'Chick' has right to speak mind

Arizona Republic ^ | Apr. 28, 2003 | Susan Lanning

[presidio9]

Somebody be angry that one of the Dixie Chicks has to apologize for giving her opinion. Here. In this country. Where we've just waged a war for freedom!

Are we lying about that? Was the war really for the oil? Are we a country of hypocrites who say we want one thing but act with a completely different set of rules? Are we a people who spout off empty words?

[presidio9]

You know what I'm angry about? I'm angry at the reaction of all of these knee-jerk liberals who get teary-eyed about Nathalie's right to free speech (won with the blood of our soldiers). They ask that we honor that right by shutting up if we disagree with her. But it doesn't work that way. Nobody is trying to take away Nathalie's right to free speech. We just reserve or right to disagree with her.

[Question_Assumptions]

When these guys get as choked up over, say, Michael Moore harassing Charleton Heston at home because of his stand on guns or get concerned over the backlash against Rick Santorum, let me know.

[Hodar]

Somebody be angry that one of the Dixie Chicks has to apologize for giving her opinion.

I don't recall seeing a gun to her head. I sincerely doubt she was tortured into it. She has a right to say what she wants to say; but the consumer has the right to not listen.

[b4its2late]

Dear Susan Lanning, you ditz. It wasn't what she said, but where she said it....

[Mr. Bird]

No one required Ms. Maines to apologize. She decided to do so, because she realized she might be out of work if she didn't. That is not only the business market at work, but the marketplace of ideas as well.

[dirtboy]

I'm angry at the reaction of all of these knee-jerk liberals who get teary-eyed about Nathalie's right to free speech

They're just doing what liberals do best - whine.

[goldstategop]

Nathalie can say whatever she damn well pleases. But I don't have be forced to listen to her music or buy her CDs. Freedom of speech goes both ways.

[sarasota]

Surely you jest, Susan. You've never heard her music and can't spell her name. I think you made all this up, no?

[abnegation]

I’m betting the only person who “told her to apologize” was her publicist. No one said she couldn’t say whatever the heck she wanted, but what really peeves me is that no one is supposed to disagree with her because she is a “celebrity”. It is about time that so called “celebrities” realize that they only have money because of regular non-celebrity citizens and there are consequences to actions.

[PeteRFNY]

I myself find the whole reaction by the Hollywood left to the backlash they have been getting for some of their ridiculous, baseless, nonsensical comments to be quite amusing! For years now, the Liberal Elite in this country have done their best to stifle ANY viewpoints that they do not like.

Conservative voices have had to endure threats of boycotts, banishment from speaking at colleges, threats to their advertisers, protests and many other forms of censorship at the hands of the left-wing propaganda machine. Up until now, they have enjoyed very little backlash to their chicanery and shenanigans.

Now that the spotlight and accusatory finger has been pointed at THEM, the Left pulls out the crying towels, screaming censorship and unfairness. It seems that once the shoe is on the other foot, it doesn’t seem to fit so well.

I like seeing the playing field leveled for once, and watching the Lefties stamp their feet and pout like spoiled brats. The era of unfettered one-sided dogma is over, thanks to more choices on TV and Radio and the opinions of Americans no longer afraid to speak out. Nothing tastes as bitter as heaping spoon full of your own medicine. Enjoy.

Petezs

[lawdude]

Of course she has the right to say anything she wants. Spot on, way off the mark, well thought out criticism or ill advised tripe. All forms of speech are hers to use as she pleases.

BUT, I have the right to express my displeasure by pointing out how stupid her analysis is and then declining to support her efforts.

[Jim Noble]

Somebody be angry that one of the Dixie Chicks has to apologize for giving her opinion

She doesn't have to apologize for giving her stupid "opinion".

She doesn't even have to apologize for the content-if she doesn't mind paying the price.

[mewzilla]

Note to Susan: Freedom is a two-way street, sweetie.

[ladtx]

These libs never get it. Maines didn't lose her right to free speech. She can say whatever, whenever she wants. She just has to realize there are consequences to what she says. If you're going to say something stupid expect to be challenged.

[Interesting Times]

This woman didn't spout pornography. She didn't ruin the economy. She didn't maim or kill anyone or commit any kind of felony. She just spoke her mind.

But of course the same is true of Natalie's critics.

Obviously this rather dim writer has no interest in *their* right to speak freely.

[GB]

Natalie Maines has every right in the world to say what she did.

However, it appears that she believed she could say what she did without suffering any consequences. She was wrong.

Freedom of speech does not give someone a pass from suffering any consequences caused by said speech. If someone's going to say something like that, that person should be willing to stand there and reap the whirlwind without whining and groveling and appearing naked and airbrushed on a magazine cover ("Entertainment" magazine's artists are pretty good, looks like they took 25-30 pounds off Natalie) to pump up sagging record sales.

It's typical liberalism, trying to avoid the consequences of their actions.

Did anyone see those birdbrains on TV the other night struggling to put an intelligent and cogent thought together? Pitiful. And the "Entertainment" article is even worse, this is all the fault of those EEEEEEEEEVILLLL demonic satanic "right-wing Republicans," LOL!

[Landru]

"This woman didn't spout pornography."

True.

"She didn't ruin the economy."

No, she didn't.

"She didn't maim or kill anyone or commit any kind of felony."

Nope, none of that either.

"She just spoke her mind."

Yup.

...spewing propaganda.

[alancarp]

Free speech goes both ways. But once ANYONE - even me, in this forum -- makes a public statement about anything, they are liable to criticism from those with opposing viewpoints. The more public the statement and the more controversial the topic, the bigger the bullseye that you paint yourself with.

Nathalie Maines gave herself, her career, and that of her entire team a bullseye the size of Manhattan Island: no one should be surprised that millions are taking the opportunity that free speech affords to hit it.

[hotpotato]

It's really useless when someone gives an opinion on something they know nothing about.

[Congressman Billybob]

The chick who wrote about the "Chick" is a moron, just like the "lady" she supports.

OF COURSE, Natalie Maines has freedom of speech. But the "little people" who buy or don't buy her records, attend or not her concerts, ALSO HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH. The only way the "little people" are heard is by spending, or not spending, their dollars.

So, the writer of this article thinks freedom of speech is only for the people at the top. She thinks the "little people" should sit down, shut up, and take it -- whatever "it" is. Obviously, she doesn't have a clue that freedom of speech applies to everyone, including the "little people." The writer is demonstrating the all-American arrogance I wrote about in my latest column. (First link, below."

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI and FR, "All-American Arrogance"

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

Post Script: also up on FR is my latest article for UPI, "Basics of the New Iraqi Constitution."