Gut Rumbles

April 25, 2003

chicks crap

I wrote this reply to an email I received from a British (actually, he say's that he is Irish) reader in response to the Dixie Chicks controversy.

Our US Constitution has its roots in English common law. As you said, I would put myself in harm's way to protect someone's right to voice an unpopular opinion, even if I disagreed with it, as long as it was THE GOVERNMENT attempting to shut him up. My government has done NOTHING to silence the Chicks, Tim Robbins, Michael Moore or ANY of their ilk.

Free-thinking people just like me said that they were full of shit. That's the risk they took when they opened their mouths.

If they can't live with that fact, fuck them, each and every one. It's NOT political at all. It's a market choice. If you're going to enter the business of selling yourself to the public, become a "celebrity" and rely on other people's money to finance your career, DO NOT serve up what the public doesn't want to hear and then whine when they don't buy it.

The government never repressed a single one of those people and they were never silenced by the heavy hand of Washington, DC. They opened their OWN stupid mouths and stuck their OWN stupid foot in there. FREE PEOPLE objected to what they said, not the government. They just want to be asswipes without being treated like asswipes for doing it. Cry me a fucking river.

This fact is obvious to me. Why do so many people have a difficult time understanding it?


Exactly so.

Posted by: Eb Douglas on April 25, 2003 02:21 PM

Some people are just stupid. Very, very stupid.

Posted by: Dave The Australian on April 25, 2003 03:25 PM

I quoted you in my blog.

Here's my comment about the Chicks.

Posted by: Chuck on April 25, 2003 03:42 PM

I do not think it is because some people are stupid, although they maybe be. I think it is because no matter what happens some people just have to have something to bitch about. They get their rocks off by pointing out what is wrong with everything but them.

Posted by: jay on April 25, 2003 04:52 PM

Acidman defines the "Liberal Condition:"
"They just want to be asswipes without being treated like asswipes for doing it."
I feel better about the rationality of the world when I read posts like this.

Posted by: Carl on April 25, 2003 06:42 PM

Another -- You fuckin-A buddy!

Posted by: DavidB on April 25, 2003 09:02 PM

As for the "Chicks"... It is hard to see where you are going when you have your head up your ass!

Posted by: Bob on April 25, 2003 11:15 PM

Actually, I would like to think that I would put myself in harms way to protect anyone whose right to free spech was being violated by anyone -- the government or some other bully. I would hope my neighbor would defend me, even though we disagree.

But, we have to be clear what we mean by free speech. If people boycott an artist because of unpopular views, that is not denying them their free speech rights. In most cases such boycotts are self-defeating, but I defend anyone's right to boycott as much as I defend the person being boycotted.

If some asshat celebrity loses a movie deal because producers think the idiot's anti-American ranting makes him box office poison, that's just the cost of doing business.

Posted by: Bill Dennis on April 26, 2003 09:02 AM

Well put, A-Man. Why can't the jerks see that they want to supress my freedom to call them asswipes?

Posted by: Larry on April 26, 2003 10:34 AM

No, they want to be asswipes without being having their lives threatened.

Posted by: Jack on April 28, 2003 03:30 AM

*decides to reiterate*

I am not talking about people's decision to not buy the Dixie Chicks' CDs or radio stations decisions to take them off the playlist. I am talking about them having their lives threatened.

Each time I mention that, you guys just ignore it and go back to talking about how they shouldn't be whining about how people don't want to buy their CDs anymore.

Let's say you live in a town where a shopkeeper has said something unpopular. People are upset and they stop going to their shop. Then some people get together to form a protest march, and more people join them.
So you all parade through the streets and everyone's getting all riled up, and you find yourselves stood in front of the shopkeeper's house, shouting hate and vitriol.

So far, you can argue that you've done nothing wrong. You're just exercising your right to free speech. But what if the person inside the house is afraid, intimidated. What if they look outside and they see a couple of people off to one side making a noose out of a piece of rope?

It doesn't fucking matter whether what they originally said was stupid. It doesn't fucking matter that you're all perfectly within your rights to disagree with them, to march through the streets, to stand in front of their house, shouting abuse at them. You can even claim that those people off to one side who're tying the noose are nothing to do with you.

But the shopkeeper is still being wronged.

Now, let's say that's as far as it went. Let's say it started to rain, and everyone went home and eventually, you all started shopping in his shop again. Do you think that the memory of a lynch mob outside his front door is going to fade? You think he's going to be as ready to speak his mind next time? Even if he's a principled man, and is prepared to make a stand, even though it might hit his wallet, do you think he's going to risk having another lynch mob march on his house?

I don't think so. I think he's going to keep his mouth shut. So, where's his right to free speech now? YOU'VE TAKEN IT AWAY!

And what if it didn't end there? What if that shopkeeper got dragged out of his house and strung up, and all you did was stand to one side, saying "Oh my God, that's illegal!" and dialling 911. Would you have a clear conscience?

Posted by: Jack on April 28, 2003 04:08 AM


Posted by: The toit toiger on September 12, 2003 06:31 PM
Post a comment