The Dixie Chicks
Freedom of Speech?
By John D. Turner
Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
– U.S. Constitution,
Amendment 1
I have been kind of busy
lately, as usual. And I will be the first to admit that I am not a
big country music fan. I don’t even own a single Dixie Chick CD, nor
have I ever had any particular desire to do so. Still, I am trying
to recall exactly when Congress passed a law against ownership of
Dixie Chick CDs or playing Dixie Chick songs in the wake of their
ill-advised comments concerning George Bush at a concert in England.
They must have, though, as
those on the Left, and the Chicks themselves keep saying that their
free-speech rights have been abridged.
Free speech is mentioned in
one place in the Constitution, the First Amendment. It states simply
that Congress can pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. As
far as I can tell, it does not obligate me to purchase or listen to
Dixie Chick CDs, nor does it require radio stations to play them.
This simply is not a free-speech issue.
Bruce Springsteen recently
came to their defense saying:
“The Dixie Chicks have
taken a big hit lately for exercising their basic right to express
themselves. To me, they’re terrific American artists expressing
American values by using their American right to free speech. For
them to be banished wholesale from radio stations, and even entire
radio networks, for speaking out is un-American.”
Fine. The Chicks are
terrific. That still doesn’t obligate me to purchase or listen to
their music or for radio stations to play their songs.
I suspect that Bruce will
continue to be a purchaser of Dixie Chicks songs in the future. And
that’s fine, because this is America and you can do that here. But
Bruce makes an invalid assumption in his defense of free speech
rights. It is an assumption that many on the left make with
appalling regularity, particularly when it is their free-speech
rights that they claim have been “trampled”. That assumption is that
free speech means never having to accept any consequence or
responsibility for what you say. Just say what you want and everyone
just has to accept it; life goes on as usual. The fact of the matter
is that some people may take offense at your viewpoint and may act
on that offense. And it is their “right” to do so if they so choose.
Radio stations operate under
the free market system. They play the music people want to hear,
because they want people to listen to their radio station rather
than some one else’s. Their revenues are governed by the sale of
advertising. The larger the audience, the more money they can get
for advertising on their station. If large numbers of people call
and say that they will change the station if, for example, a Dixie
Chick song is played, the station will sit up and take notice.
Radio stations (and TV
stations as well) know that once a listener or viewer changes the
channel, it may be a while before they change it back. Loss of
market share equates to loss of revenue and radio stations are out
to make money like any other business. If radio stations in the
United States were owned by the Government, Bruce and others on the
left would have a valid case; taking the Chicks off the air would
then be an abridgement of their first amendment rights. But this is
the United States, not North Korea, or, until recently, Iraq, and
the radio stations are in private, not governmental hands.
It is interesting that in
1992, President George H. W. Bush lost his re-election bid against
the then little-known William Jefferson Clinton, in part, because it
was perceived that he was “out of touch” with the rest of America.
The news clip where Mr. Bush expressed amazement at a laser scanner
at a supermarket was seized upon as an example of how little he knew
about how the “common person” lived. Realistically, no one who
actually pondered it for more than a moment or two would have
expected that the President of the United States would show up at
the local HEB (that’s a Texas thing) to buy his weekly groceries.
Still, the clip was used effectively by the Democrats as a visceral
example of how the “rich” Mr. Bush was so far removed from the world
of “Joe six-pack”.
I submit that the Dixie
Chicks suffer from the same malady. They obviously are out of touch
with their core constituency as well; their audience.
The Chicks are country music
singers. Their “core constituency”, those who buy their records, are
not the same as those who purchase songs by Bruce Springsteen,
Madonna, Cher, or Joan Baez. Country music is arguably the last
bastion of conservatism left in the entertainment industry. Country
music lovers are some of the most patriotic flag wavers in the
country. Most country music stations are located in the heartland of
America. They are less popular on the right and left coast,
particularly in places such as New York City or LA. (That’s not to
say you can’t find one, just that they are less prevalent.) For the
most part, they are at least middle of the road overall, and right
of center on many issues.
If it was simply said that
she disagreed with the war and felt that the President was wrong in
waging it, the uproar would probably have been minor. The fact that
she felt the need to do so in a foreign country during time of war
would be a definite strike against her and there would have been
repercussions, but probably not of the same magnitude. Had she done
so here in the States, she would probably have been booed, but it
probably would have been a minor event.
But no, her comment, made on
stage before a foreign audience was, “Just so you know, we’re
ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.”
As someone who actually is
from Texas, she certainly should have known better and it is a
certain indication that she has not only lost touch with her core
constituency, but her roots as well. While I am sure there are a
great many people in Texas who have issues one way or another with
Mr. Bush (many of them in Austin), such a statement, particularly
made in the venue it was made in, was certain to cause a massive
uproar in Texas, if no where else. And, as a person living in South
Central Texas, I can assure you that folks here, even those who
don’t listen to country music (such as myself) were highly offended.
Many even felt betrayed.
People who are offended tend
to take action, if the option is open to them.
If I go to a car repair shop
to have my car fixed and they do a poor job or do something to
offend me personally, there is no constitutional right they have
that requires me to patronize their business again. Not only that,
but it is quite likely that I will share my opinion of their
services (or lack thereof) with others who might be looking for a
place to get their car fixed.
The same is true in the
entertainment industry.
What the Chicks need to
understand is that they can have their opinion. They can state it
publicly. They can run a full-page ad in the New York Times if they
so desire. The government is not going to throw them in jail because
this is America and you can do that here. They have the right to say
what they please. But this does not obligate anyone to continue
purchasing their merchandise. What they say can have repercussions.
The first amendment simply states that the government cannot
restrict your right to say what you please. It does not protect you
from the backlash of public opinion. Actions have consequence.
I have read a lot from those
on the left about how the Dixie Chicks are beautiful and talented
young women; decent, honest, and caring human beings, and good role
models for our young girls. That may be true, but it still doesn’t
obligate me to purchase their records. And I take exception to the
idea that posing nude on the cover of Entertainment Weekly
constitutes a good role model for my girls, even if all the
strategic parts were covered. This is another idea of theirs that I
quite frankly fail to understand, considering their audience. Did
they stay up late at night thinking of ways they could further
alienate those who buy their music? I would expect this from
Madonna—perhaps they are chasing a different audience?
Perhaps this will all blow
over and the Chicks will again be flying at the top of the charts;
Americans do seem to have a short attention span, after all. Maybe
they will be seen working at the local Taco Cabana instead. Or
perhaps they should consider switching from Country music to Pop,
where such viewpoints are more expected and tolerated. But don’t
tell me I am violating their free-speech rights by not listening to
their music or buying their recordings.
We want your opinion! Tell us what you thought about
this article. Click the
Your Feedback menu item to send us
your comments.
