Friday, December 20, 2013
Neither Dixie Chicks or Phil Robertson situation are free-speech issues
Liberals predictably are incorrectly pointing out that the Dixie Chicks were treated unfairly, that their free speech rights were violated, and they got censored, all by the same people who're supporting Phil Robertson.
The two situations are different and neither represent a free-speech issue. What happened to the Dixie Chicks was simply a market function. Patriotic country-music fans didn't like Natalie Mains apologizing for President Bush to a European audience and stopped buying their records and concert tickets. They weren't censored by the government. They were censored by their audience.
Phil Robertson's situation is not quite the same thing. He said something controversial and his employer punished him for it, not his audience. The irony is that the liberals who defended the Dixie Chicks on free-speech grounds are the same people who applauded A&E pulling Robertson off the air, thereby depriving him of the same speech.
Supporters in both situations who're complaining about their first amendment rights to free speech should read the Constitution. It limits the government's regulation of speech, not the consequences of that speech.
Sure, everybody has the right to free speech, but because speech is free doesn't mean that it doesn't come with possible consequences.....there's a huge difference between free speech and consequence-free speech.
The Dixie Chicks wanted consequence-free speech, I think the Robertson clan understand and accept that Phil's public speech might come with negative consequences and they're prepared to live with that. The Dixie Chicks insulted their audience by offering directed personal criticism during their concert, and then got pissed off when that audience dared not continue buying their records.