Replies

I agree with your basic argument that everyone else has the right to object to what she says. But that is not the case. Yes, they object to her use of the term faggot, but they are taking it one step further, and therein lies the problem.

They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves. People demanding banning are somewhat silly given the fact that they don't have to listen to a particular radio station. That will hurt the station far greater than trying to get someone banned.

The same applies here. If these people do not want to read what Ann says, simply do not buy the newspaper that she is printed in. But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.

They demand censorship of her. In the case of the Dixie Chicks, I decided simply to not listen to their music or purchase their albums or listen to the stations that played their music. That is my response to their objectionable comments on foreign soil. I did not decry their right to continue singing nor did I want them banned from the airwaves.

You personally may not have, but a whole bunch of people here did. Clear Channel eventually decided to quit playing them because of the number of complaints they received. That's not censorship. If the government took her off the air, that would be censorship. Giving your readers/listeners what they want is merely good business practice.

But they don't want that, they want all newspapers to stop carrying her column. That is what I have a problem with.

That may be a philosophical difference you have with people who would take the time to ask their newspapers not to carry columns they don't like. But once again, it's not censorship. Consumers have a right to complain about products they buy. Media owners can decide whether or not they want to listen and heed those complaints. As long as the government isn't involved, it's not censorship.

The newspapers carrying Anne are probably having profitability issues the same as all papaers these days...they may lose a few customers if they keep Anne but they'll lose a whole bunch more of their paying customers if they ditch Anne.

So let them ditch Anne, and let them pay the consequences for it!