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

[SMR 368]

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)

What has the popularity of the Dixie Chicks got to do with anything? Fact is, the radio station made a choice not to play them. That's their choice.

But if you want to debate popularity, the wikipedia article on the Dixie Chicks states that 76% of their fans would have taken their CDs back if they could after the comment. Sounds like the station was making a good choice. No matter how popular they were beforehand, they certainly took a nose dive after making the comment.

Edited December 5, 2009 by SMR

[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.

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.

Again, cite a source. You keep making these claims and broad generalizations without giving any specific actual instances of this occurring. The ACLU hasn't a legal leg to stand on if it were trying to sue private businesses over Christmas decorations. What a load of #######.

[HAL 9000 96]

Incoming 'liberal activist judges' post coming next, perhaps?

[slim 1,533]

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.

I should've posted company policies can be enforced by termination, provided they are legal. Obviously, it is not legal for a company to prohibit wheelchairs in a workplace where folks work on wheeled chairs on a daily basis. (Office setting, for example.) The ADA clearly spells this out. I gave the example of the Obama T-shirt being worn in a place where T-shirts are acceptable as opposed to a place where T-Shirts are not acceptable. A person cannot legally be fired for the message on their shirt (although "I hate n!ggers" or something akin to that could possibly hold up in court) but they can be fired for wearing a certain type of shirt in a place where a different dress code is required.

In the case of the OP, a radio station makes a policy on their play list and it's perfectly legal. Their employees violate it, perfectly legal to fire them. Has nothing to do with free speech.

As for Christmas decorations in the workplace, a private employer has every right to decorate their property however they see fit, provided they're not doing it in a discriminatory manner. Placing crosses on the desk of an atheist or a sweet little baby Jesus on a Muslim's desk - and requiring them to keep it there - could be illegal. So could a big sign in the break room that says, "We hate n!ggers, Jews, Mexicans and all those Arabs." But, even if they did any or all of those things, they still could have the right to do so if it's not discriminatory or covered under another provision. It also depends on the size of the company and most importantly, their legal slush fund.

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

In the case of the OP, a radio station makes a policy on their play list and it's perfectly legal. Their employees violate it, perfectly legal to fire them. Has nothing to do with free speech.

As for Christmas decorations in the workplace, a private employer has every right to decorate their property however they see fit, provided they're not doing it in a discriminatory manner. Placing crosses on the desk of an atheist or a sweet little baby Jesus on a Muslim's desk - and requiring them to keep it there - could be illegal. So could a big sign in the break room that says, "We hate n!ggers, Jews, Mexicans and all those Arabs." But, even if they did any or all of those things, they still could have the right to do so if it's not discriminatory or covered under another provision. It also depends on the size of the company and most importantly, their legal slush fund.

I wasn't trying to make the argument that private businesses can't make those kinds of business decisions. I'm being critical of the loud minority who go after private businesses through boycotts over frivolous bullsh!t like holiday decorations or because a musician doesn't like the President. It's not unreasonable to openly criticize such asinine behavior by groups like Free Republic who went after a musical group because the lead singer said she's embarrassed that Bush is from her home state. No one should be defending any group who threatens to boycott in order to suppress someone else's free speech.

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

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

Yes, absolutely there is a correlation. Private Property owners can decide what is displayed on their property, stated on their radio stations, etc. Atheists do not have to display Christmas decorations on their own private property. Who has a problem with this? How is this an issue?

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

In the case of the OP, a radio station makes a policy on their play list and it's perfectly legal. Their employees violate it, perfectly legal to fire them. Has nothing to do with free speech.

As for Christmas decorations in the workplace, a private employer has every right to decorate their property however they see fit, provided they're not doing it in a discriminatory manner. Placing crosses on the desk of an atheist or a sweet little baby Jesus on a Muslim's desk - and requiring them to keep it there - could be illegal. So could a big sign in the break room that says, "We hate n!ggers, Jews, Mexicans and all those Arabs." But, even if they did any or all of those things, they still could have the right to do so if it's not discriminatory or covered under another provision. It also depends on the size of the company and most importantly, their legal slush fund.

I wasn't trying to make the argument that private businesses can't make those kinds of business decisions. I'm being critical of the loud minority who go after private businesses through boycotts over frivolous bullsh!t like holiday decorations or because a musician doesn't like the President. It's not unreasonable to openly criticize such asinine behavior by groups like Free Republic who went after a musical group because the lead singer said she's embarrassed that Bush is from her home state. No one should be defending any group who threatens to boycott in order to suppress someone else's free speech.

I say ** 'EM! You want to display your religious stuff on your property have at it and shut the ** up about what I do on my property...GOT IT????

On the other hand, if your private property happens to be a commercial enterprise, you may have to kiss @ss of religious believers, global warming believers, or even liberals, in order to sell your wares. I mean, if your position makes you a #######, then smile and laugh all theway to the bank. I am not one to be impressed by "green BS" or "religious BS" the best way to get my money is offfer me a good value. If I value what you are selling more than I value the $$$ it takes to buy it, then I will buy. I really couldn't possibly care less if you believe in God, global warming or the tooth fairy.

Play good music and I will listen, sell good stuff and I will buy. Keep your beliefs in fantasy to yourself.

[dalegg 143]

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.

This is VJ. There has never been a requirement to bring facts to and debate.

[slim 1,533]

I wasn't trying to make the argument that private businesses can't make those kinds of business decisions. I'm being critical of the loud minority who go after private businesses through boycotts over frivolous bullsh!t like holiday decorations or because a musician doesn't like the President. It's not unreasonable to openly criticize such asinine behavior by groups like Free Republic who went after a musical group because the lead singer said she's embarrassed that Bush is from her home state.

I got you now. Just still wondering why nobody openly critcizes the NAACP when they call for boycotts.

Also, a boycott is typically the most effective manner in changing a business policy becauase it's cheaper (free) to those involved and achieves the same results. Lawyers, although sometimes very effective, are usually way more expensive than a boycott.

No one should be defending any group who threatens to boycott in order to suppress someone else's free speech.

Once again, where's the outrage when NAACP calls for boycotts of NASCAR?

[Ban Hammer 14,665]

I wasn't trying to make the argument that private businesses can't make those kinds of business decisions. I'm being critical of the loud minority who go after private businesses through boycotts over frivolous bullsh!t like holiday decorations or because a musician doesn't like the President. It's not unreasonable to openly criticize such asinine behavior by groups like Free Republic who went after a musical group because the lead singer said she's embarrassed that Bush is from her home state.

I got you now. Just still wondering why nobody openly critcizes the NAACP when they call for boycotts.

Also, a boycott is typically the most effective manner in changing a business policy becauase it's cheaper (free) to those involved and achieves the same results. Lawyers, although sometimes very effective, are usually way more expensive than a boycott.

No one should be defending any group who threatens to boycott in order to suppress someone else's free speech.

Once again, where's the outrage when NAACP calls for boycotts of NASCAR?

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

I wasn't trying to make the argument that private businesses can't make those kinds of business decisions. I'm being critical of the loud minority who go after private businesses through boycotts over frivolous bullsh!t like holiday decorations or because a musician doesn't like the President. It's not unreasonable to openly criticize such asinine behavior by groups like Free Republic who went after a musical group because the lead singer said she's embarrassed that Bush is from her home state.

I got you now. Just still wondering why nobody openly critcizes the NAACP when they call for boycotts.

Also, a boycott is typically the most effective manner in changing a business policy becauase it's cheaper (free) to those involved and achieves the same results. Lawyers, although sometimes very effective, are usually way more expensive than a boycott.

No one should be defending any group who threatens to boycott in order to suppress someone else's free speech.

Once again, where's the outrage when NAACP calls for boycotts of NASCAR?

I'm not familiar with it. Do you have a specific link you want me to read so I can actually make an informed comment?

[slim 1,533]

It's gotta be somewhere near all the links for radio station boycotts and holiday cheer stuff.

[PhiLandShiR 18]

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.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

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

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.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

Word.

[SMR 368]

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.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

I'm not really sure what you mean by requiring a licensee to share a frequency. The process of frequency sharing is much more complicated than you seem to think it is. But this is really not an important point at the present time since there are open AM and FM bands in pretty much every part of the US. If you want to start a radio station, getting a frequency is really a relatively small hurdle. If the FCC had a problem with what you were broadcasting, they would fine you and/or revoke your license. Requiring you to share your frequency would really be an unnecessary hurdle.

If you meant that the government can force the owner of a radio station to share his antenna, broadcast equipment, facilities, and the time of his employees, you probably live in a different country than I do. It's his antenna. This is America. He can turn it off and on when he wants to.

You have invoked the "right of the viewers and listeners." What is that? He can turn it off when he wants to. That's about it. You don't have the right to listen to the Dixie Chicks. Stating whose right is paramount is really pointless. The rights don't intersect. The broadcaster buys a transmitter and reserves a frequency. The listener buys a receiver. Either guy can turn his stuff off when he wants to. Unless they are both on, nobody hears much of anything, but they both have the right to turn it on and off whenever they want to.