Their complaints that (former) fans boycotting them was a violation of their [Dixie Chicks'] free speech rights is what gets me.
That's the part I'm asking about: Did they really make that complaint? Or did others make that claim, and it got attributed to the DCs by people anxious to make them look as bad as possible? All I have been able to find (with an exhaustive research effort consisting of at least 15 minutes of Googling) is defiant statements by the DCs and endless ranting about FS rights by thousands of clueless fans; and frothy rants by conservatives saying pretty much what you are saying.
I did actually find one instance of a clear governmental attempt to restrict free speech - some wingnut in the South Carolina State Legislature apparently introduced a resolution calling on the DCs to apologize.
Again, AFAICT, the DCs did indeed take responsibility and remained defiant. They continued to sell records and win awards. Attempts to restrict their freedom to speak were made, but failed miserably. In all, a pretty healthy-looking situation, from a First Amendment standpoint.
So while I agree with your point, I don't see that either the DC or the Kenneth Eng situations are relevant. I'm sure there are plenty of other cases that would better demonstrate the inability of people to accept the consequences of their freedoms.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: convictions
Date: 2007-03-01 06:49 pm (UTC)That's the part I'm asking about: Did they really make that complaint? Or did others make that claim, and it got attributed to the DCs by people anxious to make them look as bad as possible? All I have been able to find (with an exhaustive research effort consisting of at least 15 minutes of Googling) is defiant statements by the DCs and endless ranting about FS rights by thousands of clueless fans; and frothy rants by conservatives saying pretty much what you are saying.
I did actually find one instance of a clear governmental attempt to restrict free speech - some wingnut in the South Carolina State Legislature apparently introduced a resolution calling on the DCs to apologize.
Again, AFAICT, the DCs did indeed take responsibility and remained defiant. They continued to sell records and win awards. Attempts to restrict their freedom to speak were made, but failed miserably. In all, a pretty healthy-looking situation, from a First Amendment standpoint.
So while I agree with your point, I don't see that either the DC or the Kenneth Eng situations are relevant. I'm sure there are plenty of other cases that would better demonstrate the inability of people to accept the consequences of their freedoms.