Punishing them for exercising their rights is actually one of OUR rights. If we do not agree with their opinions, we have every right to let them know using our wallets. People here didn't suggest burning them at the stake, imprisoning them, or banning their music for that matter -- the sentiment is we disagree with what they said, and will not support them as a result. Nothing wrong with that! I am personally boycotting France (which really sucks since I like French wine & Grey Goose Vodka) because of their stance on Iraq, and have no problems adding the Dixie Chicks to that list. That is MY right.

Also, no one said that they don't have a right to express their opinions on stage. It seems that people are just unhappy with their decision, and feel that they went too far -- kind of like airing your dirty laundry. Sure you have a right to do it, but is it appropriate? That's a judgement call -- as far as I'm concerned, wrong judgement on their part. They just lost a lot of respect from me.

 

Punish was not the right word, perhaps persecute would have been better.

I have no problem with you not buying their records for whatever reason, I don't buy their records because I don't like them.

I do have a problem with people persecuting them and calling them traitors because they expressed their views. Simply because they were views that they didn't agree with. Had they got up and done a big rah rah affair in favour of Bush, you can bet that would have been posted here and many of the people now calling them traitors would be saying how great the Dixie Chicks are. Not agreeing with your opinion on Iraq does not make someone a traitor. That was the point I was trying to make.

That being said, it's your right to call the Dixie Chicks whatever you like (other than those pesky libel laws )

Waxy

 

Waxy, I know that you have a propensity to try and stir things up in these posts, and I'm cool with it -- I actually enjoy sitting back sometimes and watching the bee's nest react to your paw in the honey. But I have to disagree with you here.

All the BS aside, the Dixie Chicks were representatives of the US when they went on tour in the UK. Their entire image is centered on the clean-cut southern "country-girl from Texas" facade. To hear words like that coming from them while on foreign soil is an offense, IMHO. Not nearly akin to Johnny Taliban, but pretty bad on its own scale. Actually, if you really want to get technical, an argument can actually be made that they are indeed traitors.

The definition of traitor (one of many correct definitions) is "One who betrays any confidence or trust; a betrayer." This band did, indeed, betray the confidence of a majority of their patrons. Their actions are quite the inverse of their image, an image they built based on trust and confidence from their fans. By betraying that trust/confidence, they can technically be labeled by some as traitors.

I should point out that it is not my intention to argue that they are traitors, rather to support the fact that any posts made by anyone on this thread so far criticizing the Dixie Chicks should not be chastised by falsely using the 2nd & 5th amendments against them. I will remind you that yes, these girls did have a fundamental right to say what they did -- no one can argue that. What I can say, however, is that it is my opinion they should not have made the comments they made while on foreign soil, and I am absolutely within my rights to express this opinion. I can further add that I have every right to personally boycott them, as well as any other individual/group/corporation/country who does acts similarly. I further urge others to do the same. It is your right, after all.

<Walks off the sop box, and takes a drink of water to clear his throat.>

 

I guess I would compare an American bashing the president during a time of crisis to a Dallas Cowboy criticising the coach publicly during a game. Sure, he has a right to free speech, but there are appropriate times to exercise it. Additionally, there are courteous ways to express a disagreement. You don't have to demean a person to let it be known that you disagree.

Do you remember when some military personnel were reprimanded for publicy expressing their contempt for President Clinton?

Just because something is legal does not make it moral or correct.

 

It'll be interesting to see Toby Keith's comments to their statement. Toby and the Chicks don't get along and Toby is a HUGE patriotic American.

 

This statement is dead wrong IMHO. The Dixie Chicks were respresting no one but themselves. If you choose to view them as represtatives of the USA, that's your choice. They are not responsible to you, or anyone else in the USA but themselves. Nor is any other celebrity or athlete. If society chooses to put these people on a pedestal that's their problem, not the celebrity's. Besides, do you really think the people in that audience thought to themselves "Geez, if the Dixie Chicks in their infinite political wisdom think the war is bad, then ALL Americans must think the war is bad, so therefore it must be bad." C'mon.

Quote:

To hear words like that coming from them while on foreign soil is an offense, IMHO.

It's your opinion, you can take offense to whatever you want, you're certainly entitled to it, doesn't make it right or wrong.

Quote:

The definition of traitor (one of many correct definitions) is "One who betrays any confidence or trust; a betrayer." This band did, indeed, betray the confidence of a majority of their patrons. Their actions are quite the inverse of their image, an image they built based on trust and confidence from their fans. By betraying that trust/confidence, they can technically be labeled by some as traitors.

No one that posted here was a fan, let alone a fan that felt betrayed by their stance. What is meant by a majority? Bush's own polls have showed that he doesn't have strong majority support for military action, so they're not betraying a majority there.

If someone here feels personally betrayed by the Dixie Chicks, that's fine, and I can respect that. As for calling them traitors to the USA, that's another matter.

I think Windfordr's analogy of a football team is a good one, it's hard to argue with. The only thing I can point out is that a football player doesn't have the right to do and say as he pleases, he's an EMPLOYEE of the team. I think there is a difference there, even if it's a subtle one.

As for me stirring the pot. Yeah I do sometimes, but I don't do it for the heck of it or to aggravate others, I do it because if I didn't you'd have a constant stream of cut and paste threads, bashing those who disagree, and nothing but a very conservative viewpoint. I'm not sure why more people who are moderately minded don't speak up. Perhaps I am alone.

Waxy

 

Sorry Waxy, but your argument is based on a fallacy. We are ALL representatives of our home country while on foreign soil. When I travel outside the US, I am a representative of the USA. In fact, while planning my vacation to Europe a few years ago, I recall reading on an official US government website that US citizens should indeed remember than while traveling outside the USA, they are representatives of their country. Although common sense dictates it, apparently even the US government agrees with this concept.

Thank you for reminding me of one of my rights -- I can not disagree!

Actually, I for one am (or was) a fan of the Dixie Chicks. And I do feel betrayed. I am sure there are countless others who would agree. As far as the Dixie Chicks being traitors, that is not what I was saying. I cleary indicated, "I should point out that it is not my intention to argue that they are traitors" however on a purely technical basis such an argument could be made. That was my point.

First, you are not alone. I have read others who have a different opinion than the conservatives who frequent this board. It is interesting when different viewpoints are expressed here -- it would be boring after all if everyone agreed on everything, wouldn't it?

It is interesting to me, though, that you disagree with people who condemn the actions of the Dixie Chicks because it was their "right" to do so, but at the same time you say, "The only thing I can point out is that a football player doesn't have the right to do and say as he pleases, he's an EMPLOYEE of the team." Last I checked, no employment contract can supercede rights provided to someone by the Constitution and its ammendments. Regarding the appropriatness of such comments, however, I do agree with winfordr.

In any case, I wish to point out that I respect your opinions, and although you and I don't see eye-to-eye, it is apparent that you also respect my right to voice my own opinions. I hope that there is no animosity in this exchange, as I have none towards you. In fact, I must admit that I am enjoying this discussion. Keep stirring the pot -- it keeps things interesting!

 

I love their music.....but that comment is absolutely unacceptable thats too bad they sure like to make waves dont they

 

Well, I am a Texan and am proud that President Bush is a fellow Texan. I am not however very proud that the Dixie Chicks are from Texas or the USA for that matter. And yes, I to WAS a Chicks fan.

Paul

 

Quote:

In any case, I wish to point out that I respect your opinions, and although you and I don't see eye-to-eye, it is apparent that you also respect my right to voice my own opinions. I hope that there is no animosity in this exchange, as I have none towards you. In fact, I must admit that I am enjoying this discussion!

ON EDIT: Whoa! I had to edit this, the way the posts read it sounded like I was Dixie Chicks fan.

As am I (edit - enjoying the debate with haroutd), and for the record, I don't harbour any anymosity toward anyone on this board, I disagree with my own family members on many of the subjects that come up here. I'm more than willing to sit down to a beer and some talk about Ford Trucks anytime with anyone here. I can always agree to disagree.

What fallacy is that?

I've met some Americans that are real jack axes, but I've met some really nice people too. However, I don't form my opinion of the US foreign policy, or Americans as a whole, based on these few encounters. I judge Individuals.

Does how people perceive your actions affect how they percieve your country? Undoubtedly, but IMHO you are representing yourself, your country of origin is really irrelevent, what matters is how you act. You're a jerk or you aren't. There shouldn't be a link to how your country is perceived.

The Dixie Chicks, or Joe Sixpack, are not speaking for Americans when they voice their opinions, they're speaking for themselves. Yes, they're Americans, and they have an opinion, that doesn't mean that their opinion represents the opinion of Americans. Do you see what I'm getting at?

I don't want them, you (no offense), or anyone else here to pretend to represent me or my country while they're abroad (unless authorized to do so by having a political mandate, even then it annoys me sometimes). Will people form opinions based on this contact with the few, most likely, so I can see your point there, I just don't feel as though those few necessarily represent me, or my country.

For example, I hope that someone doesn't meet your average Torontonian and think that they represent Canadians.

Quote:

It is interesting to me, though, that you disagree with people who condemn the actions of the Dixie Chicks because it was their "right" to do so, but at the same time you say, "The only thing I can point out is that a football player doesn't have the right to do and say as he pleases, he's an EMPLOYEE of the team." Last I checked, no employment contract can supercede rights provided to someone by the Constitution and its ammendments.

You're right, those athletes can say whatever they want about Iraq or their thoughts on the Dixie Chicks.

I think the difference is you are dealing with private enterprise. Many, in fact most, pro sports contracts do in fact contain clauses regarding public airing of team business. The athlete signs his rights away when he signs his contract for $10 million. Athletes can speak out against the coach if they want, even if they did sign the contract, they just won't have jobs afterward. You're guaranteed the right to free speech, not the right to a job.

Much the same way, the Dixie Chicks may lose some of their fans, and maybe even their jobs, over the public expression of their opinion.

Anyhoo, I hope that made sense.

Waxy

 

Apparently you've never heard of Junior Brown? Time warp'd from the 50's if you ask me and damn good country music.

 

That would leave out the some of the prime material from Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, George Jones, etc...
Hank Sr. was gone, but the guys above are some of the best to ever live.

IMHO, Garth Brooks killed country music, maybe not Garth himself, but the search for the next Garth, and then when they couldn't find one, the decision to just manufacture the next Garth. That was followed by the desperate attempt to hang on to the young teeny bopper crowd (they buy the most records) that leads to your next point.

Quote:

The crap they play these days on "country" radio stations makes me wanna puke.

I agree 100% with this, if I want to hear hallmark cards read aloud in an off key voice, I'll head down to the nearest card shop and give the emloyee my $20.

Waxy

P.S. I'm going to see George "No Show" Jones on the 28th, he better not live up to his reputation.

 

This whole thread has raised some really interesting questions:

1) Do American citizens actually have the right to voice their opinions OUTSIDE of U.S. soil? I personally do not believe that our rights and freedoms apply to someone visiting our country; if they're not a citizen of this country, then they're not necessarily protected by our Constitution. So, do those rights follow one of our own when they travel abroad? Tough question.

2) Let's say I've paid good money to see (or hear) a performer. At some point during the performance, he or she decides I need to be "enlightened" on their personal political beliefs. I didn't pay to hear this; I paid to hear their God-given talent. If I was at a concert and this happened, I'd be pretty upset. Not because I may have disagreed with their viewpoint, but because some of my $125 was wasted on something I felt should not even be part of the show.

3) Waxy, you hurt my feelings. I've stirred a few hornet's nests of my own here- how quickly some of us forget! How could you say you're alone here? Granted, there's darn FEW of us, but at least we're here. Remember, I'm the guy that said you got you-know-what's the size of Idaho!

 

1956MarkII,

That was a massive oversight on my part , and for that I apologize. You're right, it does seem like the two of us (and a couple more) vs. the board on too many occassions.

Truth is, I didn't list names because I didn't want to drag anyone down with me.

Good questions, but I'm headed home.

Waxy

 

WOW! Did this thread take off or what?!

I didn't anticipate it turning into one of the better debates on Freedom of Speech that I've read in quite a while.

Waxy and haroutd, that's good stuff. A strong debate with no mud, with some interesting points made on both sides.

As for what the DCs did, my opinion has already been expressed above.