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

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.