Discouraging Freedom of Speech
In March 2003, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks made a comment in London about being ashamed that Bush is from her home state of Texas. There were threatened boycotts and some radio stations stopped playing songs by the Dixie Chicks.
This year, when Ronald Reagan died, a DJ for WHIL wrote pseudonymously on the Democratic Underground about his dilemma about programming he had been requested to do. Before he even got a chance to act on is dilemma, people at the Free Republic found out, figured out who he was, bombarded the program director with a hate mail campaign, and the DJ was let go. I sent an email to the General Manager, Jeff Stoll, but he never returned my message. It is worth noting that when this started getting attention, Free Republic quickly deleted the thread discussing the action against the DJ.
Then Whoopi Goldberg made disparaging comments about President Bush at a fundraiser for John Kerry. Excuse me, but one would think you should be able to make comments about a candidate’s opponent at the candidate’s fundraiser. But no. This time, it was Slimfast that ‘concluded’ its current advertising campaign with Ms. Goldberg.
At least this time, a Consumer Support person from Slimfast, Kathi Eckler, responded to my email:
Thank you for contacting us to share your comments about our relationship with Ms. Goldberg. We do read all e-mails and take them seriously. We also appreciate the opportunity to clarify our position.
Ms. Goldberg’s remarks created a great deal of negative media and consumer attention and this affected Ms. Goldberg’s ability to positively communicate our message of weight loss. Because of this, we decided to conclude the current advertising campaign. Slim Fast believes its decision in no way impacts Ms. Goldberg’s freedom of speech, now or in the future.
Thank you for taking the time to voice your concerns.
Does Kathi really believe that a person who loses a contract because of something they have said in a completely different venue ‘in no way impacts… freedom of speech’? There is a chilling effect going on.
The latest episode occurred in Las Vegas where Linda Ronstadt was shown to the door after dedicating her final encore piece to Michael Moore. An editorial in the New York Times put it this way: “Perhaps her praise for Mr. Moore, even at the very end of her show, did ruin the performance for some people. …. But if their intemperate behavior began to worry the management, then they were the ones who should have been thrown out and told never to return “
Currently, the Aladdin Theatre where the event took place, is changing hands. According to an article in Billboard, “the prospective new owners of Las Vegas’s Alladin Theater, expect to see RAC member Linda Ronstadt back at the venue this fall — with filmmaker Michael Moore on backup vocals.”
It is good to see the New York Times, and the prospective new owners of Las Vegas’s Alladin Theater stand up for artist’s rights of self-expression. Granted, Kathi Eckler, Jeff Stoll, members of the Free Republic, and people that booed Ronstadt’s dedication are also using their self-expression, but they are doing it in a cowardly manner, focusing on protecting their pocketbooks and discouraging open and honest expression. Some of them may claim to be patriots, but they are doing their country a disservice too by eating away at the principals the country was based on.
I am not a big fan of the financial tit for tat that political discourse has degenerated to. However, until we can get the debate on the right track again, we must let people like Kathi Eckler, and Jeff Stoll know that we hold them in part responsible for the decline of democracy in our country.
permalink | Aldon Hynes | Propaganda
I disagree with you, Aldon. Whoopi Goldberg is free to speak anywhere of course– except she won’t be invited back to the Oscars (where she bombed years ago), or for Democratic party events. Institutions don’t want the controversy. The trouble with controversy is that you don’t want it to upstage the message. As I write in Civilities (click on my name below), without political drama, what if drama emerges in some other way?
Certainly there’s a line somewhere– I thought it was pathetic for ABC to can Bill Maher years ago. But chilling effect it was not; HBO recognized his brains and talent, and gave him his own show.
Howard Fast, Zero Mostel, and many others were also free to speak anywhere as well, except they weren’t invited back to Hollywood in the fifties because the people who were responsible for blacklists didn’t want controversy.
The deeper issue is glaring when we read in Frank Rich’s review of “Anchorman” that Frank Magid & Co. do poling to see which “news” stories will earn the highest ratings and sell the best! The current mass market conversation has been reduced to only those things that will win ratings and profit races.
The question is simply tihs: is what sells best necessarily what yields the greatest national security for the “common good”? Or are we avoiding the hard and unpleasnt conversations that, in the end, might make us a lot safer, healthier and even more prosperous?
For example, buying all of Russia’s old nuclear wapons will be a lot cheaper than recoving from the damage a stray bomb might do if smuggled into the US. But are we even having a national conversation about this? Would this story “test” well according to the ratings/profit metric?
Jock
See: http://www.iht.com/articles/529737.html for the Rich review
I suppose you can toss Margaret Cho into that mix too. But there’s no comparison to the blacklist at all here– it’s a question of whether Goldberg is hired to be a pitchman.
If you want to talk about chilling effects, bring up the case of Teresa Chambers, the chief of police for the National Park Service who had been in administrative limbo for six months (and recently, finally fired) for merely telling the Washington Post that the administration hasn’t given her the budget to adequately patrol the DC parks. see http://www.honestchief.com
On the surface the canning of celebrities or any person for voicing their opinions is contrary to democratic principles, however the business of america is business and if corporations feel that the opinions of their spokespersons detract from the selling of their products then isn’t it just business as usual? Don’t they also have a constitutional right of free expression and free association? If there is any wrongdoing in these cases then they should be resolved in breach of contract actions or civil rights breaches, etc.
For instance if Mike Tyson grabs his crotch in a television weigh in shouldn’t the people that contract him for their products have the right to free themselves from his behavior? His action is free expression and should be protected just as burning the flag is. If Linda Ronstadt or Whoopi Goldberg had burned the flag onstage in a political protest I don’t think that there would be too much sympathy for their actions.
If that is the case then we are talking about a matter of degree. It would be acceptable or understandable to smother one type of expression and not another. The beauty of America is that people can respond in any way they want. They have that freedom and if anyone’s rights are infringed in the process then they have the right to civil and criminal remedies
i am amazed. talk of freedom of speech, talk about social liberties and then deny basic liberty. those at the concert were bound by your ethics to listen and even cheer a view other than their on. how about making you listen to rush everyday and send him love letters. goldberg did as she pleased. she wanted to make a statement and relishes making a stand (ie a sacrifice) but when the price is asked of her sorry ass she whines because there is cost in believing in something. we are talking about moral responsibility. our former president falls under this same mantle in that it was never his fault but the media, republicans, bad luck, etc. on the left it is never their fault but others that have chosen to take advantage of their good nature. nither teresa was a great humanitarian and made sacrificess and gave selflessly to mankind while lida wants to decry the very system that has made her the big heifer that she is today. i have found that the wnderful leftist are great about making sacrifices as long as someone has to do it.
tom carter
You can’t tell me that the sponsors for Goldberg were shocked that she said something controversial, she has ALWAYS been controversial. Slimfast bought the package, and then whines about it when she actually is being herself? COME ON! If Whoopi was SO controversial at the Oscars, why did they invite to her host for the 66th, 68th and 71st ward shows? Free speech is most important when a political view is expressed, you may not like the message but it should be protected. This is why it is first on the Bill of Rights.
Interview with Aldon Hynes, Blogger Extraordinaire
TD Blogger met Aldon Hynes at the Texas Delegation party at the Hyatt just now. Aldon writes for a blog called Greater Democracy. Aldon is one of approximately 20 bloggers who received press credentials…
Aldon
I do not believe in the wholesale granting of Constitutional rights of Citizens to Corporations, and I do not expect Corporations to offer me the Constitutional protections I expect from my Government.
Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America
Amendment I (1791)
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 to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I BELIEVE, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THEIR CONTRACT, SLIM FAST HAS THE RIGHT TO CEASE DOING BUSINESS WITH A SPOKESPERSON IT FEELS IMPAIRS THE CORPORATE IMAGE.
I BELIEVE A THEATER OWNER, WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF HIS CONTRACT, HAS THE RIGHT TO END THE PERFORMANCE OF A SINGER HE FEELS HAS MADE COMMENTS TO AN AUDIANCE THAT MIGHT BE DETRIMENTAL TO HIS BUSINESS.
I DO NOT BELIEVE THESE ARE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ESPECIALLY FIRST AMENDMENT, ISSUES.
I BELIEVE THAT THOUSANDS OF CYBORGCOPS LINING THE ROUTE OF A LICENSED PARADE, FUNDED BY CONGRESS - CORRECT? - ABRIDGES THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND “THE RIGHT OF PEOPLE TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE”.
I BELIEVE A GREEN PLASTIC FENCE BLOCKING THE VIEW FROM THE WHITEHOUSE TO LAFAYETTE PARK IS “ABRIDGING…THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE…TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF THEIR GREIVANCES”.
THESE GOVERNMENT ACTIONS ARE MUCH MORE DAMAGING TO DEMOCRACY IN OUR COUNTRY, THEY SET THE TONE FOR PRIVATE ACTIONS.
sorry for the all caps, did not think the comments would be so long…
The first amendment applies only to governmental action regarding speech. Consumers are not required to patronize anyone who angers them by opening their mouths. Businesses are not required to employ anyone whose negative publicity or controversial speech affects business. Nobody’s free speech rights have been violated. Ronstadt is an idiot for evening mentioning Michael Moore. Half of America loves him and half of America hates him. What responsible business person angers half of her consumers on purpose? Whoopi Goldberg’s comments were vulgar and disrespectful. She has not been arrested at this point, so her right to vulgar disrespectful speech is intact, though I will not be supporting any of her films. That is my right to free speech.
Speech Power and Speech Freedom
Here’s proof that the left still doesn’t understand the concept of a civil right and certainly doesn’t understand the difference between freedom of speech and power of speech. Aldon Hynes makes a pseudo-argument that intolerance of anti-Bush statements…
In Linda Ronstadt’s case, it may have started as a political statement at the Aladdin, but since then it appears to be more of a marketing ploy.
She did the same thing in Livermore and got the same reaction. Now her concerts are sold out.
How else to revive a flagging career. Her singing isn’t getting any better. But just being a good singer wasn’t packing them in. Now it is.
First of all the first amendment only protects us from the government. There is no such right in an employee/employer relationship or contractor/contractee relationship.
Secondly Natalie Maines and Whoopi Goldberg have the right to say whatever they want. A right they have used. They do not have a RIGHT to be liked by all.
People should be just as free to dislike Ms. Goldberg and her statements they may find offensive. If that rubs off on the Presidential candidate she is vocally supporting then so be it. You know they say your friends are a reflection of you.
I applaud Ms. Maines for having an opinion and expressing it. I also applaud all those who have exercised their democratic right to “vote with their feet “and decided not buy her records any more.
I was chatting with a friend the other day and he said that the Democrats would have better luck when they stop publicly consorting with people that much of America sees as coarsening our society. I agree.
I agree with Henry that Democrats would have better luck when they stop publicly consorting with people that much of America sees as coarsening our society. They do need to stop consorting with people who put greed and materialism ahead of concern for their neighbors. Unfortunately, that means that they need to stop consorting with much of the Republican leadership.
Basically, nothing has changed. Apparently people (in particular high profile people) believe they can say anything they want, alienate anyone they want, distort the truth, and in some cases, outright lie, and NEVER be held responsible in any way. That’s not the way it works. If you are going to push a controversial statement or performance on an audience, then you should expect that some of your audience may not agree and may wish to push back. One of the problems with people is that they are not tolerent of the fact that in our country, we are all allowed to have a veiwpoint, not just the speaker or performer. Everyone has a right to speak his/her own mind. But, please don’t go crying foul when the whole world doesn’t crowd in behind you in agreement, simply because you make a lot of money and get a lot of free advertisement!