Coulter Bagged by Media Matters

"Again I call bullshit on the assertation that it 'chilled speech'."

I don't care if you call bullshit on it. It's reality. I sometimes wonder where you were doing those years.

It definitely chilled speech, and chilled dissent. It was part of the overall tone that was set during those years, which was definitely on the dark side.
 
Onceler said:
Not if you don't want to.

But again, you're arguing personal choice. I'm arguing organized boycott.
Click to expand...
They worked to create an equal platform to get their message across that they had already given to the Chicks.

Without their support the platform they used would not have been there, they felt "betrayed" by their use of that platform for that. Therefore they worked to create an equal platform. Seriously, if not for fans they wouldn't have been famous enough for people to have listened anyway. They literally were the platform.

Calls to put them in jail... That would be unamerican. Calls to support a different platform and "boycott" them? Not so much.
 
Onceler said:
"Again I call bullshit on the assertation that it 'chilled speech'."

I don't care if you call bullshit on it. It's reality. I sometimes wonder where you were doing those years.

It definitely chilled speech, and chilled dissent. It was part of the overall tone that was set during those years, which was definitely on the dark side.
Click to expand...

The bushite nonsense about patriotism and all that crap chilled speech and chilled dissent.

But for the artist to enter the political arena, there is always going to be a chance of backlash.
 
Superfreak said:
So because YOU don't do it, no one else should? Give me a break. You said yourself they had the right to boycott as it is an expression of free speech. They have that right.

So boycotting is only ok, when you say so? IF you don't like the particular tuna company because they net flipper, then you should just not buy their product as an individual according to your standards.

The boycott of the chicks was designed to let them know that their words had consequences. That IF the chicks pissed some people off, those people who were pissed would no longer support the Chicks financially by buying their albums, going to concerts etc...
Click to expand...

Clearview radio refused to play their music, and they received death threats. To claim that the death threats were wrong, but the rest was ok, is simplistic even for you.

They are all entwined. There was an atmosphere in this country of if you disagree with bush you should be put in prison or killed as a traitor, and you know it, but will never admit it.

Of course, you voted for that twice, so you have an investment in not admitting it, don't you?
 
Solitary said:
The bushite nonsense about patriotism and all that crap chilled speech and chilled dissent.

But for the artist to enter the political arena, there is always going to be a chance of backlash.
Click to expand...
The with us or against us rhetoric certainly worked in that direction.
 
Onceler said:
"The boycott of the chicks was designed to let them know that their words had consequences. That IF the chicks pissed some people off, those people who were pissed would no longer support the Chicks financially by buying their albums, going to concerts etc... "

Think about that. Your words, a.k.a. your opinions, have consequences. If you express them, it will hurt you.

Go America!
Click to expand...

Yes, they MAY potentially hurt you. As OTHER people ALSO have the right to express their FREE SPEECH. They can do so by CHOOSING not to buy your products. If you piss enough of them off, they can CHOOSE to boycott you and your products.

FREE SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN YOUR SPEECH IS FREE OF CONSEQUENCES. IT NEVER HAS. IT NEVER WILL.

If everyone had to just sit back and take whatever anyone else said with no response.... THAT would be unAmerican.
 
Superfreak said:
Again I call bullshit on the assertation that it 'chilled speech'. The Chicks didn't stop commenting on Bush, they didn't apologize for what they said, nor should they have had to as that is what they believed.

Here we are today with the left laughing about mediamatters getting Coulter booted off of NBC.... how is that ANY friggin different?
Click to expand...

Did the Dixie chicks call for more terrorist attacks against Americans too? I must have missed that.

That's a big difference right there.

However, even so, I did not join the campaign. I still have mixed feelings about it. The thing is a piece of shit and any decent person spending money on her books or defending her, gives up their decency. But I don't care for organized advocacy against networks in an attempt to bully them. That sort of thing, or even the threat of it, is what leads to someone like Phil Donahue getting fired for being openly anti-Iraq war. Something I just know you were upset about.
 
Darla said:
Clearview radio refused to play their music, and they received death threats. To claim that the death threats were wrong, but the rest was ok, is simplistic even for you.

They are all entwined. There was an atmosphere in this country of if you disagree with bush you should be put in prison or killed as a traitor, and you know it, but will never admit it.

Of course, you voted for that twice, so you have an investment in not admitting it, don't you?
Click to expand...

No it is not simplistic. Death threats are not a part of free speech and they most certainly are a form of intimidation.

But boycotting stations that played the music and boycotting the concerts and boycotting purchasing any new products is FREEDOM of Speech. To suggest that because some idiots went across the line somehow negates the viability of everything else is ignorant.

That would be like saying everything group of protestors does is invalid simply because one idiot decided to vandalize property during the protest. It may diminish the effectiveness of the protest, but it does not invalidate every action carried out by the protestors.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, they MAY potentially hurt you. As OTHER people ALSO have the right to express their FREE SPEECH. They can do so by CHOOSING not to buy your products. If you piss enough of them off, they can CHOOSE to boycott you and your products.

FREE SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN YOUR SPEECH IS FREE OF CONSEQUENCES. IT NEVER HAS. IT NEVER WILL.

If everyone had to just sit back and take whatever anyone else said with no response.... THAT would be unAmerican.
Click to expand...

For about the ten thousandth time, I have no problem with personal choice.

As Darla pointed out, people sent threats to radio stations, and organized boycotts of radio stations who merely played the Dixie Chicks. How is that American? We - the tyranny of the majority - are going to tell you what you can & cannot play, and hurt you if you don't play what we tell you to?

Ever hear of changing the station? It's ridiculous that you're defending this. They just wanted to shut people up. They didn't like opinions that differed w/ theirs, and they wanted to simply end them, so not only would they not hear them, but no one else would either.

That was the tone of that whole time period, but apparently, you missed it.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, they MAY potentially hurt you. As OTHER people ALSO have the right to express their FREE SPEECH. They can do so by CHOOSING not to buy your products. If you piss enough of them off, they can CHOOSE to boycott you and your products.

FREE SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN YOUR SPEECH IS FREE OF CONSEQUENCES. IT NEVER HAS. IT NEVER WILL.

If everyone had to just sit back and take whatever anyone else said with no response.... THAT would be unAmerican.
Click to expand...

Darla, if you were trying to get me to hire you for your writing skills, and we were meeting for lunch to discuss business, would you start a political rant without knowing what my political views were?

Of course you wouldn't. YOu would not want to risk offending a potential client and thereby losing the business.

The only difference between that and what happened to the Dixie Chicks is that the knew the political views of their clients and they ignored them.
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, they MAY potentially hurt you. As OTHER people ALSO have the right to express their FREE SPEECH. They can do so by CHOOSING not to buy your products. If you piss enough of them off, they can CHOOSE to boycott you and your products.

FREE SPEECH DOES NOT MEAN YOUR SPEECH IS FREE OF CONSEQUENCES. IT NEVER HAS. IT NEVER WILL.

If everyone had to just sit back and take whatever anyone else said with no response.... THAT would be unAmerican.
Click to expand...

You can put people in prison under this exact same philosophy. You can even justify death threats.

In my opinion you are wrong, and believe it or not, in my opinion you are wrong even when you use caps.
 
Darla said:
Did the Dixie chicks call for more terrorist attacks against Americans too? I must have missed that.

That's a big difference right there.

However, even so, I did not join the campaign. I still have mixed feelings about it. The thing is a piece of shit and any decent person spending money on her books or defending her, gives up their decency. But I don't care for organized advocacy against networks in an attempt to bully them. That sort of thing, or even the threat of it, is what leads to someone like Phil Donahue getting fired for being openly anti-Iraq war. Something I just know you were upset about.
Click to expand...

No, the difference is you do not like Coulter. Neither do I. I think she is a fucking moron. I don't watch shows where she is a guest and I don't buy her products. But that does not change the fact that media matters is attempting to toss her because of what she said. Because they did not like what she said/says. That is no different than those who boycotted the dixie chicks.
 
Solitary said:
Darla, if you were trying to get me to hire you for your writing skills, and we were meeting for lunch to discuss business, would you start a political rant without knowing what my political views were?

Of course you wouldn't. YOu would not want to risk offending a potential client and thereby losing the business.

The only difference between that and what happened to the Dixie Chicks is that the knew the political views of their clients and they ignored them.
Click to expand...

In fact, I am very open about my political opinions. There is no one who does not know them, from my bumper stickers alone.

However, your comparison is very silly solitary. If you can't see why, I really don't think it's worth my taking the time to explain it; you'd never see why.
 
Onceler said:
For about the ten thousandth time, I have no problem with personal choice.

As Darla pointed out, people sent threats to radio stations, and organized boycotts of radio stations who merely played the Dixie Chicks. How is that American? We - the tyranny of the majority - are going to tell you what you can & cannot play, and hurt you if you don't play what we tell you to?

Ever hear of changing the station? It's ridiculous that you're defending this. They just wanted to shut people up. They didn't like opinions that differed w/ theirs, and they wanted to simply end them, so not only would they not hear them, but no one else would either.

That was the tone of that whole time period, but apparently, you missed it.
Click to expand...

No one here is defending the death threats. No one here is defending the bushite's use of patriotism to suppress dissent.
 
Superfreak said:
No, the difference is you do not like Coulter. Neither do I. I think she is a fucking moron. I don't watch shows where she is a guest and I don't buy her products. But that does not change the fact that media matters is attempting to toss her because of what she said. Because they did not like what she said/says. That is no different than those who boycotted the dixie chicks.
Click to expand...

Well, calling for people's murder, is in no way comparable to stating that you don't like the president, nor is it best described as "moronic", but I'm not surprised you can't see that.
 
Darla said:
You can put people in prison under this exact same philosophy. You can even justify death threats.

In my opinion you are wrong, and believe it or not, in my opinion you are wrong even when you use caps.
Click to expand...

No, you cannot put people in prison in this country for exercising their freedom of speech.

But you most certainly don't HAVE to buy what they are selling. You most certainly don't have to sit back and go... 'well gee golly, I really don't like that, but what can I do'.
 
Darla said:
Well, calling for people's murder, is in no way comparable to stating that you don't like the president, nor is it best described as "moronic", but I'm not surprised you can't see that.
Click to expand...

I did not say the actual comments themselves were comparable Darla. I said the actions taken by those that did not like what the parties had to say was comparable.
 
Onceler said:
For about the ten thousandth time, I have no problem with personal choice.

As Darla pointed out, people sent threats to radio stations, and organized boycotts of radio stations who merely played the Dixie Chicks. How is that American? We - the tyranny of the majority - are going to tell you what you can & cannot play, and hurt you if you don't play what we tell you to?

Ever hear of changing the station? It's ridiculous that you're defending this. They just wanted to shut people up. They didn't like opinions that differed w/ theirs, and they wanted to simply end them, so not only would they not hear them, but no one else would either.

That was the tone of that whole time period, but apparently, you missed it.
Click to expand...

He didn't so much miss it as voted for it, twice. He has a very vested interest in denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top