Bono's views on politics/religion & Dixie Chicks

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Making racist comments as an elected leader and by your actions demonstrating that you are a racist (ie Trent Lott, his insincere olive branch notwithstanding) is different from a musician or entertainment figure dissing a political leader.

In freedom of speech begins responsibility for what you say.


U2 is about standing for what you believe in, to me. Larry was just doing what he believes in by marching. Chic? Nice try. :down:

Besides, radio stations couldnt pull U2 music off the air for their views - there'd be nothing decent left to play.

:wave:
 
ok, just one more from me

gabrielvox said:
Making racist comments as an elected leader and by your actions demonstrating that you are a racist (ie Trent Lott, his insincere olive branch notwithstanding) is different from a musician or entertainment figure dissing a political leader.


Indeed.

IMO freedom of speech means you can say things and then NOT have to worry about what will happen to you (as opposed to repressive regimes) - that includes not favoring (the policy of) your government, and on the other hand, you WILL suffer consequences if you say widely inapropriate things. (racist, sexist comments etc...)

Their music has nothing to do with how one of them feels about thet current politics from the US administration. No one ever said people have to buy their albums or that they can not change the channel on the radio anyway. (but at least let it be done for the right reasons)
 
Last edited:
Re: ok, just one more from me

U2girl said:
you WILL suffer consequences if you say widely inapropriate things

Speech is not free if we deem some speech appropriate and some speech inappropriate.

Back to the topic ? IMO, Bono doesn't make his statement because he has a microphone in front of him - he does his research and uses tact and diplomacy.
 
there have to be some standards set

nbcrusader said:


Speech is not free if we deem some speech appropriate and some speech inappropriate.


Well, it needs to be established what is appropriate, what is less appropriate and what is not acceptable in general.

*edit* of course people can/will still choose what to use, but if they go with something that is publicly not acceptable, they need to face whatever comes out of it.
 
Last edited:
Wow guys, its really interesting to read this...i think i should learn to develop more opinions on issues, i usually just kind of walk through the middle. I just thought i'd point out an interesting way to connect U2 to the Dixie Chicks.
So lets play six (?) degrees of separation w/ our friend kevin!



DISCLAIMER: I am in no way promoting or marketing the Dixie Chicks in any way. Always wear a safety belt. Do not expose to open flame.

U2 The greatest band in the world with the greatest guitarist in the world. Who wrote a fantastic song called....

"Mysterious Ways"........which was playing in the car of...

Peter O'Fallon while he was driving to the network execs trying to figure out what to name his new tv show about a man who investigates strange phenomena and miracles. The lines about the "move spirits...." inspired him to name his tv show...

Mysterious Ways.....which starred....

Adrian Pasdar as professor declan dunn......the actor who is married to..

Natalie Maines who is the lead singer of the...

Dixie Chicks.

Wow. That was fun. I should do that more.
 
Re: there have to be some standards set

U2girl said:
Well, it needs to be established what is appropriate, what is less appropriate and what is not acceptable in general.

And that's where the problem comes in-everyone has their own idea of what speech is appropriate and not appropriate.

What offends one person won't offend another-that's what people in this country need to realize.

Originally posted by U2girl
*edit* of course people can/will still choose what to use, but if they go with something that is publicly not acceptable, they need to face whatever comes out of it.

That makes sense.

Originally posted by Hewson
Regardless of your opinion of the man, one (especially in the public eye) should show some respect for the position of President.

Like Hallejuah said, the Dixie Chicks probably think that Bush isn't worthy of the position of president.

I think they do have respect for the position, they just don't agree with who was put there.

And in that respect, I'm with them.

Originally posted by Lemonite
I find it interesting that people who are Cheering the Dixie Chicks right for Free speech are condemning the right of the listening public.. hence the 'payers' for the advertising public for radio stations.. for their expression of free speech in the prevention of the Dixie Chicks music. The hypocrisy is quite telling.

We're not saying the listening public can't express their disagreement with the Dixie Chicks' views. If they want to call in and complain and vent about what they said, fine, they can go right ahead and do that. In fact, if the deejays at the station wanted to have a call in where people could call and either vent about or defend what the Dixie Chicks said, that'd be great. Get everyone's views out there.

But where do people get off refusing to play their music on their station simply because a group of people disagree with their views? It's not fair to those who do like the Dixie Chicks' music and who do agree with their views and who do want to listen to them on the radio.

It works both ways, of course-if a station run by anti-war people refused to play any music from bands that are pro-war because they disagree with their views, that's wrong, too-it's not fair to pro-war people who listen to the station, because they wouldn't get to hear their favorite bands' music.

If people were really, truly bothered by what the Dixie Chicks said, so much to the point that they didn't want to listen to them anymore, you know, there is a dial on their radios that can allow them to change the station anytime the Dixie Chicks' music came on. That way, they don't have to listen to the music if they don't want to, and the people who do want to listen to the music can. And everyone's happy.

And you want to talk about hypocrisy-okay, how much you wanna bet that the same people that found what the Dixie Chicks said so offensive that they wanted the Dixie Chicks to not be played on the radio anymore would throw a hissy fit if the situation were reversed and they were the ones getting censored?

Now who would be the hypocrites?

Angela
 
I was reading the Salon.com readers responses on the Dixie Chicks issue, and apparently some people were so impressed by their singers' action they went and bought the Dixie Chicks CDs straight away even though they haven't listened to them before. Funny how it works in both ways; even though I fail to see what Dixie Chicks' political views have to do with their music.
 
Re: Re: there have to be some standards set

Moonlit_Angel said:

Like Hallejuah said, the Dixie Chicks probably think that Bush isn't worthy of the position of president.

I think they do have respect for the position, they just don't agree with who was put there.
My point is that natalie should have chosen her wording more carefully, she could have expressed the same opinion without showing disrespect and obviously upsetting a lot of people.

We're not saying the listening public can't express their disagreement with the Dixie Chicks' views. If they want to call in and complain and vent about what they said, fine, they can go right ahead and do that. In fact, if the deejays at the station wanted to have a call in where people could call and either vent about or defend what the Dixie Chicks said, that'd be great. Get everyone's views out there.

But where do people get off refusing to play their music on their station simply because a group of people disagree with their views? It's not fair to those who do like the Dixie Chicks' music and who do agree with their views and who do want to listen to them on the radio.

It works both ways, of course-if a station run by anti-war people refused to play any music from bands that are pro-war because they disagree with their views, that's wrong, too-it's not fair to pro-war people who listen to the station, because they wouldn't get to hear their favorite bands' music.

If people were really, truly bothered by what the Dixie Chicks said, so much to the point that they didn't want to listen to them anymore, you know, there is a dial on their radios that can allow them to change the station anytime the Dixie Chicks' music came on. That way, they don't have to listen to the music if they don't want to, and the people who do want to listen to the music can. And everyone's happy.
Again, the point would be that radio stations are privately owned entities and can choose to play or not play whatever bands they see fit. If the radio stations were government run, then people could cry censorship, but since they are not, its just another form of freedom of speech. For a Dixie Chicks fan who may not now get to hear them on a certain radio station, they might have to find another station or buy a CD, but they still have the option to hear the music.
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Re: there have to be some standards set

Hewson said:

My point is that natalie should have chosen her wording more carefully, she could have expressed the same opinion without showing disrespect and obviously upsetting a lot of people.

Honestly? Some in the US take the office of president far too seriously, almost to deification.

We can diss our PM and noone gets all up in arms about it. He's just an elected individual like anyone else, and if he screws up he gets blasted, simple.

:shrug:
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: there have to be some standards set

gabrielvox said:
Honestly? Some in the US take the office of president far too seriously, almost to deification.

We can diss our PM and noone gets all up in arms about it. He's just an elected individual like anyone else, and if he screws up he gets blasted, simple.

:shrug:

That's a good point, too.

Why do people care so much if we diss the president? Seriously.

Besides, these people throwing hissy fits over what someone says about Bush are most likely the same ones who had no problem bashing Clinton to no end.

So if it's okay for them, it's okay for us, too.

Angela
 
Ever watch Saturday Night Live? We like to take the piss out our leaders too. I agree with you though. If you don't agree with the leadership, you shouldn't be bullied into "backing him because he's the president"
 
Back
Top Bottom