I think the way that the public is treating the dixie chicks is sad.
From on comment they are threatening them and now they need a bunch of
body gaurds. Maybe they shouldnt have said what they said i dunno but
what ever happened to freedom of speech. Like the ppl who are telling
them what they think.. freedom of speech but i think they are takin it
over board with allt eh death threats and such. Crazyness i say lol

Autumn, I think you are absoutly right. It is wrong to treat them they
are being treated, for only speaking their minds. I have no problem with
what they said, to each his own...

the last time i heard it was called freedom of speech

Yes, Freedom of speech is a right we share. I think the problem with the
" Chicks" is that they could have had a decending viewpoint without
being so disrespectful of our Commander in Chief. They also seemed so
hurt that the country music establishment and their fans reacted so
angrily.
Anyone knows that 99.9% of country music fans are basically
conservative. They shouldn't have been so surprised that the people who
were buying their albums were so upset. If they were unaware of the
conservative roots of the country genre, They weren't in touch with
their own fan base at all.

I just wonder sometimes, if the same statement had been made by tough
looking, toothless gumchewing, deep voice speaking 'MALE' country stars,
whether we wouldn't have called them visionary heroes!!!

The Dixies just spoke the truth as they saw it!!!

... and they saw it way ahead of the majority!!!

... and they had the moral guts of saying that truth knowing that most
of their followers wouldn't agree!!!

I just wish our elected officials held such 'higher moral ground'.


Agree or don't agree. Like or don't like. That's not what is about.

Facts should matter. The truth should matter. Going to Iraq was
founded on a lie. If we had known what the Dixie Chicks knew when they
made their statement, we would have been equally against the war on
Iraq.

Dixie Chicks for Presidents!!!

i don't think that they regret saying what they said and it was their
right to say it. this is america but you also have to realize that there
are alot of people who will go overboard in their reactions to what is
said

i think what dixie chicks said was freedom of speech as for disrespect i
guess just because he has more money when was his time to serve he hid
behind his daddy so in my world you want respect you need to earn it not
just because you are rich rock on chick power

I love the dixie chics. They are cool in my book. I say whatever I want
to say and so can they.....

Dixie Chicks are # 1 ... I love Natalie's attitude, she calls
em' as she sees em'

the Dixie Chicks had the freedom to say what they wanted and the rest of
us had the freedom to react the way we wanted. If they really believe
in their convitions they should shut up and quit whinning about it. As
for death threats, all public figures get them from time to time. I
think the Dixie Chicks are just milking that for all it's worth for
publicity purposes.

Forge,
I love you man.

it seems to me its alright to say something hear as long as you are on
the government side i one day you people will wake up the chicks have
right to say what they want weather u like it or not

What do you not understand Gina. The Dixie Chicks has the right to say
what they wanted to say. That is freedom of speach. The only problem is
when they exercised their freedom of speach, they stuck their mammary
glands in the rotating dehumidifyer a lot of people didn't like what
they said and that is their right.

freedom of speech

OK!

'AutumnLee21' I think you're setting the table for a very very
interesting debate. Unfortunately it appears to be all over the place.
If you don't mind, I'd like to suggest a little realignment. Tell me if
this sums up your opening comments loyally:

Given what Maines of the 'Dixie's' said,

"Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States
is from Texas."

1) Did she have the right to that statement under our Feedom of Speech
Act? Hence, should she have remained silent?

On the other hand,

2) Did the 'anonymous' people, whom have reacted with death threats,
or other forms of 'intimidation', did so under the spirit and letter of
the Freedom of Speech Act?

Now be very clear: I am not a lawyer, law student, son of a lawyer, or
grandchild of a judge.
Just a 'get-up-in-the-morning-to-pay-my-taxes', like you i'm sure, kind
of guy.

But I'm fascinated, like a lot of us are, with some of the fundamental
principles that constitute us as 'civilized nations'. And Freedom of
Speech is by far one of the most crucial pillar of our western
democratic societies.

That being said, I'll argue for the side of the Dixie's.

"Absolutely, Maines had every legal right, as intended and expressed in
the spirit, and the letter of the Act. In my understanding, nothing in
the spirit of the Freedom of Speech Act could have barred, or exposed
Maines to prosecution.
It was a very clean example of freedom of expression, and I base that on
the only line I remember by heart to remind myself of what FOS is, and
isn't. It's out of the 'Harm Principle and Free Speech from John Stuart
(I think) :

"... If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person
were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in
silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be
justified in silencing mankind."

The 'all of mankind minus one' here would the overwhelmingly large
ANONYMOUS majority whom were of one opinion, and didn't agree with the
ONE, in this case Maines.

Very simply put,
it doen't matter how many people are of the same opinion, they cannot
use that majority to silence even ONE person whom would be of a
different opinion.

Now then, what about the ANONYMOUS majority of the same opinion?
Well, I'll suggest that if only one representative of their one opinion
club had had the level of integrity demonstrated by Maines, that
representative would have come forward and delivered the death threat(s)
in person. Of course I think it's clear to every one that the
consequences would have been charges pressed by Maines, prosecution
under the criminal code, under proferring death threats, and
corresponding sentencing. That's it, that all.

That's the "Harm principle". The principle that governs hate mongering,
etc.

it goes along these lines:

"... the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent
harm to others."

So death threats or any other form of intimidation which could be
demonstrated as being said and done with the intent of silencing or
forcing someone to silence, will be considered under our laws, as
causing prejudice and harm to that 'someone', and subject to
prosecution.

That is clearly the case that can be made against all the anonymous and
cowardly people, responsible for intimidation or death threats acts.

The fact that the ones who made the threats, did so in an anonymous and
cowardly fashion, does not make it legal nor acceptable. It is nothing
other than a gross violation of everything Freedom of Speech is about.
Ironically, it's against the very sacred principle those brave and
honorable soldiers involved in Iraq are risking their lives to promote
and install in that corner of the world.

In conclusion 'your Honour' AutumnLee21, to support the assertions
that I'm humbling submitting to your 'post',

I sugggest that if only one person were to come forward with death
threats, and Maines was willing to press charges, that person would be
prosecuted under law.

On the other hand, nothing in the words spoken by Maines could be
construded as potential harm or prejudice to anyone. It has been 4
years. Be very clear that if there had been a case here, the US
administration would have taken action.


I rest my case...

since bush has been in office are right have slowly been taken away from
everyone

I find it disgusting that so many hide their political agenda's behind
"freedom of speech."

Sure everyone can say whatever they think. It is also treading on my
basic freedom for musicians/entertainers to besmirch the memories and
honor of our lost soldiers who gave their lives to support their hate
speeches to "captive audiences" who paid good money to hear MUSIC and
not "hate speech."

If I want to hear a speech about my president, my country and my
contrymen I will go to city hall and political meetings.

I have not purchased a Dixie Chicks CD, listened to their music or
supported them in any fashion for years.

And that is my right to FREEDOM FROM HATE SPEECH and the basic freedom
of choice.

its everyones own choice not to listen to the dixie chicks. but as an
former army soilder i fought for mine and your rights to make that
choice.that being said it is my choice . not to listen to bush . he is
almost out of office that will be great day in history maybe then we
can get some of our rights back he has taken in the name of war .

the chicks rule, and so do the roosters

verbatimeb,

Given what Maines of the 'Dixie's' said,

"Just so you know, we're ashamed the President of the United States is
from Texas."

What, in those 16 words '... besmirches the memories and
honor of our lost soldiers who gave their lives to support their hate
speeches'.

From every report I read on this incident, Maines point was that no
brave soldiers lives should ever be put at risk to fight a war that is
founded on a lie:

'Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and its army plans to use them
against certain regions of the free world'. We must act 'PRE-EMPTIVELY'
to prevent such potential attacks against our allies.

This was the Bush Administration's legitimate premise which convinced
CONGRESS, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND US's ALLIES (GREAT BRITAIN WAS FIRST
AMONG THEM), of the legitamacy to declare war on Iraq.

That's it. That was the one and only motive and reason which in the
eyes of Congress, the American People, and GREAT BRITAIN, justified
declaring "pre-emptive' war on Iraq.

Nothing in there about fighting terrorism. Nothing about installing
freedom and democracy.

Nothing, simply because NO CASE FOR WAR COULD BE MADE ON THOSE BASIS.
Obviously, you can't go to war on a country, just because you think it
would be so nice for them to taste democracy (even if some people from
that coutry would like you to do so). It's interventionism. And
International law, which we officially subscribe, is very clear on the
subject.

Going to war against a sovereign country cannot be done in acasual
manner.

On 'Fighting terrorism' , although the Bush administration tried that
one very hard on Congress, It didn't fly either.

Had Iraq been a 'terrorism hotbed', as the Bush administration had
claimed, there would have been just cause to declare war based on
'balanced retaliation', and 'preventing further attacks': accepted
international principles.

But both the US Chiefs of Staff, and the CIA, relying on their own
intelligence, could not agree with the Bush administration, that IRAQ
was a 'terrorism hotbed'. Thereby eliminatiing that possibility to as a
basis for a 'declaration of war' against Iraq.

But that didn't stop the Bush administration.

They moved to transform the notion of engaging into a war for
'defensive' notions (if we're attacked, or to help defend our allies
whom might fall under attack). Since Iraq had not attacked us
(defensive), and weren't a hotbed for terrorism (just cause
retaliation), nothing could be done agaisnt Iraq.

UNLESS,

... a notion of egaging into war 'pre-emptively' was introduced into US
'legal rules of engagement': something which we judge, could or might
represent a threat to us in the future, we 'pre-empt' the aggressor;
giving ourselves the right to attack first, BASED ON UNQUESTIONABLE
PROOF OF THREAT.

The problem with that one, is that you all of sudden become judge and
jury of the cause. In a situation like that, YOU HAVE THE MORAL
OBLIGATION, IN FRONT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, to hold
UNQUESTIOANABLE PROOF of the POTENTIAL THREAT THAT MIGHT BE USED AGAINST
YOU.

Bush admin. went on to claim that they had that unquestioanable proof,
eventhough nearly a full year of intense investigations did not turn up
any sign of 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'. But still went on to convince
Congress and Great Britain (among other allies) to move to a declaration
of war based on that threat. Great Britain did move on that premise
without asking for proof, so did Congress.

Of course there was no proof.

This is what the Maines declaration pointed to, BEFORE OUR SOLDIERS WERE
SENT. She made the declaration in London, on the day their Governement
announced their participation in the war. Three AMERICAN CITIZENS, in
front of angry concert goers, whom wondering WHY THEY (bRITISH) had to
send THEIR SOLDIERS to fight a war based on an AMERICAN lie.

Maines spoke no BESMIRCHING of US SOLDIERS, quite to the contraty, her
words spoke the truth which a lot of Americans, NOT ALL, DIDN'T WANT TO
HEAR.

Paraphrased, the spirit is clear:

Just as you are, we here too are angry and ashamed that our President
choses to send our soldiers to fight a war that is based on a lie...