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

[TaiwanLover 0]

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.

Regardless of what the Bill of Rights says, I think that we have a responsibility to protect people from the oppression of society or powerful interests as a consequence for stating their views. Otherwise, there doesn't truly exist a "freedom of speech". Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution in China? This was largely due to the initiative of brainwashed youth who believed they were being "patriotic". It's considered one of the worst eras of Chinese history in which everyone lived in fear of saying the wrong thing, lest they face the wrath of their neighbors and co-workers (resulting in dehumanizing humiliation and sometimes even death). The Constitution in and of it self is not a means to an end ... it simply underlies some of the guiding principles that a free society must adhere to. Thankfully, public discourse has ultimately resulted in the general acceptance of free speech in a broad sense. Though the Dixie Chicks incident was characteristic of a darker moment in our history, it certainly wasn't as bad as it could have been. I'm thankful that Americans are educated and sensible enough to reject the oppression of others simply for expressing their views. One can enjoy the Dixie Chicks' music, whether they agree with their views or not.

Edited December 4, 2009 by TaiwanLover

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

Nobody is seeing the correlation between businesses banning Christmas decorations and radio stations banning Dixie Chicks music? Interesting.

[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.

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

wouldn't play it - don't like them anyways.

[SMR 368]

Nobody is seeing the correlation between businesses banning Christmas decorations and radio stations banning Dixie Chicks music? Interesting.

I have no problem with businesses banning Christmas decorations on their property. But I'll still be more likely to shop at the ones that have them.

If someone had sued a radio station for playing the Dixie Chicks because they were offended, that would be like the Christmas decoration issue. In my opinion, the only entity that can be sued for violating the first amendment is the government because the first amendment only applies to the government. I have problems with the ACLU suing people/organizations because someone was offended by the Christmas decorations. I think this is the critical difference. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, people said they didn't like it and threatened to exercise their right to boycott the station. The station decided to not play the DC. Whether that was a vocal minority or an expression of the opinion of the majority is impossible to determine definitively and really immaterial because everyone acted within his respective rights.

If someone walks into the mall and says, I'm offended by the Christmas tree and won't shop here, that's their right. The mall can take the Christmas tree down or leave it up, that's their right. If the offended person goes to the ACLU and sicks their lawyers on the mall, I have a problem with that. And that is what is happening, by in large.

[Peikko 1,575]

I thought the only Christmas decorations that were considered 'offensive' were those that were overtly christian on government property, like a nativity scene for example? I don't give a #### about any of it though as long as I get to see some pretty lights

Edited December 4, 2009 by Madame Cleo

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

Nobody is seeing the correlation between businesses banning Christmas decorations and radio stations banning Dixie Chicks music? Interesting.

I have no problem with businesses banning Christmas decorations on their property. But I'll still be more likely to shop at the ones that have them.

If someone had sued a radio station for playing the Dixie Chicks because they were offended, that would be like the Christmas decoration issue. In my opinion, the only entity that can be sued for violating the first amendment is the government because the first amendment only applies to the government. I have problems with the ACLU suing people/organizations because someone was offended by the Christmas decorations. I think this is the critical difference. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, people said they didn't like it and threatened to exercise their right to boycott the station. The station decided to not play the DC. Whether that was a vocal minority or an expression of the opinion of the majority is impossible to determine definitively and really immaterial because everyone acted within his respective rights.

If someone walks into the mall and says, I'm offended by the Christmas tree and won't shop here, that's their right. The mall can take the Christmas tree down or leave it up, that's their right. If the offended person goes to the ACLU and sicks their lawyers on the mall, I have a problem with that. And that is what is happening, by in large.

How about citing an incident where this actually happened?

[slim 1,533]

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.

Obviously someone who has read the Constitution. Everyone should do this.

Employer policy and protection of Rights in the workplace is a very gray area in most cases but almost always comes out as - whatever is set as the acceptable standard will be adhered to by all employees. Keep in mind, you don't have a Right to work anywhere. If the boss says you can't do this, well, you can't do it, and it's the boss' right to fire you for it. Now, on the other hand, if there's no dress code and you wear an Obama T-shirt and get fired for it, that could be a violation of your rights. However, if T-Shirts aren't allowed and you wear an Obama T-shirt, well, you're going to get fired and the boss is allowed to fire you for it. Same with disc jockeys and play lists. If the standard is you can't play Dixie Chicks, well, then you can't play Dixie Chicks. It's not about being able to "play whatever you want because of free speach" it's about the company's policy.

Those same disc jockeys can walk to the public square and play a Dixie Chicks record all day long. That's their Right. (Provided it's legal to play music in the public square.)

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.

Good illustration of this point is I am licensed by my state to carry a concealed handgun - anywhere in the state. However, I do not have that right at work because my employer doesn't allow them in his workplace. Can I "exercise my right" and do it anyway? Sure, but then I'd be fired - and rightfully so.

I think if the government is going to make it mandatory to start exercising rights (like health care) they should also start making everyone bear arms and worship, read, paint, etc. I'm holding my breath....

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 lead singer was well within her rights. The DJs, not so much. When you start picking and choosing which side is right, and not which side is adhering to the law, then you start degrading not only your right to exercise your freedoms, but also your protection under them as well.

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.

Where is all this outrage when very loud minorities like the NAACP start talking about boycotting things like NASCAR?

This whole thing has nothing to do with minorities bullying anyone and everything to do with an employer's right to dictate company policy.

Regardless of what the Bill of Rights says, I think that we have a responsibility to protect people from the oppression of society or powerful interests as a consequence for stating their views.

Which is exactly why we have a 1st Amendment. This is not a case of people being denied their Right to express their views, it's a case of two men violating company policy and getting fired for it. They never once were denied their 1st Amendment Rights.

Otherwise, there doesn't truly exist a "freedom of speech". Ever heard of the Cultural Revolution in China? This was largely due to the initiative of brainwashed youth who believed they were being "patriotic". It's considered one of the worst eras of Chinese history in which everyone lived in fear of saying the wrong thing, lest they face the wrath of their neighbors and co-workers (resulting in dehumanizing humiliation and sometimes even death).

We're on our way there now. Once it gets to the point where everyone's individual freedoms are so devalued as to be non-existent, we'll start to see the "collective thought" being enacted into official policy. The die is cast. Have patience, we'll get our little red book soon. (Although it'll probably be a different color just in case someone out there has half a memory left.)

The Constitution in and of it self is not a means to an end ... it simply underlies some of the guiding principles that a free society must adhere to. Thankfully, public discourse has ultimately resulted in the general acceptance of free speech in a broad sense. Though the Dixie Chicks incident was characteristic of a darker moment in our history, it certainly wasn't as bad as it could have been. I'm thankful that Americans are educated and sensible enough to reject the oppression of others simply for expressing their views. One can enjoy the Dixie Chicks' music, whether they agree with their views or not.

This whole issue has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. If the govt. would've come out and said, "No more Dixie Chicks because they disagree with GWB" then it would've been a 1st Amendment issue. If the FCC would've fined radio stations for playing the music or record execs for distributing it, yes, still a 1st Amendment issue. But, when a company makes a policy (no matter what it is) and it's employees violate that policy, they can (and should) be fired for it.

Nobody is seeing the correlation between businesses banning Christmas decorations and radio stations banning Dixie Chicks music? Interesting.

There is no correlation. Businesses ban Christmas decor out of fear of lawsuits. Most businesses lack the time or resources to deal with frivilous lawsuits so it's just a lot easier for them to ban them altogether. Thus they establish a company policy.

Radio stations that banned the Dixie Chicks in response to whatever her name's comments were done to ensure they still made the most amount of money possible. Thus they establish a company policy.

So there's your correlation - businesses establish company policies to ensure they keep making money. That's not illegal or even wrong. That's American!

[SMR 368]

Nobody is seeing the correlation between businesses banning Christmas decorations and radio stations banning Dixie Chicks music? Interesting.

I have no problem with businesses banning Christmas decorations on their property. But I'll still be more likely to shop at the ones that have them.

If someone had sued a radio station for playing the Dixie Chicks because they were offended, that would be like the Christmas decoration issue. In my opinion, the only entity that can be sued for violating the first amendment is the government because the first amendment only applies to the government. I have problems with the ACLU suing people/organizations because someone was offended by the Christmas decorations. I think this is the critical difference. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, people said they didn't like it and threatened to exercise their right to boycott the station. The station decided to not play the DC. Whether that was a vocal minority or an expression of the opinion of the majority is impossible to determine definitively and really immaterial because everyone acted within his respective rights.

If someone walks into the mall and says, I'm offended by the Christmas tree and won't shop here, that's their right. The mall can take the Christmas tree down or leave it up, that's their right. If the offended person goes to the ACLU and sicks their lawyers on the mall, I have a problem with that. And that is what is happening, by in large.

How about citing an incident where this actually happened?

As slim pointed out, many of these things don't go to a lawsuit because the ACLU simply guarantees that it will be time-consuming and expensive. Most organizations can't deal with that. But the changes are not made because of a large-scale public outrage or fear of lost profits (these aren't profit driven organizations) but rather based on fear of lawsuits.

Here are some articles about it:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sou...mp;oq=&aqi=

Granted, these mostly aren't companies. However, they also aren't violating the first amendment by decorating. They are forced to stop decorations for fear of lawsuits. That is a violation of the first amendment in so far as the court is a government institution being used for the purpose of inhibiting free speech.

[ScratchIt 12]

This whole issue has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. If the govt. would've come out and said, "No more Dixie Chicks because they disagree with GWB" then it would've been a 1st Amendment issue. If the FCC would've fined radio stations for playing the music or record execs for distributing it, yes, still a 1st Amendment issue. But, when a company makes a policy (no matter what it is) and it's employees violate that policy, they can (and should) be fired for it.

Slim, for the first time in a long time, I'm gonna have to go the other way on the above. A quick example might be the ban of wheelchairs. Eddie Nolegs shows up Monday morning with his wheelchair and is promptly fired. Was he in violation of company policy, sure, do he have addressable recourse, you bet.

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.

Speculation - not represented by facts.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

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

A privately owned radio station (a terrible thing to a liberal) can decide what it will allow to be broadcast and fire people that violate the company rules. Period. You, nor anyone else needs to like it. You, nor anyone else, has to listen to it. Though it would be best if their listeners like it, which is the point. YES there are whole radio audiances that do like liberal messages. Big surprise.

If, however, the government attempts to control what is broadcast (such as the "fairness doctrine") THAT would be unconstitutional.

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

Businesses that were banning Christmas decorations did so from people complaining they were offended, not from lawsuits...that's unfounded bullsh!t. That's like saying you could go sue 7-11 for carrying porno magazines. You might not like the fact that they sell them, but it is in their legal right to do so.

The point I was making is that in both instances, businesses buckled from the pressure of customers to ban Christmas decorations and Dixie Chicks music (radio stations). In both cases, it was a loud minority making a big stink over NOTHING. In the case of the Dixie Chicks - probably the most popular country band at the time that the lead singer said during a concert that she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. She's from Texas. The Free Republic spearheaded a campaign to get people to boycott any radio stations who would not stop playing their music. That's bullying, just like the loud minority telling businesses they are offended by Christmas decorations.

So for those who say they support businesses having the freedom to conduct business, how they see fit, then you should publicly criticize such ridiculous boycotts.

Do I think boycotts are ever appropriate? Sure, but not when they are based on hating a musician for criticizing the President or because Walmart wants to hang up a sign that says, Merry Christmas. Let's call it for it what it is....much ado about nothing, and given the basis for why people were outraged over the Dixie Chicks (because she expressed her freedom of speech), we should condemn any attempt to suppress that speech. People can choose to simply shut off their radio or change the station when their music comes on, but threatening to boycott the radio station was beyond personal choice. It was forcing the choice of music on others...and most importantly, sending the message that in this country, freedom of speech is not tolerated.

Edited December 5, 2009 by Galt's gallstones

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

In the case of the Dixie Chicks - probably the most popular country band at the time that the lead singer said during a concert that she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas.

they aren't even a blip on the radar screen.

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

In the case of the Dixie Chicks - probably the most popular country band at the time that the lead singer said during a concert that she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas.

they aren't even a blip on the radar screen.

Your idiocy is boundless sometimes...

Home is the Grammy- winning sixth studio album by American country band Dixie Chicks, released in 2002 (see 2002 in music). It is notable for its acoustic bluegrass sound, which stands in contrast with their previous two country pop albums.

The album has the distinction of being the album the group was promoting when lead singer Natalie MainesGeorge W. Bush. made comments about U.S. President The album's third single, "Travelin' Soldier", was #1 on the Billboard Country Chart the week that Maines' comments hit the press.^[1] The following week, as many stations started a still-standing boycott of the Chicks' music, the song collapsed. None of the following singles gained traction with country radio.

Despite these events, the album was certified 6× Multi-platinum status by the RIAA and has sold 5,979,000 copies in the United States up to November 2008.^[2] The album also featured a cover of Fleetwood Mac's "Landslide", which was their biggest pop crossover hit until 2007, when "Not Ready to Make Nice" peaked at #4 on the Billboard Hot 100.

The album was also successful in Australia, in its 175th week in the country charts it was certified Triple Platinum for shipments of 210,000 copies.^[3]

The album was nominated at the 45th Grammy Awards for 6 awards, including their second attempt for Album of the Year. The group went home with 4 in 2003, including Best Country Album, Best Recording Package, Best Country Instrumental Performance for "Lil' Jack Slade", and Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal for "Long Time Gone". Additionally, they were nominated for Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical and Darrell Scott was nominated for Best Country Song for Long Time Gone. Two years later, they were nominated and won Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal, this time for "Top of the World".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_(Dixie_Chicks_album)

[SMR 368]

Businesses that were banning Christmas decorations did so from people complaining they were offended, not from lawsuits...that's unfounded bullsh!t. That's like saying you could go sue 7-11 for carrying porno magazines. You might not like the fact that they sell them, but it is in their legal right to do so.

The point I was making is that in both instances, businesses buckled from the pressure of customers to ban Christmas decorations and Dixie Chicks music (radio stations). In both cases, it was a loud minority making a big stink over NOTHING. In the case of the Dixie Chicks - probably the most popular country band at the time that the lead singer said during a concert that she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas. She's from Texas. The Free Republic spearheaded a campaign to get people to boycott any radio stations who would not stop playing their music. That's bullying, just like the loud minority telling businesses they are offended by Christmas decorations.

So for those who say they support businesses having the freedom to conduct business, how they see fit, then you should publicly criticize such ridiculous boycotts.

Do I think boycotts are ever appropriate? Sure, but not when they are based on hating a musician for criticizing the President or because Walmart wants to hang up a sign that says, Merry Christmas. Let's call it for it what it is....much ado about nothing, and given the basis for why people were outraged over the Dixie Chicks (because she expressed her freedom of speech), we should condemn any attempt to suppress that speech. People can choose to simply shut off their radio or change the station when their music comes on, but threatening to boycott the radio station was beyond personal choice. It was forcing the choice of music on others...and most importantly, sending the message that in this country, freedom of speech is not tolerated.

Well, the ACLU has sued organizations for allowing Christmas decorations. If you read my past post, I said that I have no problem with a business/organization banning Christmas decorations. I have a problem with lawsuits against Christmas decorations. If you don't think such lawsuits exist, then so be it.

I really think you would have trouble finding conservatives who have a problem with a business that makes a decision to not decorate for Christmas whatever it's reasons, so long as there is no threat of judicial action. I think the government (judiciary) should stay out of the debate. Although there aren't many lawsuits on the subject, there are frequently threats of lawsuits. Go to any organization that has banned decorations, and it's almost always because of a threat of a lawsuit, not because of people threatening to not come.

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

In the case of the Dixie Chicks - probably the most popular country band at the time that the lead singer said during a concert that she was embarrassed that Bush was from Texas.

they aren't even a blip on the radar screen.

Your idiocy is boundless sometimes...

Home is the Grammy- winning sixth studio album by American country band Dixie Chicks, released in 2002 (see 2002 in music). It is notable for its acoustic bluegrass sound, which stands in contrast with their previous two country pop albums.

The album has the distinction of being the album the group was promoting when lead singer Natalie MainesGeorge W. Bush. made comments about U.S. President The album's third single, "Travelin' Soldier", was #1 on the Billboard Country Chart the week that Maines' comments hit the press.^[1] The following week, as many stations started a still-standing boycott of the Chicks' music, the song collapsed. None of the following singles gained traction with country radio.

Despite these events, the album was certified 6× Multi-platinum status by the RIAA and has sold 5,979,000 copies in the United States up to November 2008.^[2] The album also featured a cover of Fleetwood Mac's "Landslide", which was their biggest pop crossover hit until 2007, when "Not Ready to Make Nice" peaked at #4 on the Billboard Hot 100.

The album was also successful in Australia, in its 175th week in the country charts it was certified Triple Platinum for shipments of 210,000 copies.^[3]

The album was nominated at the 45th Grammy Awards for 6 awards, including their second attempt for Album of the Year. The group went home with 4 in 2003, including Best Country Album, Best Recording Package, Best Country Instrumental Performance for "Lil' Jack Slade", and Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal for "Long Time Gone". Additionally, they were nominated for Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical and Darrell Scott was nominated for Best Country Song for Long Time Gone. Two years later, they were nominated and won Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group with Vocal, this time for "Top of the World".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_(Dixie_Chicks_album)

i'm referring to my radar screen. i gives a flying fark what silly awards they've received. i think they suck more than a $5 hooker after the 5th us fleet has pulled into port.