Criticism is also free speech
posted at 2:15 pm on June 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
After Playboy retracted its vile misogynistic fantasy about “hate-f***ing” conservative women, I wondered how long it would take before a clueless pundit bemoaned the criticism as an attack on free speech. It didn’t take long. Susannah Breslin at DoubleX laments:
Apparently, free speech is so over when the masses rule the media: “It’s only OK if I think it’s funny. It’s only OK if it fits my politics. It’s only OK if I say it is.” I wish Playboy hadn’t pulled it. Censoring the piece doesn’t make it any less real, any less politically incorrect, any less true. Attempting to police human nature is the real joke here.
No one infringed on anyone’s right to free speech. In fact, the entire process was an exercise in free speech. Playboy had every right to publish its vile fantasy, and everyone else had the right to (a) criticize it, and (b) suggest a boycott of the private enterprises that published it and sponsored it. No one “made” Playboy take down the article, except the execs who rightly got embarrassed by it.
Breslin apparently believes that “free speech” is limited to publications and institutions, and not to individuals. If so, she’s living in the wrong decade, but it’s not as if she’s alone, either. Whenever people feel the need to retract a poorly-written or poorly-conceived article, someone wails about “mob mentality” and how it spells the end to free speech. You can set your watch to this predictable reaction.
Well, believe it or not, but “freedom of speech” does not mean freedom from criticism. In a free society, everyone has the right to speak. Playboy retracted the piece not because of some unconstitutional governmental intervention, but because the article damaged their brand and their business. Had their editors been better at their jobs, it never would have appeared in the first place.
When the government tells people they can’t speak or write on a topic, that’s the end of free speech. When people criticize what others write, that’s actual free speech. And when publishers remove a vile piece of effluvium in response to overwhelming criticism, that’s the free market at work. It would be helpful if people who make their living on free speech actually understood those distinctions.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
I would be just as upset had it been a lefty hate f–k article. It’s not about free speech. It’s about morals, or in this case, the lack there of.
txag92 on June 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM
[Obvious]
Neo on June 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM
Yeah, let’s start with President Thin Skin. He seems to have a problem with others exercising their 1st Amendment rights.
GarandFan on June 2, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Free speach is a one way street with these freakin’ morons.
hip shot on June 2, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Up until Jan 20th criticism was also one of the corner stones of our way of life. Without dissent democratic government would die
oldernwiser on June 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM
The “freedom” in the First Amendment is freedom from government interference in your right to express yourself. It doesn’t impose an obligation on other citizens to shut up after you’ve spoken.
Breslin doesn’t seem to appreciate the distinction.
cruadin on June 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Socialists desire “no criticism,” just like they desire “no competition.”
They are dysfunctional. They despise a level playing field. They are ignorant of the Constitution. They are ignorant per se.
The seeds of Socialism are, in fact, ignorance and illiteracy. That’s why they took over the public schools. So legions of the ignorant and illiterate would “graduate,” and become wards of the State.
OhEssYouCowboys on June 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Just projection, “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” –commentator, author and founder of National Review William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008)
kirkill on June 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I’ve been blessedly out of touch with the news for the past few days so I have no idea what this is about… (not interested either)
Except to say. Could this have all been a publicity stunt? I seem to remember some story about Playboy losing readership… Controversy reminds people it still exists.
petunia on June 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM
blah blah blah how dare you criticize you socialist overlords?
elduende on June 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Reminds me of the Ditsy Chicks, whinning about how people were boycotting their concerts and not buying their records, just because they criticized Bush.
MarkTheGreat on June 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM
you should be your
elduende on June 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Any less true???? Does she have a hankering to hate f**k these women, is that what she’s saying?
Rocks on June 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM
And when she’s talking about “ruling the media” she should be talking about freedom of the press, not freedom of speech.
Abby Adams on June 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Change the discussion to Freedom of Association and watch DoubleX change their tune. You cannot keep _group_ from being part of your club. That violates their freedom. Yadda Yadda Yadda. Where group could be gays, men, woman, Jews, Muslims, Christains, etc.
WashJeff on June 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Quit censoring Susannah Breslin!
I’m kidding, of course.
zmdavid on June 2, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Hello? this is playboy? When did Playboy become mainstream? that is the REAL PROBLEM here. 30 years/20years ago you kept playboy out of sight. now people link to it? Yes i understand porn is the new normal but expecting PALYBOY to show class? they make their money on selling women why would anyone in their right mind expect that type of business to have class or common decency?
By making sites like Palyboy mainstream we create new terrorist everyday in the muslim world. the left should understand that there lifestyle of sex,drugs and no responsibilities creates more muslim terrorists than any GITMO
unseen on June 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM
This is same mindset as the leftist band Green Day claiming that Wal-Mart is “censoring” them because Wal-Mart won’t sell their latest profanity-riddled album.
They completely ignore the fact that Wal-Mart is not a government entity and they are only exercising their right to free speech and free merket principles.
But this is the difference between a liberal and a leftist. A liberal would just say, “Oh, what the heck, I’ll find another way to sell my records.” A leftist will cry that they are being censored and try to use force to get their way.
UltimateBob on June 2, 2009 at 2:27 PM
What would be really vile is a fantasy about being with Ms. Garafalo. That would be nasty. No wonder Playboy did not bring it up.
And of course this is not any free speech restriction.
Mr. Joe on June 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Or how about Randi Rhodes? Ugga Bugga indeed.
Mr. Joe on June 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM
We all know that free speech is a one way street to a libera…fascist.
jukin on June 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Ed, I <3 You.
:-)
cannonball on June 2, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Another example: People like Scott Thomas Beauchamp have free speech, and they use it to smear the military. And the people he smeared used their free speech to defend themselves. In these cases of competing free speech, the public can decide who’s more worthy of their attention and belief.
RBMN on June 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Oh Ed, it’s mean to pick on the disabled.
TheUnrepentantGeek on June 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM
LOL, Green Day is terrible, even for a garage band.
What’s with that bug-eyed, lead “singer”?
OhEssYouCowboys on June 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Opinion hurting Playboy’s bottom line-money.
Public outcry+sponsors pulling their financial support of that rag=Playboy pulling the article. It wasn’t necessarily the opinions of the masses that killed the article, it was the threat of not meeting his monthly bills that helped Hef with that decision, if I read the above post by Ed correctly. Playboy has never been about capitulating to a moral outcry. It’s been about money. I see a tactic here that can be used elsewhere.
Driefromseattle on June 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Only liberals can say wacky things.
And boy, do they do!
blatantblue on June 2, 2009 at 2:34 PM
Remember, to the Socialists a/k/a Statists, “Free Speech” is an Orwellian term, which really means that no criticism will be tolerated.
War is Peace. Free Speech is Silence.
OhEssYouCowboys on June 2, 2009 at 2:35 PM
Projection
Vashta.Nerada on June 2, 2009 at 2:36 PM
(Int) Crowded Theater
Fire!
- The Cat
MirCat on June 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Clearly.
lorien1973 on June 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM
(Int) Crowded Theater
Fire!
- The Cat
P.S. Take that dang spacebar hating internet!
MirCat on June 2, 2009 at 2:40 PM
Well put, Ed.
Alana on June 2, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Liberal feminist defends Playboy over overt rape article/posting.
Yep, it’s Bizarro World alright.
Pass the popcorn and brewskis!
omnipotent on June 2, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Ironically – Breslin is making the opposite case in her comments, as pointed out by Ed.
She is the one harping about the ability to limit free speech, due to her ideological POV.
Just another moment in liberal stupidity.
Odie1941 on June 2, 2009 at 2:44 PM
See, to some free speech has taken on the meaning of a right to be free from embarrassment. Whatever you or anyone else thinks, however vile, especialy if it is vile, is protected as real. To critique that then is an attack by the established power on the minority person. Attacks on the majority or morality don’t suffer the same feelings because those are powers deserving of being brought low.
Yes, this kind of thinking seriously confuses free speech, but that kind of thinking seriously confuses many things formerly known as right. This then becomes an impediment to dialog.
AnotherOpinion on June 2, 2009 at 2:44 PM
Ah so Susannah Breslin is in favor of rape. And any criticism of me for that statement is an infringement of my free speech rights. At least according to her logic.
rbj on June 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Susannah Breslin belongs in the loony-bin or in a fascist state, one or the other.
MB4 on June 2, 2009 at 2:46 PM
This episode reminds me of that time Natalie Maines from the Dixie Chicks made her “I’m ashamed of our president” comment. She got all huffy when country music fans criticized her for it, claiming her right to free speech was infringed upon. Liberals–whiny little brats.
jennifernaz on June 2, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Nice post Ed. It’s sad how often stupid people need this explained to them. You’d think the last 8 years of being critical of Bush would have made the concept sink in a little. Dissent is patriotic, etc. etc. But it’s always about having the last word. “I have the right to criticize you, but if you respond then you’re denying me my right to free speech”.
So wait… Umm is Susannah Breslin infringing on our right to free speech by criticizing our criticism of playboy’s article??? FACISTS!!!!!! /sarc
Scrappy on June 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
The constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech protects against governmental suppression of speech. Period. Even so, the government can subject speech subject to reasonable “time, place and manner” restrictions as long as its actions don’t target speech based on its content. (Which makes SCOTUS’s finding that McCain-Feingold is constitution completely inexplicable, IMO.)
Being criticized for your speech by fellow citizens has absolutely nothing to do with “freedom of speech.” I suppose it would be too much to expect someone who opines for a living to understand this.
Cicero43 on June 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
“With great power comes great responsibility”
!!
They don’t get that speech has consequences
MORANS
blatantblue on June 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
I bet Ms. Breslin wouldn’t be so blasé if her name were on that list.
moonsbreath on June 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Hey, remember when Sandra Bernhardt said she wanted big black guys in New York to gang rape Sarah Palin?
Remember when Sarah Palin was called Cu*t?
Replace the name Sarah Palin with Michelle Obama and see who freaks out!!
portlandon on June 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I was thinking of that same episode too.
Scrappy on June 2, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Freedoms are always accompanied and self-limited by responsibilities to the greater good of society. Even a butt ‘n’ nipple mag should realize that.
whitetop on June 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
moderately altered for veracity.
daesleeper on June 2, 2009 at 2:50 PM
gwelf on June 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Excellent point!
ladyingray on June 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
She seems to have the same view as O’Reilly about our first amendment. It doesn’t guarantee you free speech without ever suffering criticism. It guarantees the government can’t infringe upon your right to free speech. Sheesh. This is basic stuff. Scary how many don’t understand it.
Sue on June 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
I’m a bad man
blatantblue on June 2, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Imagine if you will, an article that talked about hate**f**ing Michelle Obama…or
“Lefty Dy#$8kes I’d like to turn straight”
anbout Janet N. and/or Sotomayor.. etc.. etc.. adnauseum
not a pretty picture i know, but these lefty idiots would be demanding imprisonment or worse!
max1 on June 2, 2009 at 2:55 PM
Tis why Breslin is a “Free-Lance”(no job)writer….
Free Speech violation?…. somebody is an idiot, & it aint’ Playboy… they’re just stupid for posting what they did….
RaisinsofWrath on June 2, 2009 at 2:56 PM
What? You mean like a hate crime? =)
gwelf on June 2, 2009 at 2:56 PM
That’s right. It’s our fault that they hate us. Liberty is evil! /s
baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 2:57 PM
The root of the problem is that many on the left (and some on the right) have no fundamental understanding of the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution.
juliesa on June 2, 2009 at 2:58 PM
As Winston Churchill so rightly said, “Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
SamTrev on June 2, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Besides that. Playboy is all about pulling it.
- The Cat
MirCat on June 2, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Ed is exactly right on with this. The entire Bill of Rights sets forth prohibitions on the government’s actions and not on individual citizen’s actions.
Part of the reason that the Constitution is continually under attack and is seen as a “living” document, suceptible to change on a whim, is that very few people actually know what’s in it or what it means. The Constitution is not taught in our schools and universities. There are, I believe, only four undergraduate schools in the United States where courses on the Consitution are mandatory for all students – the United States Military Academy, Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, and Coast Guard Academy. Liberal and Ivy League schools have no interest, and in fact have a disincentive, in teaching the Constitution. (The disincentive being that requiring their students to understand the Consitution would subvert their leftist agendas). Consequently we have a huge number of people running around this country claiming to have Constitutional rights that they don’t realize do not in fact exist. And when it’s pointed out to their amazement that the Constitution doesn’t grant them certain rights, their first reeaction is to call for changing the document to suit the rights that they’d like to have and which would make them “feel good”.
Unless we start requiring all students in our schools to study and understand the Constitution we are in real danger of losing it.
Trafalgar on June 2, 2009 at 3:14 PM
No one “forced” Playboy to take the article down.
She’s only in favor of it when it’s conservative women who are the target, rbj.
If that sort of article had been directed at Michelle Obama or Sonia Sotomayor I’m sure Breslin would have been outraged. (and rightfully so, any article suggesting rape is hideous).
The false meme’s about Palin were treated like fact by a lot of feminists, so I guess it’s fair to spread the meme that Breslin loves articles about rape.
BakerAllie on June 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Lefties don’t get it. In fact, the don’t get much of anything.
Griz on June 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM
~sigh~
Can someone please tell me how liberals can live with a brain separated by a chasm wide as the Grand Canyon? And how can they look themselves in a mirror? If HA posted a list of only two Dem/lib women who should be hate F’d there would be an outcry for criminal prosecution (notwithstanding that dedicated-liberal women tend to dress more shabbily and be less attractive for the most part, in my opinion and in only my personal view).
Breslin proves that feminism and free speech are neither about women nor true liberty.
How much more ammunition do we need against these people, the artillery they provide to us? We talk and talk here, we exchange ideas flowing along the same arteries. People like us talk and talk, we tell our friends and co-workers what is going on and being said out there. But why, I wonder, are we failing to make gains–that this Breslin fool-tool can be taken seriously enough to be published?
I don’t get this at all. Can someone please tell me how this is able to work? I know the educational system has been dumbed-down for 40 years, but most Americans aren’t stupid. Street people have a savvy of their own, they know a snow-job when they see one. But…how the hell have we come to this?
Olbie wan’ Praise stays on the air spewing lies and venom, and ‘fair’ MSNBC lets him go. How do those producers, directors, and fact-checkers sleep at night?
When will the backlash come against this crap?
For me, if I find a woman I just started dating is a liberal, I call her on her views and make her explain herself (usually they get flustered real fast). Then I terminate the ‘relationship’. Not to try bragging, but I treat women well; none can ever claim being ashamed to be seen with me in public. So, behaving like a liberal, I treat liberals as liberals are. I just don’t get how libs can believe themselves honest and respectable when they’re really the most vile and hateful people on the earth.
And, to be frank, sometimes I think they know and just don’t care.
Liam on June 2, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Why does it seem that, to the left, the most cherished of all freedoms is their freedom from consequences?
brainy435 on June 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Free Speech is a social DIALOGUE.
Not a liberal fascist MONOLOGUE.
Jackasses hate been called on their jackassery.
Too g.d. bad for the whiney little babies.
Somebody dared to reply to the exposure of their slimy souls.
Boo-frickin’-hoo.
profitsbeard on June 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM
AnotherOpinion nailed it.
IMO, this is all part of neutral values / cultural relativism – - –
* Ms. Breslin has a “right” to their own opinion;
* Telling Ms. Breslin her opinion is stupid interferes with her “rights” – your criticism might intimidate her to keep her stupidity to herself;
* So you must pretend you consider Ms. Breslin’s opinion valid and keep your mouth shut -
because, you know, nothing is worse than hurting someone’s feelings.
BD57 on June 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Why were there no black women on the list of women who deserved to be raped? Where’s Sharpton?
JiangxiDad on June 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM
As has been mentioned, this is out of the same playbook that the Dixie Chicks played.
“We have a right to criticize, but YOU don’t have a right to criticize that criticism.”
These people believe that there is not only a right to speak, but a right TO BE HEARD (and obeyed).
As someone else said, one of the underlying problems here is that we don’t teach the Constitution in our schools anymore.
Any idiot should understand that the Constitution deals with the rights and obligations of the Federal Government.
They should also understand that while Governmental censorship is wrong…
…self-censorship is perfectly fine.
Religious_Zealot on June 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM
Remember the Dixie Chicks? …… indeed free speech and free market at work.
Grow up indeed. Well said Ed, well said.
seymour on June 2, 2009 at 3:37 PM
I assume you mean a ‘Classical’ Liberal – which I would agree is an appropriate statement.
These days the language has been twisted and bastardized so much that when people say ‘Liberal’ they really mean Statist or Fascist when referring to the current regime – Crap I just used THAT term when referring to my own government – my, my how far we’re ‘Progressed’.
Suffice it say, the Statist’s self labeling of themselves as ‘Liberal’ has to LIE number one for them.
Chainsaw56 on June 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM
As unalienable rights, we have them, whether acknowledged or not. Revisionist perception might enact a trickle down policy encouraging citizens to hope for their rights, or the rights could be perceived as too ancient, or spread too thin to apply.
$.02 Sotomayor would litigate their modern relevance as trivial at best.
Gotta love it.
maverick muse on June 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Well, one good thing: Playboy pulled the piece right quick. If it was a mere ‘business decision’, it can be extrapolated that most of its readership would/has disapproved. Kinda changes the perspective, I like to believe.
And like another poster mentioned: There were no black women included. Where IS Holy Al, then? Maybe Playboy is racist…? Why couldn’t Dr. C. Rice be included. At least she’s attractive, unlike Rosie O, Pelosi, and Feinstein.
See what I mean from earlier? Conservative women ARE prettier and classier. I can’t imagine hating Rosie so much I’d get turned on even to abuse her. Seems whoever at Playboy posted that piece has some issues even liberal women would find dangerous.
And we conservatives are a menace to society?
Hey–DHS–how about modifying that watch list of yours?
Liam on June 2, 2009 at 3:45 PM
btw, it took until this month for them to be featured on Austin City Limits again, Austin being leftist to boot.
maverick muse on June 2, 2009 at 3:45 PM
“Breslin apparently believes that “free speech” is limited to publications and institutions, and not to individuals. If so, she’s living in the wrong decade…”
Yeah, because in the *next* decade, when Big O has finished beating America to a pulp, there will be no free speech for *anyone*, corporate or individual.
KS Rex on June 2, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Redefining criticism as censorship is part of the progressives plan to dumb down education and hijack the language so that their lies become accepted truth and your truth becomes damnable lies. It doesn’t have to make sense if you can get a voting majority to buy into it.
SKYFOX on June 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Isn’t that what SHE is doing by trying to “police” criticism of the piece??!!
Look, it’s really easy to understand these people.
“Free speech for me but not for thee.”
That’s it in a nutshell.
They can publish the hate piece. That’s OK.
We can’t criticize it. That’s bad.
They can criticize our criticism. That’s OK.
I’ve come to the conclusion that these people are not only delusional, but dangerous.
Religious_Zealot on June 2, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Lemme’ get this straight. RAPE is merely “Politically Incorrect”? Edgy.
ronsfi on June 2, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Love it like you do!
Nice to read those words again.
Liam on June 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Since liberals are all knowing, and wise, it’s only their speech that should be heard.
Because now….we’re all drones, and have no capacity for independent thought. We all must think, as one, for The One! *gags*
capejasmine on June 2, 2009 at 3:54 PM
maverick muse on June 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I would Add:
Chainsaw56 on June 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM
That’s right. It’s our fault that they hate us. Liberty is evil! /s
baldilocks on June 2, 2009 at 2:57 PM
Liberty like anything else can be used for an evil purpose. Is a car evil? no but it can be used to kill and main many people. same goes for liberty. It is neither good/evil it is how those that have it use it that determines its ultimate nature.
unseen on June 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM
If the First Amendment hadn’t been “perverted”, we wouldn’t have to discuss this at all, because pornography would be outlawed and relegated to the gutter, from whence it comes.
tigerlily on June 2, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Did someone force them to pull the article? No? Right, then this piece is trash.
Hey, Susannah… pull your article. It’s trash.
LibTired (KO) on June 2, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Yes, that is exactly what she said.
Cylor on June 2, 2009 at 4:08 PM
It would be helpful if people who make their living on free speech actually understood those distinctions.
—
You got that right, but that’s the problem these clowns do not understand that. They think that they are the only ones who have a right to free speech, i.e. speech that is filled with hate, racism, and bashing of others who disagree with their communist ideologies!
Confederate on June 2, 2009 at 4:24 PM
It’s not a crime if there’s a fire.
The roof is on fire.
The roof is still on fire.
I say this because if the bond market keeps acting like this, no one will be able to sell corporate bonds.
This will devastate every corporation who needs cash.
And that would be every corporation.
And hardly anyone is willing to pull the fire escape switch.
Chaz706 on June 2, 2009 at 4:26 PM
The fact that an avant garde writer would have such a lack of knowledge of the First Amendment is amazing.
Free speech is precisely what permits a woman to sponsor a blog named “Reverse Cowgirl”.
And the whole concept of “hate f**k” is disgusting.
Who thinks this garbage up?
No wonder Playboy is circling the drain.
It’s rather ironic that Hef has had more beautiful women than most of us could imagine, but is essentially alone at the point in life when people who love him should be taking care of him.
He is the one who has missed out on life.
molonlabe28 on June 2, 2009 at 4:28 PM
As usual, Liberals like DoubleX prove that they neither have read nor understand what the 1st Amendment was about.
No one explain it to them, OK?
William Teach on June 2, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Don’t forget what well regulated means.
To quote the records of congress:
Chaz706 on June 2, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Like it or not, pornography is protected under the first amendment. Protected speech cannot be outlawed. Your statement is self-contradictory.
UltimateBob on June 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Except that no one wants to f**k MO. Except maybe Barry.
UltimateBob on June 2, 2009 at 4:40 PM
You go Ed!
No you ignorant woman, YOU are the joke here.
kg598301 on June 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM
It’s much to complicated for liberals to understand what speech is.
burt on June 2, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Chaz706 on June 2, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Yes, but the most important words in the 2nd amendment;
As in ‘we the people’ – it doesn’t say ‘the right of the “militia” or “army”
It would have saved everyone a lot of trouble if they had simply written it as:
And had left it at that, under the less is more theory of writing.
Chainsaw56 on June 2, 2009 at 4:56 PM
I’m still not about to buy another song from them. I have one CD, and I used to like it, but every time I listen, politics interferes.
I’m making use of my freedom to not buy stuff from people whose viewpoints I don’t like. It’s a freedom I relish, even if it isn’t long for this world now that the Government owns two thirds of the domestic car industry and is certainly gunning via its regs for the remaining third, and is probably poised to announce tariffs on foreign car imports to shore up what it and the UAW does own. Sorry, stream of consciousness got carried away there.
unclesmrgol on June 2, 2009 at 5:22 PM
Strange you should say that — my first exposure to the concept of the “hate f*ck” was associated with Rice.
I live in San Francisco, where the metal boxes on the sidewalks where you get free newspapers and circulars are often appropriated by graffiti vandals and taggers. A couple of years ago someone put a piece of paper in the display window reading “I WANT TO HATE [F*CK] CONDI RICE”.
Every time I see the crapola fluff about Michelle Obama about how fit she is and magnificent her arms are and how she’s the new archetype of a black American woman, I think, “Where the yell was all this schtuff when we had an accomplished black woman who is in great shape serving as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State?”
L.N. Smithee on June 2, 2009 at 6:01 PM
That’s what makes us better than them. We oppose indecency and hate based on principles, not political advantage.
ynot4tony2 on June 2, 2009 at 6:02 PM
btw, it took until this month for [the Dixie Chicks] to be featured on Austin City Limits again, Austin being leftist to boot.
maverick muse on June 2, 2009 at 3:45 PM
With the election of Obama, look for them to attempt a quasi-triumphant comeback, but — mark my words — it won’t work. At least, they won’t ever regain the mojo befitting the best-selling female group in history. They pissed that away when they attacked their fans as “rednecks.” The DixChix are in REO Speedwagon territory now; they’re still around, but their days of filling arenas from coast-to-coast are scrapbook memories never to be repeated.
L.N. Smithee on June 2, 2009 at 6:14 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »