Terrorism: The New McCarthyism, Report "Blacklisted" Artists here:

[Sovrana]

Decided to devote a thread specifically to keep track of this renewed trend of censorship.


The Dixie Chicks
Susan Sarandan
Tim Robbins
Janeane Garofalo


Anyone else to add to this new "Hollywood Ten?"

Let's keep track of these names so these artists and their work will not be forgotten and our cultural future not be destroyed.

[DudeMan]

If any of these actors or musicians puts sumthin out that is good and entertaining, I'll watch/buy it, regardless of how silly or wrong-headed I may think their ideas are. (Shawshank Redemption II: Redeemed Again With a Vengeance!) But, let's not confuse consumer choice with censorship. Corporations and citizens have the same right to not promote/listen/watch/buy stuff as these guys have to speak their opinions.

[Duemellon]

introducing the grey area:

Can we confuse censorship with corporate decisions here? There is a link.

The government says "Terrorism is bad, and anyone not against terrorism is a terrorist as well."

The population consumes that declaration.

The corporations, in an attempt not to upset the majority,* decide to limit their support and products to those which do not speak out against the US's recent actions. Yeah, it's so they can make a buck or two, but they're indirectly complying with censorship.

Yeah, the corporations dont have a moral responsibility to influence society into objective thought. In fact, they don't care what the thoughts are as long as they're insured a dollar from manipulating, gleaning, etc, what they can.

But that means we're getting a demand for complicity from both ends. The only place you could get something that supports the anti-Iraq War is via the underground. Wal-Mart would not sell "Peace is Patriotic" shirts.

on another note...
Well, since "IF" is over (as far as the moviegoers are concerned) there is a lot of tension left... I'm wondering what we should call the current state of the US's policies and how do we describe those who oppose this stance?

Personally I seriously doubt Iraq is the last stop on the 9/11-Vengence train.

* the majority is perceived at the very beginning when the declaration of absolution is made by the Prez. These compaies don't wait for a poll to decide to start pounding out the red-white-blue gymshoes and eagle-handbags. They expect the population to agree and because of their sudden flooding of the market with patriotic themes, induce the ambience that it is popular to be blindly patriotic.

[slow-dog]

How have any of these people been censored? Freedom of speech works for both the person who says something AND the person who criticizes him or her. I don't feel like Susan Sarandon has been censored because she's getting bad press. The Dixie Chicks not being played on some CC stations is no more dangerous then me not playing them on my car stereo because I think they suck*. Someone give me a call when George Bush has Alec Baldwin thrown in prison for his anti-Bush views. Then I'll be worried.

But, I know McCarthyism, along with Facism, are now just words which mean, "something I don't like."


* Secret confession: The Dixie Chicks have been played on my car stereo (probably by a CC station).

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by DudeMan
If any of these actors or musicians puts sumthin out that is good and entertaining, I'll watch/buy it, regardless of how silly or wrong-headed I may think their ideas are.....

Corporations and citizens have the same right to not promote/listen/watch/buy stuff as these guys have to speak their opinions.

But if corporations refuse to make these artist's works available by refusing to market them or refusing to fund their projects, how are you the consumer able to make any judgement on whether it is good or not?

The concern here should be that artists, particularly up and coming artists risk not having their work seen or heard because they don't agree with the current administration!!

And you are okay with this?

Are you by the way against the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts as well?

This interest in censoring those that do not agree with administrative policies will inevitably play a role in this gov't organization...if it already hasn't...Of course we could never really know, since we won't have an opportunity to see their work or hear what these artists have to say.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by slow-dog
Someone give me a call when George Bush has Alec Baldwin thrown in prison for his anti-Bush views. Then I'll be worried.


okay...you can sit there and wait until it gets that far...in fact, if you DO wait, you might be waiting in a cell right next to him for thinking bad thoughts.

[Duemellon]

How have any of these people been censored? They have and they haven't been censored.

Our govn't would rarely censor a person, expression, or work. Our SOCIETY would censor something in a heartbeat.

Yeah, censoring some things may increase their interest b/c of "taboo" status. However, if the society truly decides that certain items are "unconsumable" by the rest of society, those items die.

U'kno?

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Sovrana


okay...you can sit there and wait until it gets that far...in fact, if you DO wait, you might be waiting in a cell right next to him for thinking bad thoughts.

Yeah. Because individuals and corporations making choices of their own about who to listen to is the same as the government making those choices for us. Right. Got it. If you really cared, you'd go buy all the Dixie Chicks CDs.

[Orestes]

edited because i have absolutely no recollection of typing this. i got a little tipsy last night :o

[Sovrana]

*sigh*

okay...I'll try again:

The point is that all of the Dixie Chicks cds SHOULD be available for purchase.

[slow-dog]

You're right, they should be. And I believe they are. And I still wouldn't be worried if half the shops in town decided to not carry them, so long as it was the shops, and not the government, that made the call.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Sovrana
But if corporations refuse to make these artist's works available by refusing to market them or refusing to fund their projects, how are you the consumer able to make any judgement on whether it is good or not?

The concern here should be that artists, particularly up and coming artists risk not having their work seen or heard because they don't agree with the current administration!!

And you are okay with this?

Are you by the way against the funding for the National Endowment for the Arts as well?

This interest in censoring those that do not agree with administrative policies will inevitably play a role in this gov't organization...if it already hasn't...Of course we could never really know, since we won't have an opportunity to see their work or hear what these artists have to say.
I am perfectly fine if a corporation decides to fund a project, person, ad campaign, or not. That's they're right, just like it's my right to find a soap-box and speak my mind. If Martin Sheen decides to blather on and on about his political beliefs and that turns off a large segment of our society, why in the world should Visa continue showing ads that he stars in?

I have never appeared in any movies. Is that fair? Am I being 'censored'? Yes, it's fair, and no I'm not being censored. I don't have any acting talent. Is it fair that Kathy Bates is a better actress than 99% of the cute young blonde bimbos who get all the parts, and she only gets the occassional supporting role like in About Schmidt? That's lookism, right? Where are the protests about that?

Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. From actors to writers to agents to managers to directors to producers to studio heads. Despite the fact that Hollywood loves nothing more than to remind us about McCarthyism every chance they get, the ethos and the vast majority of the moneymen are liberals. If anything, conservatives face a much harder time than liberals do. Tom Selleck has said that he believes he has lost parts because some of his views are conservative. I can't recall any righteous indignation being thrown around about that, either.

Freedom of speech is a good thing. But, corporations and consumers also have freedom, and if they exercise that freedom, then that's a good thing too. Bully for them. Tim Robbins is not going to be washing car windshields at the intersection any time soon. He'll be fine. Same goes for Tom Selleck.

(And no, I am not in favor of state funding of the arts. But that's probably better left for a different thread.)

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

Tim Robbins is not going to be washing car windshields at the intersection any time soon. He'll be fine. Same goes for Tom Selleck.


this is not the point. the point is what such actions are a sign of in our society. it sends a message for people not to speak their mind for fear of any type of repraisal.

when the government says anyone who is not with us is against us and themselves a terrorist, while it is not up to the specific dismantling of free speech, it sends a message that many take heed to much too quickly. maybe at work we do not disagree with public opinion for fear of repraisal where it may be a more pressing issue than if tim robbins doesn't make 20 mil for his next project. maybe we don't speak up in public or around aquaintances for fear they may think ill of us.

lines i have heard recently like "those protesters should be shot in the head," while said in partial jest, is dangerous and i think spreading. particularly when our administration is taking it upon themselves to go kill others in this same vein of thought.

[IPrayForSound]

Propaganda, ignorance, stupidity and business aren't exactly censorship. I don't agree with many of the boycotts involved with the war, but the first amendment would protect them eons before it would prevent them.

[Duemellon]

When you say they "should be available" what if the product sucks so bad the stores simply don't want to carry them? U'kno? Like Dixie Chix start covering the Osmonds?

Businesses have the right to decide what to carry based on what they feel they can sell.

The government has the right to say "you shouldn't listen to X because we believe it's bad for you" and then do nothing more to stop it.

Mix the concept that most 'mericans are complicit to their govn't. This drives the retailers/advertisers comply with the request by the govn't that "you shouldn't even be exposed to X as an option." AFter all, if the retailers/advertisers believe the masses WILL comply to the govn't, then they'll sell/promote/make available items to the most lucrative audience.

It's not direct govn't censorship, but can be just as effective.

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Docta

when the government says anyone who is not with us is against us and themselves a terrorist, while it is not up to the specific dismantling of free speech, it sends a message that many take heed to much too quickly.

Heed the words of the Coup, those idiotic Marxists, who in spite of it, can kind of put together a good beat and rhyme...:
Honestly, I'm against this government
I ain't got to cover it up
That's what I meant

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Docta
this is not the point. the point is what such actions are a sign of in our society. it sends a message for people not to speak their mind for fear of any type of repraisal.

when the government says anyone who is not with us is against us and themselves a terrorist, while it is not up to the specific dismantling of free speech, it sends a message that many take heed to much too quickly. maybe at work we do not disagree with public opinion for fear of repraisal where it may be a more pressing issue than if tim robbins doesn't make 20 mil for his next project. maybe we don't speak up in public or around aquaintances for fear they may think ill of us.

lines i have heard recently like "those protesters should be shot in the head," while said in partial jest, is dangerous and i think spreading. particularly when our administration is taking it upon themselves to go kill others in this same vein of thought.
Ah c'mon Docta. I have strong opinions on a lot of things, but you know what? I don't go around my workplace spouting them off. That doesn't mean I am censored -- I just want to play well with the other kids and would rather concentrate on rising up the corporate ladder and making obscene amounts of money than being controversial or making some of my co-workers who may not agree with my crazy ideas feel uncomfortable. I save my spouting off for places like here and over drinks with friends on a friday night.

What's wrong with keeping yer mouth shut every now and then? I do it all the time, and I"m sure you do too. These millionaire stars are using the position as celebrities to spout off, which is fine, but why is it not fine when Joe 6-Pack gets pissed off about it, finds it condescending and inappropriate, and decides not to buy any more of their CDs?

[dcXhc]

Come to Washington D.C. -- I've seen 20 shows so far this year. At an average of 2.5 bands/show that's roughly 50 bands. I could count on one finger the number of bands that didn't make a protestation about the war or the presidency. Nobody is being censored.

Some of the people on this thread like to complain that we are being deceived by those who announce too many terrorist alerts. The same thing could be said of those who cry "censorship" and "McCarthyism" every time some second-rate performer gets canned because nobody wants to hear them drivel the hackneyed liberal shibboleth.

[DudeMan]

Okay, last post on this tonight...

Meanwhile, down in the Worker's Paradise of Cuba, just this week (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1699398), Fidel Castro threw a bunch of dissidents in prison with sentences up to 28 years for the audacious and damning crime of speaking with some Americans and saying, gee, it would be nice if we could have some freedom here too.

Why are we so flipping concerned about whether Jeanne Garrafolo is going to get that pilot or not, and so un-concerned about the 28 people in Cuba who are now rotting in prison? Let's put things in perspective, guys.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by DudeMan
I have strong opinions on a lot of things, but you know what? I don't go around my workplace spouting them off. That doesn't mean I am censored --

What is YOUR definition of censorship?

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by DudeMan

Why are we so flipping concerned about whether Jeanne Garrafolo is going to get that pilot or not, and so un-concerned about the 28 people in Cuba who are now rotting in prison? Let's put things in perspective, guys.

Try this perspective Dude:

Cuba is not a democracy....this is well-known. Your atempt to compare that instance with what is happening here in the US is off the mark.

[Docta]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Come to Washington D.C. -- I've seen 20 shows so far this year. At an average of 2.5 bands/show that's roughly 50 bands. I could count on one finger the number of bands that didn't make a protestation about the war or the presidency. Nobody is being censored.


and i would bet none of these acts are big enough to draw the reaction from the general public. my fear is that our free speech will be forced "underground" when it does not agree with this government.

[Docta]

Originally posted by DudeMan

Ah c'mon Docta. I have strong opinions on a lot of things, but you know what? I don't go around my workplace spouting them off. That doesn't mean I am censored -- I just want to play well with the other kids and would rather concentrate on rising up the corporate ladder and making obscene amounts of money than being controversial or making some of my co-workers who may not agree with my crazy ideas feel uncomfortable. I save my spouting off for places like here and over drinks with friends on a friday night.


it's not about "spouting off" dudeman or pushing your ideas on others. it's about feeling afraid to say something you think is right, or disagreeing in the workplace even in just a watercooler conversation. it goes far beyond just politics as well. you are ok with being a yesman in your company?

the lynchmob mentality gets to me surrounding this issue. again, it's not about people not buying a record because they don't like the politics of that artist. it's about people (corporations) in powerful and influential positions creating an atmosphere where it's not ok to exercise free speech.

oh, and btw, corporations are not people. they should not at all hold the same protections/freedoms held by citizens of this country. corporations have too much influence, are driven purely by profits, and can cause too much damage to our society if given the leeway.

[Duemellon]

it's about people (corporations) in powerful and influential positions creating an atmosphere where it's not ok to exercise free speech.But it's not the corporation's responsibility to ensure free speech. It's the corporation's responsibility to make money hand-over-fist.

Further, whereas the corporation becomes a tool for the government by acting on decrees of "what is patriotic and what is not" the corporations make a decision based on what they feel the consumer will want.

If the consumer truly wanted something that was on the "against us" list, corporations would start churning them out. Let's say that the Beastie Boys "World Gone Mad" hit it BIG. These same corporations would be shelling out copies of them.

Yeah, the tragic part is the fact the corporations base their decision to promote products based on what they THINK their consumer wants, but that's their job. It limits the consumer's options, but that's their job.

Get mad at the society which allows close-minded "fall in line" mentality to prevail. Find a way to make the populace hungry for contrary ideas to the government. Corporations will bend that way.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
What is YOUR definition of censorship?

When someone uses intimidation or threats of violence in an attempt to silence the free press or prevent the truth from being published.

For example, the Washington Post ran an interview with Susan Sarandon's mother a few weeks back. Sarandon's mother mentioned that her relationship with her pre-teen grandchildren has been tough for the past couple of years because of her daughter's anger over her mother's vote for GW Bush. Sarandon's mother bemoaned the fact that her daughter has chosen to sabotage the relationship between the children and the grandmother because of a disagreement over politics.

At a party a few days after the interview was printed, Tim Robbins cornered the Washington Post writer who ran the interview. Robbins told him that if he ever printed anything about his family again, he'd break every bone in his body.

This is the same Tim Robbins we should be holding up for his spotless integrity and his compassionate voice for peace? Threatening to beat up reporters for publishing something unfavorable, but completely true -- That's censorship.

As for the Dixie Chicks -- They are about to embark on their sold-out tour of the United States -- promoted by Clear Channel and played in Clear Channel venues. The notion of a mass boycott of the Dixie Chicks is completely untrue. Their album remains near the top of the Billboard charts, the number of radio plays has increased since the story broke and they are predicted to have one of the highest grossing tours of the summer.

That's a far, far cry from McCarthyism.

[slow-dog]

So let's recap the rampant witchhunts and repression of free speech that is occurring right now:

Bull Durham event cancelled at Hall of Fame (although maybe you should be pissed about this, because the Hall of Fame is getting $750k this year from Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer)

Janeane Garofalo might not got a sitcom

Some radio stations hold anti-Dixie Chicks rallies.

My God! What is this world coming to!

[tobedawg]

Some of the radio stations that held Anti-Dixie Chicks rallies also held Pro-War rallies organized by right wing talk show host Glenn Beck.. Most of the radio stations are owned by Clear Channel, The largest radio corporation in America (from Texas and friends with the Bush family).

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by tobedawg
Some of the radio stations that held Anti-Dixie Chicks rallies also held Pro-War rallies organized by right wing talk show host Glenn Beck.. Most of the radio stations are owned by Clear Channel, The largest radio corporation in America (from Texas and friends with the Bush family).

And your point is.....?

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Sovrana

Try this perspective Dude:

Cuba is not a democracy....this is well-known. Your atempt to compare that instance with what is happening here in the US is off the mark.
The two situations are not comparable at all, which is why my citing of it is precisely ON the mark. Censorship (to answer your other post's question) is when a government forcibly prevents someone's voice from being heard. These guys in Cuba who are trying to get some freedom are being censored because their government has just thrown them in jail. These Hollywood types are not being censored just because this corporation or that consumer chooses not to support them.

I get the sense that a lot of the posters here are mistaking Free Speech for Speech Without Consequence. The two things are very different. We have come a long long way from the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledging their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honors toward the cause of liberty, to implying that Jeanine Garafalo is some sort of martyr because she maybe won't be getting a sitcom

[tobedawg]

The influence that Clear Channel has with it's stronghold on America is frightening.

By presenting one point of view and censoring the other, they are feeding propaganda over the airwaves while silencing the voice of dissent.

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, BOTH CLEAR CHANNEL BRAND TALK SHOW HOSTS = Propaganda

Dixie Chicks, Ani Difranco = Voices of opposition to the "theif in Chief"

[Duemellon]

The influence that Clear Channel has with it's stronghold on America is frightening. Tobe, u'r fighting the wrong battle.

They are out ot make money, they are able to show their own intent and even have their brand of propoganda. It is our society which is consuming this. Get society to change from wanting 'government approved' fecal matter and CC will change it's venue.

Your battle should be with society-at-large, not those who are parasitically thriving off society's habits.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Docta


it's not about "spouting off" dudeman or pushing your ideas on others. it's about feeling afraid to say something you think is right, or disagreeing in the workplace even in just a watercooler conversation. it goes far beyond just politics as well. you are ok with being a yesman in your company?

the lynchmob mentality gets to me surrounding this issue. again, it's not about people not buying a record because they don't like the politics of that artist. it's about people (corporations) in powerful and influential positions creating an atmosphere where it's not ok to exercise free speech.

oh, and btw, corporations are not people. they should not at all hold the same protections/freedoms held by citizens of this country. corporations have too much influence, are driven purely by profits, and can cause too much damage to our society if given the leeway.
Okay, first of all, I am not a corporate yes man. I am valuable to my company largely because I feel free to challenge the status quo and ask sometimes uncomfortable questions that others may not have thought of. And I encourage the people in my department to challenge my thinking.

Corporations are only as 'powerful' as the value they produce. Corporations have done thousands and thousands of times more good toward generating wealth, prosperity, freedom and empowerment for the populace than the ACLU ever did. Even though it probably won't change your mind, I would suggest you read this fantastic new book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0679642498/ref=pd_sim_books_3/104-4250882-6375121?v=glance&s=books) on the history of the company and how it has positively benefited out society. Probably won't change your mind, but it will challenge your thinking. You're not afraid of having your thinking challenged, are you?

Why do companies, media outlets, or consumers have some sort of obligation to subsidize anyone's or everyone's views by providing a megaphone for them to speak them? No one is 'preventing' anyone from saying anything here, but they may be opting not to subsidize it.

[BigSugar]

good god....don't you all have a little bit bigger problems to worry about than whether a shitty comic gets a show, or CC sponsors a rally? 97X is sponsoring an Earth Day party in Cincy.....i doubt you'll see the conservative lobby slamming the X for sponsoring a "liberal" rally....and when the musicians speak in favor of less pollution and cleaner air/water/earth, i don't think anyone on the other side of the issue is going to bitch about "censorship".....

seriously.....do any of you who so regularly spout the term "McCarthyism" really even have a freakin' clue what McCarthyism really was??? what really happened?? the govt. hearings....the secret detentions of those opposed...the "red scare" tactics....the govt. spoken/sponsored bile that spewed forth daily....christ, take a history lesson before you speak, and maybe there'll be less confusion of the real issues....

when a corporation listens to it's consumers and decides that a certain action on their part will result in less profits for their shareholders, it's not censorship, it's capitalism...if the govt. tells the corporation, you can't air this viewpoint or you'll be punished, then THAT is censorship.....i'm sure Yosh is frothing at the mouth to sink his teeth into this one!

xoxoxoxo
#1 Capitalist Pig

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by tobedawg
The influence that Clear Channel has with it's stronghold on America is frightening.

By presenting one point of view and censoring the other, they are feeding propaganda over the airwaves while silencing the voice of dissent.

Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, BOTH CLEAR CHANNEL BRAND TALK SHOW HOSTS = Propaganda

Dixie Chicks, Ani Difranco = Voices of opposition to the "theif in Chief"

Who is censoring the Dixie Chicks? It certainly isn't Clear Channel. Go look at Clear Channels' country stations. The vast, vast majority of them are still playing the Dixie Chicks. Most of the stations have the Dixie Chicks picture plastered all over their homepage. Look it up for yourself -- www.clearchannel.com

Be sure and stop by www.cc.com -- Clear Channel's concert promotion arm -- and look up the Dixie Chicks. You'll find the nearly thirty (30) Dixie Chicks concerts for which the Great Fascist Propaganda Machine of Clear Channel™ is the promoter.

When you make shit up in an attempt to sway people toward your opinion, you run the risk of being found out and ending up looking like a lying dumbass.

Weren't you posting about "stepping on people's right to have an opinion" on another post? Apparently you don't believe Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have a right to their opinions. If Glenn Beck wants to run a pro-war rally, why shouldn't he be entitled to? And why shouldn't Clear Channel promote those events, which are well attended opportunities for Clear Channel to promote their brand and one of their products?

In the end, Clear Channel has a bigger investment in the Dixie Chicks than they do in Glenn Beck -- both of whom are entitled to their opinions. But since that doesn't fit your argument of a Vast Right Wing Kafka-esque Police State, we'll just overlook those facts.

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar
good god....don't you all have a little bit bigger problems to worry about than whether a shitty comic gets a show, or CC sponsors a rally? 97X is sponsoring an Earth Day party in Cincy.....i doubt you'll see the conservative lobby slamming the X for sponsoring a "liberal" rally....and when the musicians speak in favor of less pollution and cleaner air/water/earth, i don't think anyone on the other side of the issue is going to bitch about "censorship".....


i think why so many of us are alarmed by this is not that specific celebrities are being hurt sug, but by the fact that it is a sign of how our society is starting to regard (disregard) free speech. many on the right just tell us to "shut up" or that we should be smacked for being against the war. the fear is that this is just the start of something that will become more pervasive. will we be put in prison for voicing opinions like this, probably not, but censorship can be pushed upon us by many other influential methods.

and, no the conservative right will not rail against 97X for this because 97X is small and relatively underground. but if what was being done started to cut into a company's bottom line because polution laws were tightened or something, you better beleive something would come up to hinder the efforts of such an event.

companies have to be very careful in how they wrap their influence, but it is there. many fiscal conservatives in this country are still socially relatively liberal (though we should use a different term because no self respecting, flag waving soccer mom likes that term).

[slow-dog]

Originally posted by Docta


i think why so many of us are alarmed by this is not that specific celebrities are being hurt sug, but by the fact that it is a sign of how our society is starting to regard (disregard) free speech. many on the right just tell us to "shut up" or that we should be smacked for being against the war.

Should people be allowed to voice their opinion and not be criticized for it? No, that wouldn't be free speech. Listen, telling someone to "shut up" may not be a particularly eloquent form of free speech, but it's still speech. That it makes someone uncomfortable is irrelevant.

It seems like you want limits on some people's freedom to speak. Why is yours a pro-free speech position?

[Docta]

Originally posted by slow-dog


Should people be allowed to voice their opinion and not be criticized for it? No, that wouldn't be free speech. Listen, telling someone to "shut up" may not be a particularly eloquent form of free speech, but it's still speech. That it makes someone uncomfortable is irrelevant.

It seems like you want limits on some people's freedom to speak. Why is yours a pro-free speech position?

their being able to say shutup is one thing. but when they attach action to it or put a threatening tone to it is when i get anxious. where i find this alot is when i am in the company of people who may not know my political leaning who say that protesters should be shot. while it is not a direct threat to me, by saying something like this where others can hear it may as well be a threat.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by slow-dog

It seems like you want limits on some people's freedom to speak. Why is yours a pro-free speech position?
Free speech for me, but not for thee.

[BigSugar]

Protester: "Stop the War!!!"
Bush Supporter: "Shut the Fuck up!!"
Protester: "No!"
Bush Supporter: "Yes! Or we'll boycott you!"


That's not censorship....that's not even close....expecting to be able to voice your opinion w/o dissent from some source is naive at best....

and of course, slow-dog beats me to the punch....bastard!! ;)

Sug: "Slow Dog....Shut the fuck up!"
Slow: "No.....don't censor me!"
Sug: "Mmmmpppphhhh....help, i'm being oppressed!"

[BigSugar]

Originally posted by Docta
their being able to say shutup is one thing. but when they attach action to it or put a threatening tone to it is when i get anxious. where i find this alot is when i am in the company of people who may not know my political leaning who say that protesters should be shot. while it is not a direct threat to me, by saying something like this where others can hear it may as well be a threat.

personally, i think they should be anally raped and staked to an ant hill covered in honey....shootin' is too good for ya' pinko's!! ;)

[Docta]

Originally posted by BigSugar


personally, i think they should be anally raped and staked to an ant hill covered in honey....shootin' is too good for ya' pinko's!! ;)

ya see brutha, this is in jest and i know it. i don't get that from that freak in line at walmart buying bullets, eeks!

and to suggest that i want free speech only for me and my position is ludicrous. so shut the f'ck up. hehehe.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by BigSugar


when a corporation listens to it's consumers and decides that a certain action on their part will result in less profits for their shareholders, it's not censorship, it's capitalism...if the govt. tells the corporation, you can't air this viewpoint or you'll be punished, then THAT is censorship.....i'm sure Yosh is frothing at the mouth to sink his teeth into this one!



you make an interesting distinction here....one that as an art historian, I recognized....but never really used the terms "capitalism" vs "censorship."

with this...I'm curious....how do you deal with what seems like the obvious difference between yesterday and today:

the government's powerful use (abuse?) of the media today to get their terrorist messages across....not to mention the undisputed link between this adminstration and the corporate world.

don't you think the lines that once separated censorship and capitalism are a bit more blurred today than they were then?

[monkey neck]

I think you all should just shut up!
:D

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
you make an interesting distinction here....one that as an art historian, I recognized....but never really used the terms "capitalism" vs "censorship."

with this...I'm curious....how do you deal with what seems like the obvious difference between yesterday and today:

the government's powerful use (abuse?) of the media today to get their terrorist messages across....not to mention the undisputed link between this adminstration and the corporate world.

don't you think the lines that once separated censorship and capitalism are a bit more blurred today than they were then?

First, I would dispute the link between this administration and the corporate world. I don't think there are many more corporate types in this administration than in say, Clinton's. Perhaps they hold different positions (e.g., Cheney VP vs. Rubin Sec of Treas), but I don't think the numbers are much different. Second, I think you would have to show that there is more than just numbers. You would have to show that they are having an influence on policy. i.e., Rubin and his advocacy for the repeal of Glass-Steagal act and pro-investment bank policies that benefitted Goldman Sachs.

All of that aside, I think your last question is a good one. I think the rise of the right wing media is a direct result of the fact that it sells. Fox News is kicking ass because that's what people want to see right now -- flags waving, hot blond anchorwomen chanting U-S-A, U-S-A, etc.... I don't think it has anything to do with pressure or intimidation or quid pro quo from the government. If the latter were the case, that would be a major problem, and could correctly be called censorship.

So, the answer to your question is a definite "sort of."

I think that mainstream news outlets can become more one-sided as they try to cater to the narrow prevailing opinions of the masses. But in a capitalistic society, that is what happens. What's an alternative? If the marketplace doesn't decide which opinions get more play, who does? Have the government dictate the positions? I think we would all agree that is a poor idea. There are plenty of outlets that cater to contrary opinions. Perhaps they are not as well known because they aren't as popular because they do not reflect the positions of the majority of the people. But there is no institutional prohibition against their right to exist and their right to espouse unpopular, dissenting opinions; therefore, it isn't really censorship.

The answer, as always, comes down to individuals. One should strive to search out all viewpoints. One should raise one's children to do the same. One should encourage others to do the same. Only then will the most balanced media outlets take their rightful place as the most popular.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by dcXhc
Cheney... ...You would have to show that they are having an influence on policy.
Nah...too easy.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

Nah...too easy.

Not as easy as it seems.

Cheney is the former head of Halliburton. Halliburton was awarded a contract for putting out oil well fires and reconstructing oil wells in Iraq. Seems suspicious. Except Cheney has no financial ties to Halliburton (except a deferred compensation package, but that is a fixed payment that doesn't depend on Halliburton's profits). Moreover, Halliburton is the leading oil services company in the US and has the most experience putting out oil well fires. So even if Cheney were not the former CEO, Halliburton would still have been the leading contender for that contract.

Rubin, on the other hand, still retained a financial stake (his partnership) in Goldman Sachs after joining the Clinton administration. Due to relaxed government regulation, Goldman was able to branch out into new and profitable businesses shortly before they went public and made all their senior partners multi-millionaires (not that they weren't multi-millionaires already).

Of course we could get into an argument about whether reduced government oversight of investment houses was a good thing, Rubin's stake notwithstanding. But my point was to show a case where a government official promoted a policy that had a material impact on his net worth.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by dcXhc
a policy that had a material impact on his net worth.
Alright, I can accept that. I still think that the Halliburton/Kellogg Brown & Root ties should render Cheney inelligible for public service, especially while we're at war with oil-rich nations (bold type used only to illustrate the relevance of the connections). Of course, the same goes for shitloads of other politicians across the spectrum.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

Alright, I can accept that. I still think that the Halliburton/Kellogg Brown & Root ties should render Cheney inelligible for public service, especially while we're at war with oil-rich nations (bold type used only to illustrate the relevance of the connections). Of course, the same goes for shitloads of other politicians across the spectrum.

I'm more scared at the prospect of all politicians being life-long bureaucrats with no experience in the business world. But, I agree, the intersection of government and business should always be scrutinized for conflicts. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by dcXhc
I'm more scared at the prospect of all politicians being life-long bureaucrats with no experience in the business world.
No arguments here. I'd just rather not see politicians coming from special interest groups (yeah, I know...good luck on that one) and notable contributors.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc


The answer, as always, comes down to individuals. One should strive to search out all viewpoints. One should raise one's children to do the same. One should encourage others to do the same. Only then will the most balanced media outlets take their rightful place as the most popular.

While I accept that the individual should strive for various viewpoints, this results in the gov't and corporate world to take no responsibility for possible censorship.

I rely again on the visual arts world. If government stops seeing the visual arts as vital to our community and stops funding them, these artists will go underground and only few who work at it will find and benefit from various artistic viewpoints. This does not benefit society as a whole. Yes...the works will be there, but not easily accessible.

What would our cities look like without the "Arts in Public Places" program? Like the suburbs, no doubt.

While I enjoy the arts: musical and visual as well as literary and some of what I engage in is contraversial, I really want my neighbors to have at least an opportunity...the accessibility to these views without too much legwork.

The truth is, if it costs $5-$7 to visit an art museum, chances are the average person will hit the movie theater instead.

The bottom line: I still believe our government is abusing the various media and poses a serious threat to the voices of many.

"You are either with us or against us" is drowning out these voices.

[IPrayForSound]

Keep in mind that the significant art funding in Cincinnati is private, and we have the Rosenthals to thank for that. Federal funding is nice, too, but as long as individuals care about art, it'll be there.

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by slow-dog
But, I know McCarthyism, along with Facism, are now just words which mean, "something I don't like."

True.

Just as 'Duemellon' stands for...

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by yoshomon

Just as 'Duemellon' stands for...

The possible completions to that statement both stagger and frighten me.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by dcXhc


The possible completions to that statement both stagger and frighten me.
Maybe you should start a thread for the best completion to the sentence?

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by DudeMan
Maybe you should start a thread for the best completion to the sentence?

no.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
While I accept that the individual should strive for various viewpoints, this results in the gov't and corporate world to take no responsibility for possible censorship.

And individuals in our society can make choices about the government (elections) and corporations (purchases). If people act in a herd-like manner, they may be narrow minded, but I don't believe that qualifies as censorship.

Originally posted by Sovrana
I rely again on the visual arts world. If government stops seeing the visual arts as vital to our community and stops funding them, these artists will go underground and only few who work at it will find and benefit from various artistic viewpoints. This does not benefit society as a whole. Yes...the works will be there, but not easily accessible.

And if individuals make it clear that this is a priority, the government will follow. Or, individuals will step up to make it happen. Look at Giuliani and the Brooklyn Museum fiasco. He threatened to cut funding due to the Sensations exhibit and there was a backlash against him. As long as the public (the collection of individuals) wants public funding for the arts, it will continue.

Originally posted by Sovrana
What would our cities look like without the "Arts in Public Places" program? Like the suburbs, no doubt.

While I enjoy the arts: musical and visual as well as literary and some of what I engage in is contraversial, I really want my neighbors to have at least an opportunity...the accessibility to these views without too much legwork.

The truth is, if it costs $5-$7 to visit an art museum, chances are the average person will hit the movie theater instead.

Then the problem is the average person, who values a movie over a visit to the museum.

Originally posted by Sovrana
The bottom line: I still believe our government is abusing the various media and poses a serious threat to the voices of many.

"You are either with us or against us" is drowning out these voices.

I disagree. I think that coverage of the war may be narrow and slanted in a pro-American way, but I think its responding to it's market, not it's government. That's not a perfect system but it's better than any alternative I can think of.

[yoshomon]

"The fetishistic illusions enveloping all phenomena in capitalist society succeed in concealing reality... This concealment is made possible by the fact than in capitalist society man's environment, and especially the categories of economics, appear to him immediately and neccessarily in forms of objectivity which conceal the fact that they are the categories of the relations of men with each other." - Lukács

[Sovrana]

Why is it that the corporate world continues to claim (innocently), "we are just responding to the market, giving our audience what they want"

That's bullshit. Companies determine, define, and manipulate audiences in order to sell.

I don't "deserve a break today" because McDonalds says so and NOT "Everyone Loves Raymond"

They package all their products (this war included) to convince us that it is what we need and then present themselves as merely providing it.

One idea marketed is that in order to be patriotic we cannot criticize the gov't....and unfortunately it follows that those who do, are NOT the types of people we want to recognize or promote in any way. (a marketed notion)

Yes, the average person may lack the interest or information needed to promote the arts or search for various ideas. But if some of us do have this interest, thus agree on the value of the arts, shouldn't we be concerned of these latest attempts to silence these views?

I supposed I am floored by the attitudes expressed here that say, "well...as long as someone is interested the arts will be there" or "that's the average person and not my problem."

[yoshomon]

Originally posted by Sovrana
That's bullshit. Companies determine, define, and manipulate audiences in order to sell... They package all their products (this war included) to convince us that it is what we need and then present themselves as merely providing it.


So you agree with me that capitalism only offers an illusion of 'choice', while in actuality it usually dictates our actions? Kind of like the illusion of choice created by representative democracy.

Originally posted by Sovrana
I supposed I am floored by the attitudes expressed here that say, "well...as long as someone is interested the arts will be there" or "that's the average person and not my problem."

I don't see how we are able to seperate the arts from any other industry, seeing how art creates commodities.

(will continue this later)

[tobedawg]

When you make shit up in an attempt to sway people toward your opinion, you run the risk of being found out and ending up looking like a lying dumbass.

Gee thanks!! I love it when people resort to name calling to get their point across.

Secondly, I didn't make anything up.. It is factual that Clear Channel owns a majority of radio stations in America. It is factual that they sponsor Glenn Beck's Pro-War rallies. It is factual that most of their country stations DO NOT play the Dixie Chicks. Explaining why their Country hit "Travelin' Soldier" fell from #2 - #16 and off the country airplay chart.. A pretty fast drop!!

And I do respect Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's Right to free speech, but Free speech is a TWO Way Street!!

I'm not even going to waste my breath continuing to argue with you..


*****PEACE DUDE************

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by Sovrana
I supposed I am floored by the attitudes expressed here that say, "well...as long as someone is interested the arts will be there"
Why does that floor you? That's exactly how it works now. The only reason there is any private funding is because those individuals are interested in the arts. The only reason there is public funding is because interested people made enough of a fuss that the arts were included in the federal budget.

[IPrayForSound]

Originally posted by tobedawg
but Free speech is a TWO Way Street!!
Tobe, I hate to argue the other side, but that's been the point of our right-leaning friends throughout this thread.

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

Tobe, I hate to argue the other side, but that's been the point of our right-leaning friends throughout this thread.
Keep that up, IPFS, and we might just throw a steak on the grill for you at the next Vast Right Wing Conspiracy cookout.

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by IPrayForSound

Why does that floor you? That's exactly how it works now. The only reason there is any private funding is because those individuals are interested in the arts. The only reason there is public funding is because interested people made enough of a fuss that the arts were included in the federal budget.

my point is that the unfortunate consensus is "I'm not gonna be concerned about it...let someone else worry about it." In the meantime it is your world too that is being determined.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
Why is it that the corporate world continues to claim (innocently), "we are just responding to the market, giving our audience what they want"

That's bullshit. Companies determine, define, and manipulate audiences in order to sell.

I don't "deserve a break today" because McDonalds says so and NOT "Everyone Loves Raymond"

They package all their products (this war included) to convince us that it is what we need and then present themselves as merely providing it.

So, are you saying that corporations manipulate people into believing they need something they don't?

If so, how is it that they haven't fooled you? Are you just smarter than everyone who eats at McDonalds or watches Everybody Loves Raymond and able to see through the corporate brainwashing? That's a sincere question.

If the market doesn't allocate resources, who should? Should the government mandate how many McDonalds or Taco Bells can open? Should they dictate what sitcoms get shown on TV?

I don't disagree that McDonalds is crap and, honestly, I've never watched Everybody Loves Raymond. But if there were better alternatives out there that the majority of people would prefer over the those things, they would be more popular.

Originally posted by Sovrana
One idea marketed is that in order to be patriotic we cannot criticize the gov't....and unfortunately it follows that those who do, are NOT the types of people we want to recognize or promote in any way. (a marketed notion)

People want to feel patriotic -- companies latch onto this and promote themselves as All-American. They favor those representatives with All-American images over those with critical personalities. If people preferred dissent, companies would be rewarded for having contentious, opinionated spokespersons.

Again, I'm not disagreeing that we've perhaps gone a little overboard with the nationalism, but it's up to the collection of individuals known as society to change that. Stop looking for corporations and the government to spoonfeed you what you want.

Originally posted by Sovrana
Yes, the average person may lack the interest or information needed to promote the arts or search for various ideas. But if some of us do have this interest, thus agree on the value of the arts, shouldn't we be concerned of these latest attempts to silence these views?

I supposed I am floored by the attitudes expressed here that say, "well...as long as someone is interested the arts will be there" or "that's the average person and not my problem."

If enough people value the arts then it's success will be assured. If people don't value the arts, they won't be. An ugly truth of capitalism. What's the alternative? Do you really want the government dictating your values?

Look at art history -- the stagnation of the French Academy; Hitler and Degenerate Art. I don't really want the government making decisions about art for me.

Perhaps we just a fundamental philosophical difference. I believe -- in the words of the eminently quotable Thomas Jefferson -- "the government that governs least governs best."

Laissez-faire capitalism isn't a perfect system, but I believe it's better than any of the alternatives out there.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
my point is that the unfortunate consensus is "I'm not gonna be concerned about it...let someone else worry about it." In the meantime it is your world too that is being determined.

I'm not saying that. I am concerned about it. That's why I have been a member of the Smithsonian for seven years and MoMA for three years. That's why I pay full admission at the private museums on "Donation Days"

My point is that it's best to encourage others to support the arts rather than looking to the inefficient, bureaucratic, special-interest influenced government to do it. They don't have a great track record.

Next time you go see an exhibit, look at who the corporate sponsors are. Buy their products. Send them an e-mail telling them you are happy to see they support the arts.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by tobedawg


Gee thanks!! I love it when people resort to name calling to get their point across.

Secondly, I didn't make anything up.. It is factual that Clear Channel owns a majority of radio stations in America. It is factual that they sponsor Glenn Beck's Pro-War rallies. It is factual that most of their country stations DO NOT play the Dixie Chicks. Explaining why their Country hit "Travelin' Soldier" fell from #2 - #16 and off the country airplay chart.. A pretty fast drop!!

And I do respect Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck's Right to free speech, but Free speech is a TWO Way Street!!

I'm not even going to waste my breath continuing to argue with you..


*****PEACE DUDE************

Yes, it's factual that CC is the largest radio station owner in the US (although that's different from owning the majority of radio stations), and it's also true that they sponsor Glenn Beck's rallies. I never disputed those facts.

But to continue to say that they are boycotting the Dixie Chicks is astounding. Rather than expecting you to take my word for it, I provided links for you to look into it yourself. But you come back and make the same demonstrably false accusation. There are two possibilities:

1. You didn't bother to look and see that the majority of CC stations are playing the Dixie Chicks and that CC is promoting most of their US tour and that some of these shows are at CC owned venues, because you really don't care about the truth.

2. You researched it and found that it is true that in addition to not boycotting the Dixie Chicks, CC has millions of dollars invested in the Dixie Chicks, but decided to ignore those facts because it sounds cooler to mouth-off about corporate radio being in bed with the government.


There's plenty of reasons to despise Clear Channel without resorting to inventing things. But I guess we shouldn't let the truth get in the way of a bitchin' conspiracy theory.

As for the "Travelin' Soldier" dropping in the charts -- Here are some others who fell double digits in the Billboard charts this week:

Eminem
Missy Elliott
Brian McKnight
B2K
Hot Boys
V/A - Rewind Mag Hip Hop
V/A - Grammys 2003

Are these guys being boycotted by CC also?

[Sovrana]

Originally posted by dcXhc
So, are you saying that corporations manipulate people into believing they need something they don't?

yes

If so, how is it that they haven't fooled you? Are you just smarter than everyone who eats at McDonalds or watches Everybody Loves Raymond and able to see through the corporate brainwashing? That's a sincere question.

I don't eat at McDonalds and don't watch Raymond. And I don't believe that I am smarter than everyone who does.

In fact, my arguments are structured to implicate the corporations, not the patrons.

If the market doesn't allocate resources, who should? Should the government mandate how many McDonalds or Taco Bells can open? Should they dictate what sitcoms get shown on TV?

of course not!

I don't disagree that McDonalds is crap and, honestly, I've never watched Everybody Loves Raymond. But if there were better alternatives out there that the majority of people would prefer over the those things, they would be more popular.

I don't agree that better alternatives always result in a win of a popularity contest. Somehow, I don't think you believe that either.


Again, I'm not disagreeing that we've perhaps gone a little overboard with the nationalism, but it's up to the collection of individuals known as society to change that. Stop looking for corporations and the government to spoonfeed you what you want.

I'm not asking for gov't or corporations to "spoonfeed" me what I want. In fact, my reason for starting this thread was to recognize government's and corporate's tendencies to REMOVE the things that I like or may find interesting. I think this is the fundament difference our arguments.

If enough people value the arts then it's success will be assured. If people don't value the arts, they won't be. An ugly truth of capitalism. What's the alternative? Do you really want the government dictating your values?

The gov't doesn't dictate my values. The funding that comes from the gov't is granted based on the selections of art by professionals (artists, art historians, etc). With this selection process, I am comfortable with gov't funding.

Look at art history -- the stagnation of the French Academy; Hitler and Degenerate Art. I don't really want the government making decisions about art for me.

Yes, look art those moments in art history, the works REJECTED by the French Salon are the most popular (Manet, Monet, Degas, Renoir, Courbet, etc.) And this is because the citizens screamed over the conservative selection process. (I guess this is ultimately what I am calling for rather than the complacency that is rampant in today's society)

Again, I think the NEA and NEH have a system that helps to prevent this: allow art professionals and not politics determine who gets funding. This fundamental goal is what allows the Brooklyn Museum to simply laugh at Giuliani's attempts to shut art institutes down.


Laissez-faire capitalism isn't a perfect system, but I believe it's better than any of the alternatives out there.

It may better than others, but that is because we are able to question it and debate it with the goal of making it even better. As soon as the discussions stop, or the opportunities for discussion are removed (i.e. silencing voices, cutting arts funding, censorship(!)), then the opportunity to improve (or fail) is lost and learning stops.

[dcXhc]

Originally posted by Sovrana
yes
Maybe it's an argument of semantics, but I don't think that corporations are "manipulating" people. I think that corporations frame their products and services in such a way as to make them as appealing as possible, even going so far as to tell you that "you can't live without the SuperWidget5000!!! Call NOW!!"

But that's what corporations do and, as long as they don't lie, it's all good. It's up to us as individuals to exercise our reasoning ability and decide what we really need, what we want, and what we buy.

I don't think I would want it any other way. And logistically, how would you regulate it?
Originally posted by Sovrana
I don't eat at McDonalds and don't watch Raymond. And I don't believe that I am smarter than everyone who does.

In fact, my arguments are structured to implicate the corporations, not the patrons.

Again, I'm not sure how the corporations are to blame. McDonalds makes a product, promotes that product, and people make a choice to purchase that product. I can count the number of times I've eaten at McDonalds on one hand. But billions of others obviously find the convenience, price and taste an attractive trade-off for the shortcomings. That's their choice. I don't think the corporation has forced this on them.
Originally posted by Sovrana
of course not!
Yeah, that was a rhetorical question.
Originally posted by Sovrana
I don't agree that better alternatives always result in a win of a popularity contest. Somehow, I don't think you believe that either.
Depends on what you mean by better. Continuing on our McDonalds example, I can think of a hundred eateries I believe are "better" than McDonalds but less popular. But I seem to be in the minority. After spending many years in the restaurant industry, I have learned the unfortunate truth of America's dining public-- They love consistency. Most people want to know what they are going to get before they get it. This is why Starbucks is on every corner in every city -- They excel at consistency. The Venti Soy Caramel Macchiato you get in Tucson is going to taste just like the one you get in Boston, or Miami, or Dayton, etc....

So for Starbucks to mechanically churn out cloned cups of overpriced coffee from 10,000 outlets is not corporations forcing anything on people, it is corporations giving people what they want.
Originally posted by Sovrana
I'm not asking for gov't or corporations to "spoonfeed" me what I want. In fact, my reason for starting this thread was to recognize government's and corporate's tendencies to REMOVE the things that I like or may find interesting. I think this is the fundament difference our arguments.
My argument is that you (or I) don't get specifically what you (or I) want when it doesn't coincide with what a large number of other people want. Is that bad? Well, for you (or I) it is. But what's the alternative? How can society allocate it's resources in such a way to deliver to each individual exactly what that individual wants? It can't. It does a pretty good job of giving most people most of what they want. The little niche people like us have to work a little harder (and usually pay a little more) to get those unique things we want. But, again, what's the alternative?
Originally posted by Sovrana
The gov't doesn't dictate my values. The funding that comes from the gov't is granted based on the selections of art by professionals (artists, art historians, etc). With this selection process, I am comfortable with gov't funding.
I'm quasi-comfortable with it. I like the idea in practice, although I have doubts about it in theory. Sometimes I think that government funding for the arts just means that even bad art gets to be seen. Also, I think any government involvement in matters of taste can be dangerous. At the same time, I also realize that many artistic endeavors would never make it if they needed to turn a profit. But I also sometimes wonder if people's complacency toward art is not due in part to the fact that they take it for granted because it is (in part) government funded. So many angles....
Originally posted by Sovrana
Yes, look art those moments in art history, the works REJECTED by the French Salon are the most popular (Manet, Monet, Degas, Renoir, Courbet, etc.) And this is because the citizens screamed over the conservative selection process. (I guess this is ultimately what I am calling for rather than the complacency that is rampant in today's society)
The only reason the 20th century in art is known as The American Century is because so many great European artists fled to the US to escape hostile governments at home. But I agree, it's complacency on the part of society that is more to blame than the government.
Originally posted by Sovrana
Again, I think the NEA and NEH have a system that helps to prevent this: allow art professionals and not politics determine who gets funding. This fundamental goal is what allows the Brooklyn Museum to simply laugh at Giuliani's attempts to shut art institutes down.
I think Giuliani breathed a sigh of relief when he lost his court case against the Brooklyn Museum. He got to look like a hero to the far-right who was calling for him to cut funding, but he got spared the wrath of the 60%-70% of the public that thought he was wrong. Unfortunately, cases like this aren't rare and will probably always pop-up. Art and politics don't make for a smooth partnership.
Originally posted by Sovrana
It may better than others, but that is because we are able to question it and debate it with the goal of making it even better. As soon as the discussions stop, or the opportunities for discussion are removed (i.e. silencing voices, cutting arts funding, censorship(!)), then the opportunity to improve (or fail) is lost and learning stops.
Agreed.

But I don't think that boycotts against the Dixie Chicks is censorship. I don't think canning Janeane Garofalo's sitcom because she said unpopular things and wouldn't draw a profitable audience because of that, to be censorship. I don't think that the Hall of Fame's decision to cancel Bull Durham qualifies as censorship either, regardless of whether one believes it to be a narrow minded decision on the part of the Hall of Fame.

But, in the end, it all comes right back to individuals. If ABC hears from enough people that they won't watch any ABC show unless Garofalo is reinstated, ABC will go where the money is. And Clear Channel is not boycotting the Dixie Chicks because Dixie Chicks concerts bring in fat cash because the vast majority of Americans believe that Natalie Maines can say whatever she wants (regardless of how many times she changes her story).

[Sovrana]

Tim Robbins is not silenced this time...


....with that, he outlines the threat and calls on journalists to protect our freedom of speech.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/04/16/robbins/index.html

[DudeMan]

And in a related story (http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200304\NAT2003 0416c.html), human shields bravely volunteer to protect reporters' free-speech from being impinged and threatened by Tim Robbins.

[Sovrana]

That's exactly what I expected from you Dudeman....I give you a primary source (i.e. the Robbins' speech) and you respond with this crap.

What the hell is CSNSNews anyway?!! Some news site that chose a name that looks alot like CNN to try to claim some kind of news authority?

[yoshomon]

Blathering on about 'right's means that you assume:

a) in some kind of universal 'justice'
b) in universal 'rights'
c) that somehow all people are equal
d) that human thought has not evolved since the enlightenment

etc etc

[DudeMan]

Originally posted by Sovrana
That's exactly what I expected from you Dudeman....I give you a primary source (i.e. the Robbins' speech) and you respond with this crap.

What the hell is CSNSNews anyway?!! Some news site that chose a name that looks alot like CNN to try to claim some kind of news authority?
Wow, I guess I got under your skin with that one, huh? Pretty nice short, sharp rant on your part, though, so you get a few points in that regard. In any event, I guess I did you a service by living up to your expectations?

Sorry, but I can't take this Tim Robbins saga seriously, so I figured responding to his ersatz martyrdom with ridicule was appropriate. And I don't know anything about CSNS news other than I thought this particular article was really funny and did a nice job of exposing hypocrisy.

In any event, isn't Tim Robbins' logic a bit self-defeating? He talks about his victimization as a free-speech martyr who is being silenced... at the National Press Club, who dutifully file stories to report to the world what he said. (there was one in the DDN this morning, fer instance). How does that equtate to being silenced, I wonder? Remember, they cancelled this thing in the first place because they were concerned his outspoken political rants would alienate a large number of people at this decidedly non-political event. Given that he can't seem to open his mouth without spouting off some goof-ball quote, like his recent bon mot about how the US is now a 'rogue nation', I am beginning to come around to the idea that the HoF may have been onto something.