On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 09:00 PM, Andy Lopata wrote:
Of course the Dixie Chicks controversy does not implicate Constitutional freedom of speech. The government is not restricting the DC's speech (i.e. not throwing them in jail or censoring them).
However, the ever consolidating corporate media (in conjunction with the powers that be in Washington) very effectively limits and contains the scope of debate about national and international issues. See Manufacturing Consent (Chomsky/Herman) http://www.commoncouragepress.com/chomsky_consent.html. The DCs got in hot water because they dared to step outside the narrow range of permissible debate in the mainstream infotainment industry. Sure there was plenty of debate about the war, but the media treats different views in very different ways. The DCs are held out as opponents of the war to show who stupid opposing the war was - they are just country singers - what the hell do they know about global politics. And the infotainment industry (news included) ignores the multitude of articulate, intelligent speakers who could forcefully explain the numerous reasons the war was immoral, unjust, and not in the interest of the U.S. The treatment is subtle, but very effective.
Why is this restriction on speech and debate any less insidious than statist control? Why is capitalist self-censorship better than state-controlled explicit censorship?
The Dixie Chicks catered to the right wing, country music, monster truck rally crowd. Not surprising that when they insulted their crowd's leader, the crowd reacted. Being against the war hasn't hurt Michael Moore's popularity in _his_ crowd. It's silly to say that "freedom of speech" implies that people should continue to find popular those who have insulted their views or their leaders. --Tim May "He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." -- Nietzsche