2006-07-13 15:19:30 · 20 answers · asked by piggie 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Other - Society & Culture
definitely no. it's a right that people have, and i think that its really dumb that they got hammered like that, and their song banned. if the government can take away their right to freedom of speech....they can basically take it from any body else just because people got upset. people need to read the constitution.
2006-07-13 15:27:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 2⤋
As American citizens they have the right to use their freedom of speech and others have the right to disagree with them.
President Bush said this in 2003 in an interview with Tom Brokaw. "[T]he Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind. They can say what they want to say ... They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out ... Freedom is a two-way street ... I ... don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America. It stands in stark contrast to Iraq ..."
On balance, the Dixie Chicks have probably lost some country music fans for taking the stance that they have but picked up others internationally.
2006-07-13 15:27:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Natalie has the right to express her opinion whenever and however she wants. But there is a thing called consequences for your actions. I can express my opinions here and the consequences are virtually nil. (i.e. I may make someone a little angry). Her consequences were severe. By her running her mouth with her brain still in neutral she cost her band mates a lot of money in lost revenue. She cost her record company a lot of money in lost sales. She cost a lot of venues money for lost concerts. She cost thousands of people that would have supported their endeavors money from no demand for services.
Her momentary posturing about whatever she believed in (which was her right) cost a whole lot of people a whole lot of money. Was that within her right of personal free speech?
When a person is at that level of popularity (they were at the top at the time) they need to THINK before speaking. How many jobs did she cost America in that moment she felt compelled to voice her opinion.
On the positive side, it was a lesson for other famous and/or Hollywood types...just because they have an opinion does not mean they have to share it with the world.
2006-07-13 15:31:21 · answer #3 · answered by damndirtyape212 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of direction it wasn't okay to bash Bush and it is the reason the Dixie Chicks were given a lot unfavorable responses for it. people will continually shelter themselves and their positions even as attacked, as does Bush. that's compared to they say that's okay to bash Bush yet not themselves. they position self assurance in loose speech purely as a lot as anybody else, yet they are going to shelter themselves like numerous different individual. i do not pay interest to their music or u . s . a . music in any respect, or extremely even care about them, yet I did imagine it replaced into unfair that such distinct people hated them b/c they chosen to precise their freedom of speech. Blacklisted/boycotted.... that's an same element in the leisure marketplace. They were given a lot crap b/c they suggested some thing that many u . s . a . music followers did not like. people concept they ought to not have suggested what they suggested; how is that not attempting to supress someones loose speech and critiques? you're proper freedom of speech isn't a 2 way highway b/c a lot of an same people the communicate about how that's between the best things about u . s . of america needed to close the Dixie Chicks up for making use of that proper. you could say inspite of you want about them and no individual is preventing you in common words as they should be allowed to assert what ever they prefer about whoever they prefer. do not get all mad at them b/c they are protecting themselves, any red blooded American ought to do an same.
2016-11-02 00:49:42 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I do not think they were wrong to use the freedom of speech. But as celebrities they have a lot of influence and power and as we learned from our Web Weaving friend Spidermans uncle "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility" They should have been a bit more selective in their words specially when it comes to the office of the Presidency.
2006-07-13 15:28:32 · answer #5 · answered by a_khaze 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first amendment in USA. Freedom of speech!
You can say what you like.. when you like!
People need to stop fighting peoples opinions! Opinions are just that.. no right or wrong answer! everyone has one!
2006-07-13 15:24:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because it's freedom of speech (and it got them the number one selling album for seven consecutive weeks.)
2006-07-13 15:22:58 · answer #7 · answered by WBrian_28 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They weren't wrong but could have chosen a better way to express their opinions. Disparaging their own country was very counterproductive. It stalled their career for 4 years.
2006-07-13 15:23:02 · answer #8 · answered by therego2 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think they were wrong. They are free to say what they believe, but it was a bad career move. The country music world did not take well to their comments.
2006-07-13 15:26:34 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
they have every right to use their freedom of speech, but if I go to any live performance, I don't want to hear their political views.
2006-07-13 15:25:27 · answer #10 · answered by doglover 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋