Re: free speech

["L. Bird" <pkeets@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > Would you think it's an infringement on free speech if the > government 
> > engages in covert activities to silence particular artists?
> That's a colossal IF, but of couse it would be.  Problem is that you have 
> NOT A SHRED of proof that the government has done anything to the dixie 
> chicks.  All you have is "some in the media have suggested."  That's weak.  
> That's NOTHING. Logic dictates that the Bush administration has better 
> things to do than engage in a secret conspiracy to ruin the Dixie Chicks.
Perhaps this rests on the exact logic involved, but I notice that the Bush 
administration seems to be waging a PR campaign to win "the hearts and 
minds" of all concerned.  It's verified that the administration asked 
producers in the movie industry to support their policies with suitable 
films. Why not the radio industry, too?  Artists have a great deal of 
influence over their fans.

VH1 recently ran a program about the political cohesion provided by the 
American music of the Sixties and Seventies and the many ways it contributed 
to social change.  Dictators understand the power of the media and take 
steps to put radio and TV under state control.  Some of the best examples of 
historical art are a statement against overbearing regimes.  It's subtle, 
but I think TOMMY falls into this category.  I won't go into the whole thing 
again here, but a while back I did an analysis here of TOMMY as a reaction 
against societal violence.  The opera has a broader implication than just 
the abuse of children.


> The controversy occured because she said what she said, and on foreign 
> soil.  THAT is inexcusable.  It's like those within a sports organization.  
> Say what you want about those on the team or in the front office, but don't 
> say it outside the organization.  Professionals conduct themselves in this 
> manner.  The Dixie Chicks pandered to an obviously sympathetic audience in 
> England.  I wonder if Natalie has the guts to say it at a show in the U.S.? 
>  I suppose it's moot, since she would be drowned out by the boos.  The 
> govt shouldn't silence the Chicks, or anyone for that matter, but that 
> doesn't mean it is ok for them to act so despicably.
This worries me.  Are you saying that no American artist should criticize 
the war or the administration's policies because this is disloyal?  Are you 
actually J. Edgar Hoover, by any chance?


keets

_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail