Rosemary sounds like one articulate lady. If you made a CD I'd buy it!

Thank you very much, Duane, I really appreciate the compliment.

I am very sorry to have to disagree with you. The first amendment does, indeed, protect citizens from governmental reprisals based on what they say. And you are right again when you point out that without this fundamental protection America would no longer be capable of _being_ America. But...

The other argument you make is that celebrities must either keep their mouths shut on controversial topics or prepare to loose their livelihoods. While you are quite correct in saying that this is not “civilization” of certain viewpoints, if it isn’t stifling of freedom of speech, I don’t know what is...

Short of rape or murder, destroying someone’s ability to make a living is about the worst thing that can be done to someone. If I don’t like what someone has to say, I should be prepared to argue, cajole, yell, scream, or otherwise counter what they are saying. It is this exact argumentative process that makes America the nation that it is...

I’ll even go one step further: if any citizen has a problem with anything our government is doing, they have the duty to make that disagreement known. If the only way they can do that is by going on talk shows and spouting off, and the only reason they can get on those talk shows is celebrity, they have the duty as citizens to do exactly that...

One of the scariest comments I read recently was from a musician declining to comment on the war; this on the grounds that Bush shouldn’t try and make music. If we follow that argument not very far, not very extreme, we end up with a nation of people who think that because they are not politicians they should have no comment about the progress of our national politics. This isn’t very extreme; I see it every day on my college campus. Do we truly wish a nation of professional politicians? I personally (as someone who wishes to _be_ a professional politician) cannot think of a worse fate for a free nation—or an easier way to lose that freedom...

When we stifle free expression, even as non-governmental actors, we begin to erode the very nature of a free society. What are our boys and girls in Iraq fighting for if not the ability of some yammerhead to yammer?

The ability to choose for yourself what you will and will not enjoy hearing.

Andrew, I'll be disagreein' with you on this one. Spending is a form of free speech--which is to say that no one can be coerced into spending their money on goods that they do not wish to buy for whatever reason. That's the entire logic behind any boycott with which consumers can make their displeasure with an entity known. And, in essence, when the public decides they don't want to hear the Dixie Chicks or see movies with Sean Penn, they are deciding to boycott.

Would you want to curtail the ability of consumers to boycott a company that acts against the public interest? Actors, musicians, and others in the public eye are much more akin to a company than they are to a typical employee of, say, Walgreens. As such, their reputations and artistic abilities are their commodity. When that commodity does not serve the public interest (which is, simply, whatever the public decides), then that commodity is worthless.

Furthermore, when it comes to certain sectors of the entertainment industry, the audience expects the artists to represent not only their interests, but their values as well. Country music fans, in general, are conservative and exceptionally patriotic. What precise response would the Dixie Chicks expect from angering their audience?

That being said, in what way were they truly hurt by speaking out? Their words were called into question, but their album sales actually rose. And, in Hollywood, only a handful of actors have spoken in favor of the administration, but I see no sudden dearth of new movies with stars who happen to be anti-war.

If the government were to make lists of acceptable and unacceptable artists, I would agree with you. The effect would be disastrous and wrong. That hasn't happened.

I agree that we should all be able to say what we want, but the reality is that there are always consequences for inflammatory speech and there always will be. During the Oscars, many of the actors chose respectful, intelligent ways to make anti-war statements; Michael Moore, on the other hand, was booed off stage. Consequences for our actions, and for our speech, hopefully also teaches us wisdom in exercising our freedoms.

When we stifle free expression, even as non-governmental actors, we begin to erode the very nature of a free society.

So, they can burn flags and make lots of very influencial noise...I want to respond by burning a few CD's and not viewing their films and I'm stifling free expression.

I don't have a microphone or access to Bill Maher. I can't go mano a mano with Susan Sarandon and debate her on policy. I'd shred her if I could - just so you know. My only recourse is to choose to not see her movies. This is what I choose to do. My private little free speech. I am not required to pay the salary of some dink that I can't stand.

By telling me that I am wrong you are suggesting that I am not entitled to the 1st amendment but they are...

destroying someone’s ability to make a living is about the worst thing that can be done to someone.

Some of their free speeches have taken away the livelihood of many. ( e.g. loggers, furriers) Everytime they are against something they cost someone a job because they have POWER. They wield that power irresponsibly and they will suffer for their own folly.

I didn't tell these chowder heads NOT to go to college and get degrees. Being and actress or a comedian these days doesn't take a lot of talent. Being an adult requires one to be able to deal with the consequences of their actions.

So, respectfully I completely disagree with your premise that I am wrong in any way. ;-)

"The other argument you make is that celebrities must either keep their mouths shut on controversial topics or prepare to loose their livelihoods. While you are quite correct in saying that this is not “civilization” of certain viewpoints, if it isn’t stifling of freedom of speech, I don’t know what is..."

What this boils down to to, Andrew, is "free speech for me but not for thee." A boycott is not censorship--it is an EXERCISE of free speech--Censorship is when GOVERNMENT supresses speech. And yes, it may mean people lose their livelihoods as a result, but that's just too damn bad. Free speech does not mean: 1) the "right" to an audience; 2) the "right" to not be offended or 3) the "right" to be free from criticism. Each of those is in fact fundamentally incompatible with free speech.

You know, in a way I understand that it can be "chilling" when you think your livelihood is threatened because of what you say. But let's think hard about this.

Do you stand for the right of the people of South Carolina to decide to fly the confederate flag over their courthouse, without NAACP boycotts? Is the NAACP stifling the ELECTED WILL OF THE PEOPLE by boycotting South Carolina? Aren't boycotts, therefore, a threat to the very core of democracy itself?

Actually, I don't think that. I'm trying to make a point. Let's think a little harder about this.

Here's another example: How about if a man with KKK and neo-nazi tattoos, who's proud of his racist attitudes, applies for a job as manager at your company? Does he have a right to be hired, to interact with customers, and spout his nonsense on the job? Even if he's got all the perfect qualifications for the job otherwise?

The Dixie Chicks have no right to demand that I buy their music--and while I like some of their music, I have resolved that I will never buy one of their CDs, for the sole and only reason that I find their comments in Europe earlier this year so offensive. Indeed, it's the fact that they did it in Europe that I find particularly upsetting.

I will never buy another John Cougar Mellencamp CD, because of his hateful and stupid new song. That's not saying much, because I generally find him boring anyway. But I do like some of his stuff--but he's not getting a dime more of my money for as long as I live, if I have anything to say about it.

I also like the Pretenders. But I will never buy another Pretenders CD, and will never, ever attend a concert featuring The Pretenders. She can go to hell.

I will never see another Michael Moore movie. Ever.

They're taking their stands, and I'm taking mine. All of us are acting completely within the letter and the spirit of the first amendment.

And the fact of the matter is: a celebrity can vote, can write to his elected officials, can donate money to causes he believes in. My refusing to support him because I find his beliefs horrid isn't a threat to free speech. It is the essense of free speech.

Or so I believe. Those of you who feel otherwise can express your free speech however you like, too. ;-)

I guess I'm one up on you, Dean; I never needed the extra impetus of a stupid speech to motivate me to boycott Moore's work.

His work sucks on its own basis, as it were. Heh.

I usually don't travel the boycott path, but anything Pretenders-related is definitely on the list. Michael Moore is, too.

I've been boycotting the Dixie Chicks for a really long time, but only in the same sense that I boycott Backstreet Boys, if you know what I mean.

Since when does the constitution of the United States guarantee someone the right to make a living? I don't recall that in the Bill of Rights. If these celebrities can't make a living making movies, they can try their hand at doing a real job. They don't have a right to be a celebrity. If anything they should all be kissing our butts for giving them their status.

I'm with you Rosemary, I think you would shred Susan Sarandon. I can't stand her anyway and that was before she started making her opinions known.

Wow! There are certainly a lot of comments here, and while I disagree with just about all of them, it would be tough to actually take them apart one at a time. Let me make an obvious point first:

What Michael more is selling is his opinion. Not buying his books or watching his movies because you don’t like his opinion is utterly acceptable; if I don’t like what someone is selling I am under no obligation to buy...

What Janeane Garofalo is selling is her acting ability—separate from her opinion. I have never seen the political message in the truth about cats and doge. Thus the act of boycotting her work is different from the act of boycotting the work of Mr. Moore; the former is because of a distaste for the person, the latter a distaste for his product...

In the United States, speech and actions are considered separate things. Speech cannot be prosecuted (save for a very small set of circumstances), actions can be. I can talk all I want about overthrowing the US government, when I start buying guns and bribing people, this changes. Words have become actions...

A boycott is not merely speech, it is action as well (though it may well fall into “symbolic speech”), and I support them under many circumstances. That support comes in response to actions taken by the companies themselves, not their speech. When a company fires workers because they are going off to war, that is action. When a company pays its workers below what is necessary to live on, that is action. When I choose not to do business when them that is not speech either, that is action...

And to answer Holli’s point (it seems fairly representative), the American constitution does not guarantee someone the right to a living (though interestingly the Soviet one did; probably why it didn’t survive). What it does guarantee is freedom to speak. When we start threatening someone’s ability to make a living when they exercise that guarantee, we render it less-meaningful...

Dean: That racist monster has the right to be hired, interact with customers, but not spout his nonsense on the job. Hell, my bosses have made it perfectly clear that I do not have the right to spout _my_ views (like, say, this one) on the job. But off the job is a different matter...

John Mellencamp's hateful, hurtful song is not being performed and sold as part of his "job" as an entertainer?

The Dixie Chick's comments were not made at a concert, where she was making her living?

When Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders spoke, saying she hoped "the Muslims" would "win" and hoped that we would be "bombed" some more, she was not on the job, even though she said it at a concert she was giving?

Furthermore:

If I work for you, and I use MY STATUS AS YOUR EMPLOYEE to gain attention in the press, or to get my foot in the door at some political event, how is that different from what these celebrities are doing?

I see no difference at all.

Dean,
I fear that you are angry, sir, and wish it were not so. I wish that you and I could sit and chat over less offense-worthy topics. Sadly, these are the days when illiberal thought combats illiberal—and only liberal thought can not only the day, but also our basic freedoms...

To take one example you have chosen, that of John Mellencamp’s new song, I must (and do!) take it at your word that it says hateful and hurtful things. Please believe that I hate many of the things being said about our mutual country, it is just that I love the idea that these people are free to say them more than I hate the things they are saying. The fact that they _can_ say them, and suffer only the consequences of having their ideas challenged and mocked, this is what makes our nation what it is, what give it its strength and vitality...

In the case of Mr. Mellencamp’s song, I can assure you that I will not purchase it, nor listen to it more than once or twice. Quite simply: since I do not like the song, or what it has to say, I will not spend money on it. This is both just and good, and I think we agree on this point...

Where we come into fundamental disagreement, however, is on this point: If I feel that some of his other works have value, I will spend money on them regardless of how I feel about the work that I feel has no value. Period...

As for the various concerts, yes, knowing what their views are, and the likelihood of having to endure them if I attend a concert by them, I will not attend. Will that stop me from buying their new album? Sir, the only thing that will prevent me from buying their new album is if I don’t like the music on that album...

Not once in my life has anyone in my employ spoken in my name. If John Mellencamp, the Dixie Chicks’ or Pretenders’ employers feel that those people are speaking in the name of their employers they should face punitive action, of course. As a customer of that employer, I am a third party. Thus it is not my business how those two interact...

Andrew: We _are_ their employers. We buy the products. We provide the celebrity that provides the platform. How they use it is their decision. If they offend their customers it is their actions, not ours, that caused the effect. Actions have reactions...part of adulthood is accepting responsibility for one's actions.

For example, I am just as offended by Russell Crowe's thuggish behaviour and will not buy a ticket for his next film either.

When Carl Karcher was CEO and the major shareholder of Carl Jr's I did not buy his product because of his anti-abortion activism.

No one can demand I buy their product.

My dog won't eat the dog food I buy another brand. The detergent doesn't get my whites white, I buy another brand. An entertainer is not entertaining or offends me, I buy another brand.

Free will, free market. Freedom.

End of story.

Wow -- by not buying an entertainer's product as a reaction to how we feel about that entertainer's political viewpoint is somehow not allowed, but it would be okay not to buy that same entertainer's product because we didn't like the clothes they wore, or the color of their skin, or we woke up one day hating everyone with names that began with "M" -- in other words, it is okay to boycott an entertainer's product for an irrational, emotion-based reason but not one based on actually thinking about something, such as the fact that we as individuals don't want to contribute any more of our own hard-earned money to an entertainer who holds political viewpoints we are against? That IS what you are saying, Andrew Cory -- and since you started saying this on March 31st I will not accept it as an elaborate April Fools' Joke.

It is NOT censorship; no one is preventing these people from saying whatever they want wherever they want to whomever they want. We do NOT owe them their second homes in Malibu and vacations in Cannes. And if some poor, weak-willed actor, musician, or what-have-you says he or she is driven to "silence" by fear of his or her fans saying mean things about them, the REAL reason is that they are driven by fear of the loss of good old filthy lucre by what they believed were the gullible, stupid masses that made up their audiences. But still, I would respect people like Moore and Garofalo and so on if they didn't keep on whining about how awful it was that they have to endure being disagreed with. I mean, imagine, they have to deal with the awful public, who are supposed to shut up and shovel out the cash while being lectured to by the employees of Hollywood, who have taken on the role of Our Betters. Contempt for the common man wafts off supposed "champions" of same -- such as Moore, Sarandon, Tim Robbins, et al -- like a stench. I owe those people nothing of mine.

I don’t know how many other ways to say it, other than to say it this way:
They, as Americans, have the duty to speak out on topic of concern to them.
We, as Americans, have a duty to listen to all opinions expressed.

Without both of these things being in place debate cannot happen. Without debate, we cannot begin to have a functioning democracy.

When we say that some ideas, ideas about the very direction our nation should go, ideas about whether or not we should go to war, ideas about how well our president is conducting the business of the nation, when we say that these or any ideas are too important or too dangerous to allow dissenting opinions to be expressed without negative repercussions accruing to the expresser, we strike at the very foundation of Democracy.

I have heard for years of speakers being booed, hissed at, shouted down, for their views. We laugh at the left, who no longer seem to understand what it means to have free speech. They demonstrate this via boorish behavior when opposing speakers are invited to speak. I, too, denounce the people who exhibit this behavior. I don’t see the difference between it and what Rosemary suggests.

If the only reason I am deciding not to buy an album is based on views expressed not on that album, I am having a chilling effect on free speech. There is nothing that compels me to buy any work, and there are a host of factors related to my purchasing decisions. When I make my purchasing decisions based not on the actions of the artist, but rather on the words of that artist, I am trying to use money to change, not behavior, but beliefs.

Once we accept that every American has the fundamental duty to speak out on every topic of especial interest to the nation, we also must accept that as Americans we have a secondary obligation to ensure that such speech is protected. That protection must be not only from the government but also from our fellow citizen, and from ourselves. When speech is a duty (an in America, it is), then protecting that speech is also a duty. When we lose that, we will shortly loose our freedoms.

I have paid, out of my own pocket, to see signs and banners replaced. Those signs and banners were supporting things I do not believe in, things I do, indeed, believe in the exact opposite of. Those signs and banners had been destroyed by people who felt as I do about the issue, and instead of countering speech with speech, countered speech with an attempt to stifle that speech. As an American, I was outraged. So I paid, with money earned from hours of my life, to replace those slogans and banners I had spent years opposing. When they went up again, I promptly began once more the work of arguing, cajoling, and otherwise opposing those same banners. Free speech is important.

Andrew kind of reminds me of the person who turns the wrong way down a one way street and can only conclude that a lot of people are going way.

To plagarize a (near) clintonism,
"It's not about Free Speech, Stupid"

I haven't seen any discussion that suggest any real attempts to deny actors/actresses of their rights to free speech. No one is suggesting that these people be deprived of their "right" to pursue a livelihood. I am all for Susan Sarandon pursuing a more appropriate career, like selling Mrs. Fields cookies at the local mall. Attempting to shout down others and make MY voice heard is exercising MY rights to free speech.

If people enmasse choose not to support, in any fashion, others that advocate questionable views, then so be it. For myself, Andrew has convinced me to more actively and deliberately boycott the works of certain individuals. After all this is America, they can pursue other opportunities. They can also rest assured that their right to free speech has NOT been taken away.

There is a lot of precedence in the country, whether right or wrong, for one set of people to influence the career choice of others.
People boycott and protest loggers who work in the west. They protest abortionist's and abortion clinics. They boycott and protest tobacco products, affecting farmers and workers. All of the workers affected by this have the choice to continue in their chosen field of work, even if it is not financially feasible, or pursue other careers.

I may even choose to boycott tobacco products because of the particular political belief's of tobacco farmers and not because of the product they grow.

Of course I'm just exercising my duty as an America Citizen to speak out on this topic that concerns me.

Rodney Dill

Andrew:

I don’t know how many other ways to say it, other than to say it this way: They, as Americans, have the duty to speak out on topic of concern to them. We, as Americans, have a duty to listen to all opinions expressed.

Sorry, but my attention is a scarce, finite commodity. I couldn't possibly listen to "all opinions expressed." Even if I were so inclined, which I'm not.

I mean, when the Jehovah's Witnesses ring my doorbell, I politely turn them away. They're perfectly free to express their beliefs. But I'm under no obligation to spend my limited time, energy, and attention listening to them.

There are people in this world-- maybe 200 to 300, total-- who have a greater or lesser direct claim on my time and attention. To them I will listen and give my time and attention, whether I agree with them or not. Because that is entailed in my personal or professional relationship with them.

There is a somewhat wider circle of people who have a looser claim on my time and attention. I invest a fairly large amount of time and energy in church, community activities, service organizations, committee work, etc.

Beyond that, there is a broader circle of society which has an even looser claim on my attention. I strive to discharge that obligation by paying taxes, making charitable contributions, putting money in the offering plate on Sunday morning, etc.

Once we've gotten this far, I have a very limited amount of time and attention left over, to use freely as I will. I freely choose to spend some of this attention following ideas, current events, entertainment, etc., by reading various books and magazines, listening to the radio, surfing the Net, watching TV, etc. But I consider this my free time and my free choice. I am under no obligation to listen to, much less pay for, the opinions of some celebrity out there, simply because he chooses to voice his opinions.

He is perfectly free to voice his opinions. And I am perfectly free to change the channel. Or buy a different CD. Or go to a different movie. For any reason, or for no reason at all.

If any celebrity out there feels I have a duty to listen to his opinions, then let the celebrity pay me a fee to compensate me for my precious, limited free time and spending money. Starting at, say, ten times the purchase price of the movie ticket or CD?

Rosemary,

They have freedom of speech. We have freedom of choice. If celebrities unhappy fans choose to vote with their wallets, then that is just too bad for the asinine loud-mouthed air-headed celebrities for sounding off publicly on a subject they know absolutely nothing.

Andrew:

You are conflating two issues. The first is that we should not supress free speech, and that is entirely correct. The second is that we should feel obligated to listen to all points of view, and that is -on the face of it- absurd. Just to take an easy example, am I obligated to listen to the views of a skinhead Neo-Nazi or one of those "man-boy love" associations?

It is obvious from the above that not all positions are created equal, and that we are not obligated to listen to them.

Your argument might carry more weight if the boycotters tried to keep the Chicks from performing, but that's not the case.

First of all, the Dixie Chicks' livelihood is not being threatened if consumers decide they no longer want to buy their product because they disagree with Maines' politics. They recently (pre-comments) sold out their entire summer tour in one day for, I believe, 49 million dollars. These people are not living paycheck to paycheck.
Second, I agree with you Andrew that if you like someone's music, buy the CD regardless of the performer's political views. I'm not about to throw away most of my 500 CDs, LPs and tapes. But no one is obligated to keep buying just because they once liked the music, which is what you seem to be saying.
One of the purposes of speech is to try to convince others of the correctness of your views. It works great if you're sitting around with your friends arguing. But entertainers have a more or less captive audience. I can't very easily sit down with Susan Sarandon and have a back and forth discussion. So unfortunately (for them) the only way I can argue is by taking my money elsewhere.

Dean:

Wow! Mellencamp's song is hateful and hurtful? What song are you listening to?

Hurts So Good, of course.

One of the delightful oddities of our Constitution is that it doesn't grant any rights to anyone. It merely restricts the federal government from trampling on our natural rights. This comes as a shock to liberals, who spend most of their days trying to harness the power of the federal government to trample on personal property rights. But, there I go again.

Pardon me, I always have second thoughts. But look at this world class example of a second thought:

Amendment I

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.

Notice those first five words? Congress shall make no law... The Founders didn't trust the feds as far as they could throw them.

Most of Europe does not get that distinction either as rights are dispensed at the whim of the gov't.

Bill’s argument is disingenuous at best; almost a straw man of what my actual argument is. I may have used the word “censorship” at some point (though I have striven hard to avoid it), but I have never once spoken about governmental censorship when speaking about Rosemary’s proposal...

As for the other points... what can I say? I have never before seen so many people whose various intellects I respect so much use that intellect for so poor purpose. But there it is...

Casey does, I think, make a good point: that I am “ conflating two issues. The first is that we should not supress free speech, and that is entirely correct. The second is that we should feel obligated to listen to all points of view [...].

While he seems to think that there are some points of view that we should be under no obligation to listen to, I think that we should try to listen to all points of view at least once. In the grand scheme of things, this is a minor point, one that I am willing to concede in the name of the larger point on which he and I agree.

Boycotts have a long and rightly honored place in the pantheon of American protest. They can be highly effective at getting companies to change their behavior. To say, however, that the spoutings off of the Dixie chicks is the exact same thing as south African apartheid, to say that the lunatic arguments of John Cougar Mellencamp are identical to the slave wages paid to Central Valley workers, to say that the views of the Chrissie Hynde are indistinguishable from the crimes of Jim crow, to say, no, to act as if, they are the same, to treat them as the same is one of two things. It is either an astounding lack knowledge of history, or is a disingenuous argument. I do not know which I hope for less...

Let me be clear: by treating these things as the same, by boycotting because of speech as once we boycotted because of actions, we are saying they occupy the same moral plane.

By telling any American that their job is dependant upon not saying the sorts of things we do not want to hear we dampen the ability of Americans to participate in the body politic. If we assume that this boycott is effective, that by doing this, we will make them, or at least hope they “go away”, by introducing “consequences” for speech that are more severe than a sound debate, we have a potentially devastating effect on the willingness of people to speech.

I, for one, will not try and get Dean fired, Rosemary fired, or Aaron fired for their views. I will not de-link Dean just because I think one of the contributors (and he himself) are dangerously off base on this issue. What I don’t know is why they cannot show the same courtesy of ideas to people who disagree with them.

Disingenuous? I'm never disingenuous, at least not on purpose, and that is part of the definition, isn't it? I always speak honestly, except when trying to be kind to a leftist. I had to apologize to a friend today for just that failing. I let her believe I thought Peter Arnett had some saving grace.

I reserve the right to put my fingers in my ears and sing "La la la" if you're spouting BS at me and I can't run away. For my ears, I am the sole judge of what is BS, and I don't care if you lose your job as a result. That would not be my intention, but it's an acceptable outcome.

Words are actions, and they have consequences, mine too. You may now think I'm sanity-challenged. I can live with that, and I will refrain from expressing my opinon at being called a liar. Bill Clinton is habitually disingenuous. Bill Dooley does it only in an occasional, misguided effort to be kind. I think I'm cured now.

I, for one, will not try and get Dean fired, Rosemary fired, or Aaron fired for their views. I will not de-link Dean just because I think one of the contributors (and he himself) are dangerously off base on this issue.

I don't go off half cocked at work. I don't use my job as a bully pulpit. If I did - I could very well lose my job and it would be my employer's right to can me. 'Course he wouldn't cuz I'm AWESOME at my job and they usually agree with me -politically anyway.

Chrissy Hynde used her concert to spout hateful anti-american rhetoric. She wasn't at a rally. She was working. So is Mellencamp.

I don't agree with Susan Sarandon, Jeanne Garafalo and countless others but I'm not punishing them for their words either. I'm saying that we as americans have a right to show them how we feel. If they want to go on T.V. (for them that is working) then they are asking for response. When Michael Moore chose the Oscars to spout his opinion which I found deeply offensive -then I say boycott that ass.

I certainly feel that they have a right to speak, to protest to do whatever but when they choose to speak in the context of their "job" then we have a right to personally fire them. Just as others can decide that they like them better for it.

What I don’t know is why they cannot show the same courtesy of ideas to people who disagree with them.

Andrew:
I disagree with you but I feel that I have been nothing but courtesous to you. If you feel otherwise then I truly apologize. I certainly did not intend to offend.

Rosemary,
Your other words demand more time that I can give them at this exact moment (damn class anyway!), but I feel that I owe quick explanation on this one point:

Andrew:
I disagree with you but I feel that I have been nothing but courtesous to you. If you feel otherwise then I truly apologize. I certainly did not intend to offend.

I have found you and your husband to be marvelous hosts on many an occasion, this being no exception. It is not me that you have been discourteous to, but rather to the entertainers in question. I am truly apologetic that my words may have for one moment caused you to doubt that you have given me less than a fair hearing; or that you have in any way insulted or disparaged me. Please, the apology is mine to express to you, not vice versa.

Ok, Andrew, I'll agree to the extent of listening once, since (as you say) I have to know what they're saying first. :)

I think most of the celebrity quotes are bad ideas from silly people, which is too bad, as I had some admiration for Ms. Garafalo (at least) as an artist. But I'm not sure now if I could stand watching a new movie with her in it.

The people who really turn my stomach are the ones like the Columbia professor who called for "a million Mogadishus". That bastich ought to be tossed out on his ass.

I just found This Item from instapundit. I am utterly disgusted by it. I get the feeling that I am just about alone on this board, by being so. After all, here is a man who used his work time to spout personal opinions. Therefore, according to the beliefs expressed here, he should have been fired. According to mine, he should not have been…

Oh, and to Casey, I totally agree…

[sigh] I'd have to hear the guy's show and how he's been acting. I don't deny that the station has the right to let him go. But it is disgusting behavior by the station if it's as innocuous as the story makes it sound.

Two comments:

First the station has a right to hire and fire. If he was deliberately refusing to do what he was supposed to do - like air NPR stuff. Well, then it was a case of insubordination - at least.

Last: I would be mad and disagree, if, it was a normal part of his show to discuss political issues and such and the station never had a problem before. I stick by what I said. If he was yammering on about "white power" and other racist nonsense would you be upset? If so, wouldn't that be hypocritical?

Any entertainer worth his or her salt knows that one of the most important parts of their "job description" is playing to their crowd. When Hynde makes comments like she did at a show in SF, she is playing to her crowd, and I'm sure they mostly ate it up. When Maines makes comments as she did, she is most certainly not playing to her crowd. She is doing her job poorly, and she can expect to suffer the consequences. Consequences, which by the way will be much less than if the average person does their job poorly. As I said before, the Dixie Chicks will not be on welfare anytime soon.
The problem with your argument, Andrew is that this is simply not an issue of free speech or democracy. These people, for better or for worse, are commodities. They have fans based in a large part on the image they cultivate. If that image is shattered in a way that is offensive to their fans, well, that's tough. It's the life they chose, and one that they are rewarded hansomely for.
To use a non-political example, I will never again put Off the Wall or Thriller on my turntable, even though I once loved those albums. The image of Michael Jackson that pops into my head is not worth it.
And the only alternative to not buying albums or movies from stars that I now find offensive is well, being forced to buy them. That makes no sense. No one is boycotting anything - people are making individual decisions about what they will listen to and watch. And even if there were organized boycotts, that in no way elevates it to the same moral plane as Jim Crow, etc. People boycott all kinds of things. Are mink farms on the same moral plane as Apartheid?

But people _are_ talking boycott, Aaron, the entire 3rd paragraph of this piece is one word "boycotts"...

I do, BTW, tend to agree with Rosemary when she says: If he was deliberately refusing to do what he was supposed to do - like air NPR stuff. Well, then it was a case of insubordination - at least.Although it sounds to me like he was fired mainly for his opinions. Could easily be wrong on that, though.

But the last few comments have led me to wish to clarify something; I have not said that we don’t have the _right_ to stop purchasing things. But we do have the responsibility to make speech as cost free as possible.

A basic principle of economics is that the more something costs the less people will be able to afford it. Do we really, as a society, wish to make it difficult for people to afford speech?

Fans calling for a boycott is not the same thing as, say, the NAACP organizing one.
Free speech is not becoming more expensive for celebrities. The DC will still each pocket more money this year then I will in 50 lifetimes. And I bet they've created a whole new audience for their music. They may have lost some of the NASCAR crowd, but I'm sure their neighbors in Malibu have a new-found love for them.
Ok, that's it, this argument is going nowhere.

Department of Enforced Attention Announced

Washington DC-- Plans for a new cabinet-level Department of Enforced Attention were announced today. President Bush is reportedly still considering names from among a pool of national celebrities, to be nominated as the first Secretary of Enforced Attention.

Over 80,000 opinions and viewpoints have already been registered with this fledgling department of the federal government, which is charged with ensuring that all adult American citizens carry out their duty to pay sufficient attention to every registered opinion voiced by a fellow American, regardless of whether they feel like it or not.

A vast new federal bureaucracy is being formed to enforce this duty by means of quizzes, exams, and "attention audits" to be administered to American citizens. Anyone failing an audit will be required to spend more of their time and spending money listening to alternative opinions, or else face fines or other legal sanctions.

A proposal has been aired to permit individual exemptions to these attention requirements, based on payment of an annual "attention tax." An individual would file a schedule with his federal income tax, checking off boxes for categories of opinion which he does not wish to be bothered listening to, and paying a tax based on the number of opinions thus checked off.

But Democrats decried this loophole as an "attention break for the rich." Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle commented, "Under such a provision, only the wealthy would have the resources to evade that duty which is incumbent upon each of us, to spend our time and money paying attention to other people's opinions, whether we want to or not."

But Democrats deny fervently that the mission of the Department of Enforced Attention would eventually be expanded to one of "affirmative attention," preferentially enforcing attention to certain opinions which are deemed to be "under-listened-to." "What would ever make you think we would promote an agenda like that?" asked Daschle.

Meanwhile, it has been pointed out that if you pay close attention to twenty officially registered opinions per day, it would take you less than twelve years to work through the backlog of opinions registered with the new Department so far.

Republicans who have opposed the plan as "socialism of the mind" have been widely dismissed in the mass media as benighted, hate-filled, cross-burning troglodytes.

What's truly ironic, Paul, is that many of the anti-war demonstrators have been complaining that the major news services aren't "listening to their voice"

Pardon me while I oppress the Dixie Chicks (just one example here) and the rest of the glitterati. “Here is $20. I am not spending it on you.” (I heard that at a debate once. The cheers and groans from both ends of the aisle were enlightening). Am I guilty of censorship? Odd, you can still get their works on the open market. And if Andrew or anyone else wishes to support their right to a fan club (they already have freedom of speech), let him and everyone else spend their own $20 to support not only their right to free speech but also their right to live free from the consequences from their actions in a fickle market. I’m sure that people will continue to do business with them. But at least as far as the Dixie Chicks go, it may not necessarily be the exact same crowd, especially if they overplay their "I've been censored" routine. They may even have to change their style to meet their new fans who like them not for their music, but for agreeing with them politically. Their supporters won’t be their fans. They will be second-handed yes-men. But the Dixie Chicks will continue to be famous -- as, apparently, is their right.

Likewise, if I were to do or say something to enrage my peers and rightfully blow my reputation out of the water (be it for a nefarious personal action or a careless professional opinion), I imagine that I would also be left out of the cold and have to cope. Would Mr. Cory then support my right not only to free speech (which I have) but also to perpetual credibility by compensating my for my lost salary. I think not, for his sake. Besides, I think the Scott Ritter and the Iraqi Information Minister are ahead of me in the line.

But why, then, does the right to credibility, and the perks and opportunities that come with it, apply to the Dixie Chicks and not to Ritter? And credibility IS what we are talking about. And that does include the KKK guy with the nasty tats, the odious professor at Columbia (don't worry he'll still have a job, it’s not like he teaches Math and should have known what 1M Mogadishus totaled up to) as well as those Hollywood Squares who expect to be treated as being not only good entertainers, but actually... smart and honest.

Wow! I've come to this discussion rather late into the game, but I happen to agree with Rosemary. All of us, no matter our status in life, have the same freedoms. If we believe strongly enough in something, then by God we should have the balls to stand up and be heard! I don't agree with everything Susan Sarandon and Martin Sheen espouse, but I respect them for saying it. However, each of us must have responsibility for what we say and do. If fans of the Dixie Chicks, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, etc. dislike their opinion, then of course they have the right to stop putting money into their pockets. It's not as if they have a right to my hard-earned dollars. I'm not big fans of Fox News or the National Review so I don't watch Fox for subscribe to NR (I just read them free online!). Does that mean I'm suppressing their freedom of speech. Of course not! I'm just exercising my freedom to choose. That being said, I've never liked the Dixie Chicks so I'll never buy their CDs anyway; Susan Sarandon is still a great actress, so I'll watch her movies and tune our her opinions. Freedom -- it's a great thing!

I'm coming in a little late, too, but I've got a few names for Andrew to consider:

Trent Lott
Dr. Laura
Fuzzy Zoeller
John Rocker
Jimmy "The Greek"

Was their right to free expression stifled?