On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 11:18 AM, Matt Beland wrote:
You're dangerously close to sounding like those cranks who claim they're being patriotic by attacking the Dixie Chicks for their speech.
Friday, May 02, 2003 11:58 AM, Tim May wrote:
And as in that debate, where "free speech" is tossed around a lot, nothing in the Dixie Chicks case has involved freedom of speech in any way whatsoever. Think about it.
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? I subscribe to this list for a number of reasons. One of them is because of the potential crypto has for destabilizing capitalist/monopolist and state control over information and expression (e.g. Freenet). -Andy Lopata from the People's Republic of Eugene.