Do Americans actually believe in free speech or not?

Question

We seem to love our country so much but get outraged even when people speak their political opinions, much less things that could be interpreted as even more inflammatory like hate speech. And when the Dixie Chicks simply said they are ashamed that Bush is from Texas they got death threats, presumably from the same patriotic, bible belt type people that probably claim to cherish our Constitution so much. What are your thoughts on this? Feel free to point out errors in my logic or assumptions, I'm always willing to learn new things.

Brian B: I see where you are coming from. I believe the problem is in my attempt to explain. Briefly put: it puzzles me that the demographic that is supposedly the most patriotic also was the harshest when a fellow American exercised her freedom of speech. I can only generalize because simply I do not have data on all individuals who objected. My concern was specifically with those sorts of individuals and the hypocracy they appear to represent.

Brian B: I'm sorry. I'm just clearly not able to express my thoughts well. Trust me, your argument makes absolute and complete sense and I agree with you 100%, that's just simply not what I'm meaning to say. All I'm saying is that if someone TRULY supports free speech, fine, boycott the records and stop listening to them, that's absolutely appropriate. Death threats are probably NOT appropriate and are hypocritical. As for Michael Richards, I don't condone his actions, in fact I can't stand them, and it was pretty darn stupid for him to express himself that way and he SHOULD expect consequences, but I do believe he has the right to say those things. He just shouldn't be surprised if his windows get broken by disgruntled people.

Answer 1

You're correct. We accept free speech unless it offends us. Take for instance the Michael Richards thing. Now the Laugh Factory is putting a ban on the word n*gger. What happened to free speech? Then again, that's a private business and he can run it the way he wants. It's an interesting world, the same people that cry "free speech" are the same that would cry "censor" if the speech is not favorable to them.

Answer 2

I think the Dixie Chicks were in the wrong place in time when they exercised their free speech. In another country on the heels of 9/11. And, I'm sure it wasn't just Texas and the bible belt that came down hard on them.

Celebrities are always in danger of saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. That's the price you pay for being in the public eye. You also have remember that they are in prime position to champion a cause and can win praises too.

Even though the media is still chasing the story, creating a frenzy of sorts I would be willing to bet most of America has moved beyond the Dixie Chicks and their poor timing.

I was also angry about the statement but do believe in free speech with restraint (Racially motivated hate speech and yelling fire in a theater is wrong). However, I listened to the Dixie Chicks on my way to work this morning.

I don't feel you are wrong at all. In fact, you have just a much right to disagree as to agree.

Answer 3

The first amendment limits the congress from passing laws. Here it is for those that doubt that.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Last I checked Congress made no law to punish the Dixie Chicks.

Those that cherish the Constitution realize the Bill of Rights are safeguards against Government Tyranny.

Any credible death threats that might have been received by the Dixie Chicks may have been crimes, however expressing disdain for a person or group due to their political views is free speech in itself.

Simply put the error in your logic and assumptions are that the Dixie Chicks were somehow denied freedom of speech by other people's responses. They weren't. In fact they continue to speak freely about how they feel they were unfairly treated. As entertainers they have made changes to their current concert schedule and venues due to low ticket sales. They are having to market their music to different audiences because they alienated their original audiences. Disagreement doesn't equal suppression of free speech.

Your assumption that an individual that makes a death threat somehow represents the entire group of people that disagree with the Dixie chicks is stereotyping and disingenuous. If that assumption and logic were valid, then the democratic lefts associations would mean they were all card carrying communists with a desire to violently overthrow the US Government.

Painting everyone with a broad brush never serves to advance the debate, or solve problems.

Agrippina - Why is it so hard to understand that a demographic known to take pride in its patriotism would choose to publicly disagree and through boycott express its disagreement with the position Natalie Manes, and through their support, the Dixie Chicks decided to take?

It is illogical to assume that if someone supports free speech, they will automatically support the a point of view expressed by free speech. By that logic the ACLU is a Racist organization because they defend the KKK's right to hold a parade and cross burning as part of their free speech rights.

It is also illogical to believe that the fans of a music genre producing the umber of patriotic songs in support of the war effort would not with their wallets, and their own voices disassociate itself from a music group that expresses a completely contrary point of view. In essence ensuring that everyone knows the Dixie Chicks did not represent the opinions of their listeners.

The fans of country music did not attempt to stop the Dixie Chicks from expressing their opinions, they simply boycotted and expressed their displeasure with them.

Last I checked the Dixie Chicks, or any other entertainer for that matter, does not have some sort of right to remain popular in the face of audience backlash after expressing an unpopular sentiment.

Or should we all be rushing to defend Michael Richards in light of his bigoted tirade at an LA comedy club. He was just exercising his right to free speech?

Answer 4

I agree with your logic. I am a big supporter of free speech. And the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their minds, just as I (or anybody else) is free to boo them for having said it. I agree with you also that death threats are wrong, although this is the first I have heard of that.

There are narrow minded people of all ideologies that claim to embrace free speech as long as what somebody says matches their opinions and views. Have you ever had anybody ask you for an opinion on something and then begin arguing with you about your opinion? They didn't want your opinion; they were just hoping your opinion would be the same as their opinion.

Answer 5

No free speech is not free it has with it the result of that speech .
You take the risk of being unpopular whenever you open your mouth .Saying what you believe is often going to get you in trouble so you can never speak freely unless you are willing to accept any and all consequences from that speech .
To the brave few Americans who actually do enjoy free speech more power to you and my hat is off to you .

Try speaking freely sometime and see what it gets you around work or at home or in public because so many of you are stupid and full of dumb information .

Answer 6

The irony is that the right to free speech gives them the right to disagree with someone else without suffering for it. Americans need to just suck it up and realize that if someone with whom they disagree doesn't have the right to speak their minds, then there's no reason anyone should respect their own right to speak out. Freedom of speech is probably the best thing the U.S. Constitution could give us--and if people can't handle it, I'm sure Canada would love to have them. I wrote a blog entry at the first link below addressing certain First Amendment issues.

Answer 7

They were stupid considering the socio-political makeup of their fanbase. Just shot themselves in the foot and then whined about it blaming everyone from the President on down when really, they only had themselves to blame. The majority of country music fans demographics are conservative. And then, if it wasn't bad enough, the little fat one ran her mouth some more. They made claims that were as I recall from reading the police reports, inflated and exaggerated regarding death threats and property damage. Their fans turned away from them, plain and simple. Their concerts were cancelled because people did not want to support them based on their political/social beliefs. The fans made their choice based on disagreement which is freedom to choose.

I went to see Ann & Nancy Wilson/HEART perform. They held a voting drive sign up without making any political bias known. I thought they were terrific for this. Everyone can have whatever opinion they want. The problem is when you have celebrity status, don't piss off your fans.

And as if this question has not been asked a dozen times....

Bottom line...they screwed themselves by their own choice to run their mouths. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Answer 8

i imagine it really is loose speech, yet I dare anybody to burn it in the front of me, so as that i'll teach my freedom of speech and expression through preventing it. i'm a Liberal Democrat, and don't like it at the same time as those nimrods burn my flag, that I truly have served less than in 3 wars. it truly is the magnificent usa in the international. Why do not those hypocrites that burn the flag burn the accomplice flag, or better ideal yet, wipe their butt with it? Why no longer the flag of the Peoples Republic of China? Why no longer burn the Cuban flag? because maximum those who burn the flag of this large usa are a gaggle of ignoramus dunder heads that haven't any clue what they're doing or why they have the right to do it.

Answer 9

Oh yeah i can say what ever i want! But the consequences may be unknown how or why cause the offended lurks about in secret to uncoil revenge often! So its free speech at your own risk would be more accurate.

Answer 10

Yeah, well, part of free speech is the people's rights to speak out against someone who spoke their opinions first.