Censorship or Freedom of Choice?

POSTED BY: JCKnife
UPDATED: Saturday, August 28, 2004 05:29
VIEWED: 9305
PAGE 3 of 4

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

HJERMSTED

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:24 PM

Quote:
So, you're saying that fans walked out on Rondstat and bulldozed their Dixie Chick CD's because they were afraid of something? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Did fans walk out? I was under the impression Linda Rondstat finished her show and was asked not to return to that particular venue. She's been dedicating the song 'Desperado' to Michael Moore at every stop on her current tour.

Not that big of a deal but next time I'm in Vegas, I will not take my money to the Alladin.

mattro

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:

Well, then congrats. With one idiotic statement - one that can't even be claimed as original or thoughtful in any way shape or form, having been repeated near infinitely these past three years - you've proved your zeal and utter inability to consider any other view...
Unless you'd care to say something interesting, because I actually thought this was a decent food for thought thread. And you did start it.

You know, I think you're right about what I posted. It's innane and not very thoughtful. If I could undo it I would; Some of these folks get my blood boiling, and I tend to fling myself to the extreme to make a point. In this case I ended up looking pretty foolish.

I will endeavor to keep a cooler head in the future. As I said when I got here, I'm used to being places where eveyone agrees, and jingoism is lighthearted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going back on my core belief, that America was in the right in Iraq and I certainly would not be apologizing to any Europeans, personally.

JCKNIFE

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 9:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:

Yes. Sorry that you can't understand.

SergeantX

Please explain.

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 10:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Please explain.

OK, what I meant was that people have been frightened by an hysterical nationalisitic media and presidential administration into believing that there are indeed only two choices, 'for us' or 'against us'. Now I noticed you backed off that statement and I appreciate that, but I do think that's the mindset that provokes businesses and media to voluntarily censor dissent.

They are afraid that allowing anyone to question the leadership on their watch will mark them in the 'against' category. This kind of fear of speaking out is never good for a democracy and often a forerunner to fascism. And that does frighten me.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

JCOBB

Tuesday, July 20, 2004 11:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Edited, turns out 54% of Americans are against Bush. I thought it was 51%]

Never heard of margin of error I take it.

I don't care, I'm still free.

JCKNIFE

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 1:02 AM

Sarge,

Okay, sometimes it can be unhealthy to boil everything down to black and white / for or against. In general, I can agree with that statement.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that there is an objective right and wrong, or is everything subjective? If you can agree that there IS right and there IS wrong, then we can probably agree that each of these three incidents (Whoopi, Linda, and the Dixie Chicks) probably falls someplace different on a measuring stick, which has "Absolutes" at one end and "Fuzzy Gray Area" at the other end.

Personally I think the fuzziest one was Whoopi and I'll tell you why: 1. it was a private fundraiser and not for mass consumption, and 2. if what I've heard was true, the chief executive at Slim Fast would actually agree with her politics, but made the decision based solely on the fear of consumer reaction. Hey, I was glad to see the result, but mostly because I'm idealogically opposed to her and not so much because I think it's "right."

I would put the Dixie Chicks nearer the opposite end; I think running down your president in a foreign country at a time of war is pandering, low, and just not at all nice. In short, I think this is the closest of the three to what I would consider objectively WRONG to do, not just a matter of subjective opinions. Plus the backlash she got was entirely propegated by her fan base (possibly fanned by country DJ's but they were just responding to their customers).

I'd put Linda R. somewhere in the middle. From the account I heard people DID walk out on the show. And like someone else said, the hotel hired her to sing, not get political. Eh, kinda not a big deal in my book.

JCKNIFE

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 1:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Radhil:
But it's hard to ignore that only one side seems to be stepped on in this way.

Some folks have been freaking out about Schwartzenegger's "girlie-man" comment. I remember the SNL bit and I think it's funny.

It sure seemed like The Passion of the Christ got run down excessively by NYT and other reviewers, and there was some definite resentment for Gibson and the film throughout the entertainment community. Monty Python was compelled to re-release Life of Brian in protest.

Ted Nugent is currently embroiled in a lawsuit with Muskegon County, MI over cancelling a performance of his after, he claims, Denver DJ's falsely attributed racial slurs to him.

These are just some examples from the "other side." That they have seen less public outcry might say something about the public?

SERGEANTX

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 1:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Sarge,

Okay, sometimes it can be unhealthy to boil everything down to black and white / for or against. In general, I can agree with that statement.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that there is an objective right and wrong, or is everything subjective?....

In the long run, I do believe in an object right and wrong. I have a deep distrust, however, of anyone who tells me that their particular vision of 'right' is so lock solid that we can tolerate no discussion of the issue. I'm not really all that familiar with the details of the incidents you discuss, but they just sound like people expressing their opinions. For a civilized culture to actively silence this not only seems closed minded, it directly detracts from any kind of progress towards the 'right'.

Freedom of speech is more than a matter of convenience. Our culture holds to this ideal in most circumstances but now we're told that because we are at war, we must hold our tongues and 'support the troops'. I don't buy it. If a war demands that we suspend our most cherished of convictions, then there's either something wrong with the convictions or the war. I've seen plenty of indication that it's the war and I applaud anyone who stands up to say that, even in the face of a population herded into a nationalistic frenzy by unscrupulous media outlets and dishonest politicians.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

RADHIL

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:13 AM

Quote:
I will endeavor to keep a cooler head in the future. As I said when I got here, I'm used to being places where eveyone agrees, and jingoism is lighthearted.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not going back on my core belief, that America was in the right in Iraq and I certainly would not be apologizing to any Europeans, personally.

Well, there you go. Something interesting. I wouldn't expect you to go back on your beliefs just over a holler and rant or two. Just... pause, and consider.

Doubling back now to respond to your other stuff here...

Quote:
Personally I think the fuzziest one was Whoopi and I'll tell you why: 1. it was a private fundraiser and not for mass consumption, and 2. if what I've heard was true, the chief executive at Slim Fast would actually agree with her politics, but made the decision based solely on the fear of consumer reaction.

If that is true (admittedly don't follow Whoopi myself), I agree with you completely. Ethically dubious at best.

Quote:
I would put the Dixie Chicks nearer the opposite end; I think running down your president in a foreign country at a time of war is pandering, low, and just not at all nice. In short, I think this is the closest of the three to what I would consider objectively WRONG to do, not just a matter of subjective opinions. Plus the backlash she got was entirely propegated by her fan base (possibly fanned by country DJ's but they were just responding to their customers).

It'd be pandering if they were just saying it to get a cheer or some such, or wrote it off as a joke. No, Natalie Maines (had to look that up, but she is the specific Dixie who lit the match on this) was more than likely just speaking her mind, having been on tour and seen the backlash against America growing. That her audience agreed doesn't make it pandering. That her fanbase didn't and blew off the band in retaliation I suppose could be called justified. That the band was plastered on the front page for the entire week and judged by anyone who was shouting loud enough to be heard as devil-spawn and treasonous bitches... that might have been overkill. Especially coming from a country that supposedly treasures freedom of speech.

Not sure if it qualifies as censorship as brought up here. I see this as one example of wiping out opinion without actually preventing the words.

Quote:
It sure seemed like The Passion of the Christ got run down excessively by NYT and other reviewers, and there was some definite resentment for Gibson and the film throughout the entertainment community. Monty Python was compelled to re-release Life of Brian in protest.

Reviewers I don't recall really running rampant over the film. A quick peek at Rotten Tomatoes shows half of the reviewers giving it thumbs up - usually a sign of a "good enough" film. You are right that it did have a large backlash though. I never saw the movie, so I was never sure if the backlash was justified or not - the furor seemed more over blaming the flick for culture issues that have long been in place, rather than anything the movie tried to say.

At any rate, despite the mountain/molehill (or because of? who knows), the film went on to major success. So was it really supressed at all?

Not familiar enough with the other remarks to comment on yet.

Radhil Trebors
Persona Under Construction

GINOBIFFARONI

Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JCKnife:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hjermsted:
RE: Dixie Chicks' comments abroad.

When you are an American in Europe, you actually end up doing A LOT of apologizing for the United States government.

Maybe YOU do. I say you're either with us, or against us.

If those are my choices, count me as against

" If I going to get killed for a word....
Then my word is Poon-Tang "

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE