I personally think the president is a bumbling idiot as evidenced HERE but NBC does have the right to control not only their programming but also their sponsorship (commercials). Otherwise, networks would HAVE to accept commercials for anything including KKK ralleys and Backstreet Boys reunion tours.

I don't put anything past the US anymore. I watch the news almost expecting to see incredible absurdity every day. One day I'm going to hear "The new national flag includes a dollar bill.." We are a country dumbed down by the media and society, telling us how we're "supossed" to act, think, behave, dress...

The president could say "wearing underpants is a nation sin" and we'll have everyone going commando. Banannas.

I'm going to say, and very blatently, Geroge W Bush is a assine idiot manupulated by clever yes men who use this nation as source of personal wealth. Quote me on it. Burn my records. Threaten to kill me. Lock me in jail. Hitler, Bush.. same shit, different era. He acts just like the man he forced out of power in Iraq. All hail powerful Bush!

Myabe someday the Chicks will sell records again, but that requires brain power. Yes America... THIIINKKK ABOUT ITTTTT

(sorry for ranting)

And you think resorting to ridiculous hyperbole helps?

Well, the Dixie Chicks took a huge hit to their brand when this happened, and they have to do something to try to recover.

The American Public does not have a long attention span, but they do have a long memory (I know people who still drive past exxon stations, and everyone who reads this probably knows why).

The Dixie Chicks can recover their brand, but they need to put out the message that they stand for America's Freedoms, including the freedom to be an asshole or a bitch. That is something their old fan base can relate to and will revitalize them.

Instead, they look to be going for the victim lable. Bad move.

------------

You can read my blog at scottgrizzard.com.

Let me get this right, you're comparing an ad for a movie about the blacklisting of the Dixie Chicks because of their stance against a war based on flawed logic to the KKK and the Backstreet Boys? Can we keep things in perspective here?

Look at the mindless trash they already put on TV. And their afraid to show an ad that doesn't show the president in the best light? The presidents approval ratings are lower than ever. The majority of Americans are now against the war. The Dixie Chicks didn't even say anything that controversial. They only said they we're embraced Bush was from Texas. It's not like they said they wanted to kill him, or impeach him, or even call him an idiot. I can't believe this is even a controversy.

nbc is a private business, and they have the right to broadcast or not broadcast anything they want, within fcc rules. this is a free market, if you don't like their decision, don't watch the network. the 1st amendment just protects you from prosecution for speech, private citizens and entities can do whatever they want. for example, if you get fired for something you said at work, or suspended for what you said at school, freedom of speech has nothing to do with that. you didn't go to jail. nbc can play whatever the hell they want.

wow, that is the dumbest thing i've ever heard...for so many reasons.

You mean like win 5 Grammy awards, play to sell-out audiences, put out a gold and a platinum record, and debut the second one at #1 on both the U.S. Country and Pop charts?

Yeah, you're right. It's gonna be tough for them to stay out of the poor-house.

djbenvolio said:
"It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America. The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is profoundly un-American."




"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

Very true...

I think some of you are missing the point which is they were not censored. NBC is not required to show everything. They can show whatever they want, or not show whatever they want. If all the media outlets decided to not show this, and their site was pulled down from the internet etc etc, that would be censorship. but just because one network does not want to deal with them is hardly a big deal. I guarantee if they were forced to have to show this, the TV would be filled with alot of things you don't agree with, you know KKK rallies, anti abortion messages, uber christian messages, all would have to be shown ad nauseum.

Not questioning the point about whether or not NBC is legally required to air all (or any) commercial advertisements, but I have to ask about this:

How did you arrive at the conclusion that one network deciding not to carry something isn't censorship, but that everyone deciding not to carry it would be? If an act is censorship, it's censorship regardless of how many times it is committed. And if not, then not - again, regardless of how many times it happens.

You don't have to be completely blocked from delivering your message to be censored.

Well then, using yoru extremely broad definition of censorship, I guess every hate group in americanow has a airtight lawsuit to sue for equal time.

Say what? Did you even read what you're replying to?

As I said, if it's censorship then it's censorship. If it's not, then it's not.
What difference does it make how many people do it?

Well, censorship does have different meanings to different people. SG certainly censors the boards, in one sense of the word. They'll delete messages with hate speech, competing site names, etc. On the other hand, SG says:

Now broadcast television (and even cable, to a lesser degree) is considered slightly different. They are bound by certain rules as to what they have to show and what they can't show. And then there's what they should and shouldn't show, as they reach a very wide audience, they have an oligopoly, and it's virtually impossible to compete with them if you aren't already one of them. But that is a separate from the legal discussion.

Does showing a spot for a commercial product go under have to? I doubt it. Does it go under should? Meh, I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole thing.

You know, words can be ambiguous or have different definitions under different situations. There are those that would say that a corporation not selling someone airtime is most definitely not censorship. Any more than me not letting someone put a sign in my yard supporting a candidate I oppose. It's my goddamned yard. People often interpret censorship as someone being prevented from saying something through a medium that is otherwise open to anyone. For example, if I am prevented from publishing my own book on my own press, I'm being censored. If you refuse to publish my book, I'm just being rejected.