In the wake of the "Why I Hate Blacks" column

[madbaker]

I'm a big fan of the First Amendment. Kenneth Eng has the right to write what he wishes, regardless of how moronic.

But - as the Dixie Chicks learned a couple years back - it is worth remembering that "Free speech" does not mean "Free consequences".

Edited for clarification: Assume I'm an entertainer, or even an editorial writer. It is my free speech right to say publicly that, for example, I think blue jeans are stupid and anyone who wears them is a brain-dead fashion victim.

But it is not a violation of my free speech rights when jean-wearers stop buying my product, and Levi's pulls their sponsorship.

Comments

The same would go for a band espousing anti-Democratic views.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

They are entitled to their own opinions and to publicize same if they want. But if they piss off their fan base with their opinions and lose sales, they shouldn't whine about the right to free speech.

Again: take responsibility for the consequences of your free speech.

Re: The same would go for a band espousing anti-Democratic views.

[loup_noir]

Clearly you are more in tune with whatever.

I was under the opinion that they had suffered, if that's the correct term, a huge loss in income whilst upholding their convictions.

They took the responsibility of their convictions by losing money. Isn't that the ultimate penalty in today's America?

convictions

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

If they had done so in silence, yes. But claiming that they were being discriminated against, that people not buying was a violation of their free speech rights, and so forth? That's not taking responsibility, that's whining.

Re: convictions

[loup_noir]

But silence does nothing to attract attention, and attention is what show biz is all about. I'm just splitting hairs at this point.

Whining is one of our basic rights here. /sarcasm

Re: convictions

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Did they actually do that? The stuff I read sounded like they remained quite defiant. "I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."

Also: death threats. That's a whole other deal than just losing sales. I think you can legitimately whine about receiving death threats, which certainly are attempts to censor speech.

Harvey Weinstein did whine about free speech, cuz the meshbacks in Tay-hoss wouldn't air ads for his documentary. But, you know, Harvey Weinstein.

The Chicks didn't really suffer much economically, in the long haul; they are still mega-sellers.

Re: convictions

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

No argument that death threats are beyond the pale.

Their complaints that (former) fans boycotting them was a violation of their [Dixie Chicks'] free speech rights is what gets me. No, it's a valid reaction - I can vote with my pocketbook.

Personally, I'd rather that they remain defiant than flip and pander if those are their true beliefs. Just, again, recognize the consequences. Take responsiblity, fercryin'outloud. Why is this such a difficult concept for many people?

Re: convictions

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

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.