, and if the audience is hardcore enough they would lose listeners and therefore ad revenue.

Whether or not their fears are justified, they are within their rights to make a policy like this that supports those fears.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Free speech is not what you seem to think it is. If you read the Bill of Rights, it says, "Congress shall make no law...". That's all that free speech is. A statement that Congress shall make no law. If the owner of a radio station wants to limit or control what is said on his radio station, that's his right. If his employees don't follow his instructions, it's his right to fire them. If he disagrees with a group and doesn't want to play their music, you guessed it, that's his right, too.

The American misunderstanding of rights causes a lot of problems currently. The freedom of religion doesn't mean that someone has to build you a church. The right to bear arms doesn't mean someone should buy you a gun. The right to healthcare, which although not mentioned in the constitution may exist, at most simply means the government can't prohibit you from receiving healthcare. It doesn't require anyone to give you healthcare (the Hippocratic Oath doesn't deal with fundamental rights, it deals with responsibilities of doctors). The freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you airtime and doesn't mean that people can't boycott you for saying something they disagree with.

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks was expressing her freedom of speech when she said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. The DJ's got in trouble for playing their music on the radio, regardless of their popularity, because the radio stations buckled under threats by groups like Free Republic, who were boycotting radio stations if they so much as played any of the Dixie Chicks music. How can you defend that? My God.

The radio station is not in the business of giving its employees a forum for expressing their opinions, its in the business of making money. The radio station made the decision that its audience is turned off by the Dixie Chicks- not an unreasonable decision knowing who their audience is, so playing their music could give their audience the opinion that they support them, and if the audience is hardcore enough they would lose listeners and therefore ad revenue.

Whether or not their fears are justified, they are within their rights to make a policy like this that supports those fears.

They had the top selling album at the time. This isn't about a radio station being sensitive to the demands of their listeners, it's about a very loud minority who think they can bully radio stations into censorship.

[~PalmTreeGurl~ 154]

i don't care if one of my co-workers is offended or not. if i put up christmas decorations, they can go suck ice cubes.

make sure its lemon ice cubes!

[dalegg 143]

Free speech is not what you seem to think it is. If you read the Bill of Rights, it says, "Congress shall make no law...". That's all that free speech is. A statement that Congress shall make no law. If the owner of a radio station wants to limit or control what is said on his radio station, that's his right. If his employees don't follow his instructions, it's his right to fire them. If he disagrees with a group and doesn't want to play their music, you guessed it, that's his right, too.

The American misunderstanding of rights causes a lot of problems currently. The freedom of religion doesn't mean that someone has to build you a church. The right to bear arms doesn't mean someone should buy you a gun. The right to healthcare, which although not mentioned in the constitution may exist, at most simply means the government can't prohibit you from receiving healthcare. It doesn't require anyone to give you healthcare (the Hippocratic Oath doesn't deal with fundamental rights, it deals with responsibilities of doctors). The freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you airtime and doesn't mean that people can't boycott you for saying something they disagree with.

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks was expressing her freedom of speech when she said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. The DJ's got in trouble for playing their music on the radio, regardless of their popularity, because the radio stations buckled under threats by groups like Free Republic, who were boycotting radio stations if they so much as played any of the Dixie Chicks music. How can you defend that? My God.

The radio station is not in the business of giving its employees a forum for expressing their opinions, its in the business of making money. The radio station made the decision that its audience is turned off by the Dixie Chicks- not an unreasonable decision knowing who their audience is, so playing their music could give their audience the opinion that they support them, and if the audience is hardcore enough they would lose listeners and therefore ad revenue.

Whether or not their fears are justified, they are within their rights to make a policy like this that supports those fears.

They had the top selling album at the time. This isn't about a radio station being sensitive to the demands of their listeners, it's about a very loud minority who think they can bully radio stations into censorship.

Whatever. Like I said its not about their fears being justified. Television and radio stations buckle everyday in the face of loud minority groups threatening boycott. Even if they don't share those views, they probably don't want the negative attention, and just leaving one group's songs off their playlist is not going to kill them. It's their choice as to whether they want that negative attention, not their employees.

[SMR 368]

Free speech is not what you seem to think it is. If you read the Bill of Rights, it says, "Congress shall make no law...". That's all that free speech is. A statement that Congress shall make no law. If the owner of a radio station wants to limit or control what is said on his radio station, that's his right. If his employees don't follow his instructions, it's his right to fire them. If he disagrees with a group and doesn't want to play their music, you guessed it, that's his right, too.

The American misunderstanding of rights causes a lot of problems currently. The freedom of religion doesn't mean that someone has to build you a church. The right to bear arms doesn't mean someone should buy you a gun. The right to healthcare, which although not mentioned in the constitution may exist, at most simply means the government can't prohibit you from receiving healthcare. It doesn't require anyone to give you healthcare (the Hippocratic Oath doesn't deal with fundamental rights, it deals with responsibilities of doctors). The freedom of speech doesn't mean anyone has to give you airtime and doesn't mean that people can't boycott you for saying something they disagree with.

The lead singer of the Dixie Chicks was expressing her freedom of speech when she said she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. The DJ's got in trouble for playing their music on the radio, regardless of their popularity, because the radio stations buckled under threats by groups like Free Republic, who were boycotting radio stations if they so much as played any of the Dixie Chicks music. How can you defend that? My God.

The radio station is not in the business of giving its employees a forum for expressing their opinions, its in the business of making money. The radio station made the decision that its audience is turned off by the Dixie Chicks- not an unreasonable decision knowing who their audience is, so playing their music could give their audience the opinion that they support them, and if the audience is hardcore enough they would lose listeners and therefore ad revenue.

Whether or not their fears are justified, they are within their rights to make a policy like this that supports those fears.

They had the top selling album at the time. This isn't about a radio station being sensitive to the demands of their listeners, it's about a very loud minority who think they can bully radio stations into censorship.

By bully, you mean not listen to them. That's not illegal or even reprehensible.

There are a couple basic things I am supporting here.

1. People can listen to whatever they want to listen and have the right to not listen to things if they don't want to.

2. Employers can require their employees to do reasonable things and can fire them if they don't do them. Telling a disc jockey what he cannot play is a reasonable instruction.

3. People who own radio stations or any other form of broadcast or print media have the right to control that media. In response, people who view/listen to/read that media have the right to point 1. (There are limits to what can be expressed in the media in terms of threats, slander, libel, etc. but this isn't really the issue here).

Which of these rights do you have a problem with?