I have a question

[vraiblonde]

And I'm being totally serious:

How is shelving a movie that is filled with inaccuracies and assassinates the character of an American President "a blow to free speech"?

How is running over your Dixie Chicks CDs a "blow to free speech"?

Did they change the meaning of "free speech" when I wasn't looking? I'd really like someone to explain this to me.

 

[MotorMonkey]

Perhaps it occured when our "free speech" became "politically correct"?

 

[SamSpade]

Well, trying to play devil's advocate here:

Whining, bitching, kvetching and threatening a station until they can no longer air a movie that hasn't even been *read* much less aired - they were able to block the airing of a movie - yeah, that is a violation of free speech. It's not prosecutable, but it would be the same if I blocked your publishing a book that I thought was TOO right-wing for my tastes. It sets a bad precedent. To add fuel to the mix, the left said that the torrent of effort against the movie did not come from the public, but by more powerful right-wing groups.

Whether or not it is INaccurate, or precisely accurate is irrelevant. People are allowed to broadcast stupid, ridiculous ideas. It's rude, insulting, defaming and they totally made the thing up, and the average viewer who watched it would have NO idea that not a bit of it was verified as true. The fact is, proof of freedom of speech is the ability for NITWITS to openly express their views without being blocked.

The Dixie Chicks? No - they're morons. Even Col. North said this morning on the news, they showed extremely poor judgment airing their views *overseas*, playing it up to a crowd that would cheer in their anti-Bush sentiment. They're just wrong. But --- they ALSO claim that the biggest outcry came not from the general public, but from a small but dedicated group of persons determined to shut them out. If *I* run over their CD's, it's not repression of free speech. If part of the administration is organizing anti-Chick rallies - or the Republican party - then that IS the government taking a shot at them.

The perception from the left is not that their views are extreme, uncalled for and ludicrous, and wholly lacking in any form of good taste - they see it as the *RIGHT* telling them that anything that opposes the President or his administration is un American, un patriotic and they must keep quiet about it. *Fascism*, basically.

I personally wouldn't go that far - I DO think it is the public saying "damn you smart asses, see if I buy your stuff anymore".

Do they have a point? To be fair - they *might*. When Herr Klinton was in office, any celebrity that went on record as saying they couldn't stand the guy didn't make it onto anyone's list. Drew Carey made it clear - didn't like Clinton. It didn't affect his show's ratings and no one boycotted his show. (Of course, I tend to think that most people who vote Democratic don't follow *ANY* kind of news - they just react. Believe it or not, I have had discussions with adults who have actually said "which ones are the 'good' guys? isn't that the Democrats? the Republicans, they're like - the *bad* guys, right? So I'll vote for the good guys. Which one is the Democrat?". I am *dead* serious). When people said how much they despised Clinton, there wasn't this wall of people saying "we're not going to watch you anymore, or buy your records".

They didn't take dislike of Clinton so personally. Somehow, since Bush took office, a slight against Bush IS taken personally.

Does that help?

 

[justhangn]

Vrai,

I’m just guessing here but it seems that by doing those things you are punishing the people for their point of view and that in infringing on their freedom of speech.

:shrug:

 

[Kain99]

The politically correct (Dems) in this country, have been by far our childrens greatest enemy.

The "Politically Correct" movement has gained momentum over recent years and now dominates thinking. Political Correctness censors all speech, and attempts to censor any attitude, which does not align itself with the prevalent and or popular philosophy.

Political Correctness is so out of control, that people do not expect to be told they are wrong anymore. Shock and horror overcome them when the wrath of peer presssure (albeit small these days) falls.

Our Nation is due for a wake up call ...yet agin. It's really sad and really scary.

 

[justhangn]

Originally posted by Kain99
Political Correctness censors all speech, and attempts to censor any attitude, which does not align itself with the prevalent and or popular philosophy.

Who said it's popular??

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Whining, bitching, kvetching and threatening a station until they can no longer air a movie that hasn't even been *read* much less aired - they were able to block the airing of a movie - yeah, that is a violation of free speech.

Did the government block it? Was there some sort of official sanction that censored this movie in any way?

I'd agree with you 100% if there was some sort of governmental process that put the kibosh on the Reagan's wank-fest, but to my knowledge there was not. It was citizens and private groups or institutions who rallied.

So, the question is begged: Is it not my right, and within the boundaries of my freedom of speech to whine, btch, kvetch and threaten a station if they do something I don't like? How about making it the policy of my company to not buy products from other companies that advertised their wares on the Character Assassination Du Jour? And rallying like minded companies to join me?

That was my whole beef with the Dixie Chicks' fuster-cluck. They said something that was unpopular and the received a backlash for it. Tough shizzle. Freedom of expression does not mean freedom from consequences.

Unless they ended up in gulag for saying what they said - which they did not - then all this cowering under the vast blanket of "Freedom of Speech" is nothing more than an emotional appeal to the American citizen's respect for the constitution and freedom.

Whenever the Klan throws a bigot-rally or whatever crap it is they do, more people show up to protest them than klan members showed up in the first place. Nobody complains that the Klan's right to free speech is being infringed. And neither do I. Tough beans for the klan. It's my right to think that The Dixie Chicks, The KKK and CBS (or Showtime) are all blithering idiots who deserve whatever backlash they get, and try to cause some of that backlash myself.

Originally posted by SamSpade
It's not prosecutable, but it would be the same if I blocked your publishing a book that I thought was TOO right-wing for my tastes.

Depends on what you mean by "blocked".

Did you protest me? Threaten a boycott? Threaten to dig up dirt on me?

Or did you get a cease and desist order from the court, or have me incarcerated? Or did you blow up the publishing company destroying my manuscript and the printing press.

Originally posted by SamSpade
To add fuel to the mix, the left said that the torrent of effort against the movie did not come from the public, but by more powerful right-wing groups.

The left also says that Hussein was a misuderstood innocent victim of American (read: Bush's) Greed.

They also throw around terms like "vast right-wing conspiracy".

What powerful right-wing groups did or said something to physically force the termination of this movie - which incidentally aired yesterday on Showtime.

The fact is nobody blocked this movie. CBS simply lacked the moxie to give the proverbial finger to their consumer base. Showtime knows their market just as well. They air shows like "Queer as Folk", and "The L Word". I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that their consumer base was salivating for some hot sweaty Reagan-bashing.

Originally posted by SamSpade
Do they have a point? To be fair - they *might*. When Herr Klinton was in office, any celebrity that went on record as saying they couldn't stand the guy didn't make it onto anyone's list.

What a small, insignificant, and negligable group that was. Off the top of my head I can think of 4 or 5 'outed' Republicans in Hollywood - out of how many?

If the Liberal Left-Coast juggernaut black-balls such a small and non-vocal minority, it would look horrible on them. Do they have the right to do it? Sure - but they know it's not in their best interest to do so.

Originally posted by SamSpade
When people said how much they despised Clinton, there wasn't this wall of people saying "we're not going to watch you anymore, or buy your records".

Refresh my memory - which groups said this? Which musical bands, for instance, specifically took up an anti-Clinton stance and went 'in yer face' with it?

Originally posted by SamSpade
They didn't take dislike of Clinton so personally. Somehow, since Bush took office, a slight against Bush IS taken personally.

C'mon. Remember the buzzwords back in the day like "HATESPEECH", "HATEMONGERING" directed at anyone who thought Clinton was a bone-head.

Ironically the people who threw around words like "hatespeech" are the same ones saying the most vile things imaginable about Bush.

 

[Kain99]

Originally posted by justhangn
Who said it's popular??

I did and thats all that matters!

 

[Pete]

It seems to me that 2 of the basic tenants of our great society (forgive the Johnson reference) have through interpretation come in direct conflict with one another, freedom of speech, which is a guaranteed right under our constitution and capitalism. Is conflict really the best description? CBS was not outwardly locked in any battle legal or otherwise regarding the Reagan movie, but yet inwardly they were. Their dilemma; Fear the financial repercussions of airing a self admitted fictional, unflattering movie about one of the most respected Presidents in modern times, or go ahead with a biased unfair jab at a man who is unable to respond, keeping with the new wave of sensational trash TV for the ratings thinly disguised as some form of “What America should really know” public service. It looks as though it was not a hard decision at all. Were they penalized by some government entity? Were they threatened by some government entity? No not at all they were threatened by their …….here we go……CUSTOMERS. Yes that is it we are customers. They pander to our wants and likes in exchange for compensation albeit indirect but what they produce is nothing more than a basic product. If they lose the favor of their customers they lose their business. Judging from CBS’s ratings and record over the past few years they should have begun worrying long ago.

Since we are all customers how can we possible have our spending habits classified as speech. When I but gas at Sheetz am I voicing my opinion that Sheetz is a company that represents my values as a person? No not at all, that is where the entertainment industry is in a pickle. They do not sell a product that is tangible, necessary, or rare. They must pander to the likings of their customer. Since they do not get payment directly form me but through sponsors I cannot take my business elsewhere and have them feel it directly. If I don’t like it I don’t watch, if I really loath it I may even go so far as to voice my displeasure at those companies that sponsored the airing of the entertainment vehicle that offended my sensibilities to that degree. Is that speech? I think not, I think it is me the consumer in a capitalistic nation simply being dissatisfied with a product and cutting off my portion of the funding for its creation. It is not speech but consumer spending. Is the government going to proclaim that ; Due to the free speech guarantee in the constitution effective immediately every 42nd soft drink you consume MUST be MOXIE ( an absolutely horrible concoction created, produced and bottled in Lisbon Falls Maine that would make a dingo puke should it be forced to drink a can). Of course not, CBS could have gone ahead with their character assassination of President Reagan. Nothing was stopping them except their own greed. What other industry gets advance warning from the customers will not like a product so do not make it I won’t buy it? I bet Sony wishes they had advance warning about Betamax or Ford about the Edsel.

I find it funny that the same artsy fartsy liberals who whine about the free speech in entertainment, literary license, and stifled creativity also rail for campaign finance reform. Isn’t it hypocritical to say “I think it is a violation of my free speech for the public to punish me by not buying my unsavory products.” Inhale deeply, do a crisp about face then whine that “Financially supporting the candidate of your choice is not speech therefore it must be limited and regulated.” If you buy their spew why is one free speech and not the other? Because it doesn’t suit their needs that’s why. They want to take a picture of a vagrant with a G.I Joe stuck up his butt and call it art, freedom of expression, therefore afforded the same protection as speech receives. But don’t you dare give $10,000 to the RNC, that’s not speech.

 

[Toxick]

Originally posted by Pete
Is conflict really the best description?

I'd call it a dilemma or a conundrum.

But then, I just like to say conundrum.



Conundrum, conundrum, conundrum, conundrum.

 

[Kizzy]

Did anyone watch the Regan movie on Showtime this week?

I only watched part of the movie, but IMO, what stood out the most for me is that they made it seem that Nancy ran the show more than Ronald himself.

 

[Bruzilla]

The short answer is "it isn't."

The first ammendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The first ammendment specifies the limits of government to make laws impacting individual rights. There is no freedom of speech obligation or limits on the part of John or Jane Q. Public. We are free to boycott, change the channel on, burn or drive over (the materials of), shout over, shout down, or ignore any jerkoff that we disagree with.

To be precise, Americans do not actually have an express right to free speech. We just have a rule that says Congress cannot pass a law that restricts free speech.