Rehashing an old topic

In response to my blog about my immense disappointment in the backlash against the Dixie Chicks, someone sent this:

_____________________________________________________________

Anonymous said...

In the words of Trace Adkins, "Freedom of speech protects you from the government, not from me".
Everyone, liberal and conservative have the right to say what they wish, within the law...and everyone else has the right to react the way they wish within the law.
Some people don't like what the Dixie Chicks said.
Some people don't like how groups of people reacted.

Oh well. You can't protect one and not the other.
"Everyone" has consequences to their speech and their actions. Has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech. The government did nothing to them. It was citizens that don't like what they said and decided to protest them....we have to protect their right to do that as well.
You can't pick and choose whose rights you want to stand up for.

_________________________________________________________

Well, you CAN pick and choose whose rights you stand up for, what with freedom of speech, but that's not really the issue.

The freedom of people to respond as they did to the DC's comment was never in question. I never advocated their rights be denied. What I said was, they were wrong. Wrong wrong wrong wrong. I think they are crappy people, plain and simple. Let's face it, the CD smashing parties were just a variation on book burning. Book burning! Who is in favor of book burning? Book burning is rarely an action taken by government against it's people, its usually people taking action against themselves and yet, its widely regarded as censorship.

Let me take one small moment to say, by the way, that death threats aren't protected speech and, correct me if I'm wrong, they are illegal. This was just one minor segment of what went on, but still, a disturbing example of the crazed, mob-like response these women received.

My point is there were two kinds of behavior: opinions expressed (and thus worthy of protection under the first amendment) and punitive action taken (which is very different). Seems like, to me, when a radio network pulls the other-wise popular work of an artist whose opinion (not expressed in the music) they don't like, even when their customers are requesting to have the music played...well, I'm not an attorney, but I bet there's one out there who would say "sue the bastards!"

lol my apologies, this particular argument is suffering from my current jet lag and general travel malaise. My point and the justification for it was much more precise before I started typing. But, what I want to make clear is this: I wasn't suggesting the government take away the rights of those who protested against what the DC's said. I was suggesting what they did was wrong - practically, morally, ethically I disagree with their opinions on EVERY level, dislike them personally (even tho i don't know them -ha!) and think they should be flogged, burned at the stake and fired from their jobs. In that order. (Was that a run-on sentence? my apologies) I think it sucks these people get to call themselves American. Seems to me, doing whatever is in your power to punish someone for their opinion (and this goes beyond just expressing an opinion in response) is as un-American as un-American gets.