Posted on 03/16/2003 9:11:19 AM PST by Lunatic Fringe
This is an email response from Jagger, a DJ for Dallas 102.1 radio station. He was responding to my email which stated I was organizing a boycott of Clear Channel and its sponsors for playing the Beastie Boys anti-American, anti-Bush song.
I am emailing to inform you that I am starting a protest campaign until ClearChannel pulls the Beastie Boys song critical of President Bush. In the middle of our war on terrorism, mass media should not be spreading propaganda that is hateful and untrue. I believe it is un-American and gives ammunition to the enemies of our country.
It's funny how popular culture was supportive of the troops and our leaders in the days after 9-11, but it seems you have forgotten the 3,000 people who died that day. Are you only patriotic when it is convenient and popular? Well, the war with Iraq is part of our war on terrorism, and the latest poll shows that 71% of Americans support removing Saddam Hussein.
This campaign will encourage Americans to boycott all Clear Channel stations and their sponsors. I believe in freedom of expression and speech, but when that speech crosses the line of anti-American propaganda then it is a citizen's duty to respond in an appropriate way.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jagger
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 10:49 AM
Subject: RE: Beastie Boys Song
You are such a hypocrite. You say you believe in freedom of speech, but when it crosses the line and you consider it anti-American propaganda, then you no longer believe in free speech. You either do or you don't. And obviously you can't handle true freedoms.
I though the whole point of the war was to free the people of Iraq. Look up the word freedom. The Beastie Boys can say anything they want, as can you. This is not Iraq where they shoot and torture you for discenting against the leader. We don't have to agree, but you have to respect their right to say whatever they want. Clear Channel is free to do what they want as well. So why don't you spend some time worrying about real issues and write to your Congressman or Senator on something important instead of worrying about others expressing their freedom of speech.
Jagger
--------------
From: *****
Sent: Fri 3/14/03 4:50 PM
To: Jagger
Subject: Re: Beastie Boys Song
Jagger,
You are correct... the Beastie Boys and Clear Channel both have the freedom to express themselves. So do Americans who support the liberation of Iraq. Funny how the anti-Bush crowd will stake claim to their freedom of speech when expressing their views, but when those who disagree make known their intention to express THEIR point of view, we are labeled hypocrites.
I disagree with your assertion that when free speech crosses the line, that I am against freedom of speech... on the contrary, I (and many other Americans) are expressing our freedom of speech by refusing to patron your sponsors.
What a country!
From: Jagger
To: *****
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 4:51 PM
Subject: RE: Beastie Boys Song
If you are so interested in the freeing of Iraq why are you not in the U.S. military and over there holding a gun?
---------------
----- Original Message ----- From:*****
To: Jagger
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Beastie Boys Song
I've done my time in the service, U.S. Navy, as did my father and both of my younger brothers. One of my brothers is still in the military, 1st Cavalry Division, Ft. Hood, and is being deployed this week.
Just remember that the freedom of speech, which we obviously both hold very dear, is provided by those men and women. It is also a freedom the people of Iraq do not possess. Secretary Powell proved at the UN that Iraq provides financial and logistical support to Al-Qaeda, and that makes the war against Iraq part of the War on Terrorism.
I did not intend to start a e-mail war with you, I just wanted to express my views to the executives of Clear Channel and the sponsors of your station, that as long as that song is played I will express my freedom to turn the dial to a non-Clear Channel station. I applaud the Beastie Boys for exercising their rights, that is what this country is about. However I will not support their careers, nor will I support any radio station that plays their song during a time of crisis.
Freedom of speech, especially against the government, is appropriately the FIRST Amendment of the Constitution. However, intellectual dishonesty like the kind expressed in the Beastie Boys song IS propaganda. I used to respect the Boys for their "Free Tibet" campaign. I wonder why they don't support a "Free Iraq" campaign. As far as the issue of oil, which was an issue brought up during the buildup of Desert Storm and seems to be the fallback position of most people opposed to the war, I ask this: After we beat Iraq in the 1991 war and controlled the southern half of the country, how many oil wells did we keep?
The blank looks on their faces as they struggle for a comeback is priceless.
That being said, if "jagger" is such a proponent of free speech, why wouldn't he put on, for example, Daryl Worley's "Have you forgotten"? Sure, it's country, but isn't clear Channel violating Daryl's free speech by not playing country music?
Obviously, the answer is "no," but it's just another example of how the left always says "free speech for me, not for thee."
Indeed. And the left's latest method of attacking MSNBC's Mike Savage show is to make an issue of the fact that the man changed his name from "Weiner" to his professional name of "Savage."
They also have a note on their website that you can send your comments on the Dixie Chicks to them and they will forward them as a group to them.
This is a very popular CW station around here.
Did he skip the latter half of 2001 and first half of 2002? We went to Afghanistan after the WTC/Pentagon attacks at teh beginning of the war on terrorism in order to get the masterminds. Now we are going after a MAJOR financier of terrorism, who needs to be gone for 1: funding, promoting and exporting terrorism to other countries, 2: starving, torturing, gassing and otherwise mass murdering his people while the UN stood complacently by, chanting 'peace at all costs, peace at all costs' 3: amassing WMD in violation of 16 UN resolutions...which makes a minimum of 16 times he's broken international law as per the conditions of his surrender. 4: conceiving, ammassing and/or setting up, and being willing to use environmental (well heads), biological (anthrax) and chemical (VX) weapons on any perceived threat. To Saddam, anyone who doesn't suck up to him is a perceived that that needs to be eliminated.
I would VERY much like to know his A.S.W.E.R. to that question.
Hehehe- I'm waiting for the answer myself....
You too? [g]
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.