Reply With Quote
Hank Williams, Jr. seems to be having the last laugh on this.
His "Keep the Change" song, recorded Friday, in response to the uproar over his using the Hitler/Netanyahu analogy, hit #1 on the Country download charts and his fan club has exploded.
I don't know about any of that. But the singer looks like the chickin BR's sig.
Hank Williams, Jr. seems to be having the last laugh on this.
His "Keep the Change" song, recorded Friday, in response to the uproar over his using the Hitler/Netanyahu analogy, hit #1 on the Country download charts and his fan club has exploded.
I saw him on the news and he said FoxNews baited him into making that remark.
Even the bozos on Fox and Friends didn't touch his comments when he was saying them. They were just like "wtf". When you compare the president to Hitler, you're pretty much done as a public figure or celebrity. There is a double standard but that's how baseball go.
No, I put it in context.
Most country listeners are conservative. That's why the retaliation against the ie Chicks, and not Williams, by listeners of the genre.
It was March of 2003. Bush and the Iraq War were popular when the Chicks made their comments.
"Most country listeners are conservative" is hilarious though.
You. are. stupid.
This truly is a festivus miracle.
The Dixie Chicks were never fired from anything. Buzz me when country radio chokes off Hank IIs career.
Neither case was a free speech issue. I can't believe all of the idiots that don't understand what free speech actually covers.
Here goes: Free speech protects you from criminal prosecution of what you say. That's it.
People can still call you an idiot. ESPN can fire you. Country radio can stop playing your songs. Your boss can fire you. None of those things are free speech violations.
We agree, especially when representing someone else. Those you represent have the right to do what is best in their interest.
Okay, if you're going to school people on free speech, perhaps you should be a little more, er, technically correct.
First, some would argue they were "free speech issues," in that both were instructive to the consequences of exercising your cons utionally protected right to speak freely.
Second, the first amendment protects you from the government making any law designed to abridge this right to free speech. In other words, it doesn't just protect you from arrest and criminal prosecution.
There have been laws that restrict speech but only insofar as that speech infringes on the rights of others, (i.e. screaming fire in a crowded theater).
The consequential part of your exercising your right to speak freely.
Not because they aren't violations of your rights but, because there's no such thing as a "free speech violation."
They would be wrong, since neither the DCs or HW II were arrested for anything.
Well, at least until the GOP monkeys with our system some more, you can't be arrested for anything that there isn't a law for, so my point is correct. You can't be arrested for what you say, because to be arrested requires a law to be in place. Try to keep up with the class, Yawni.
Yaaaaawn. You split more hairs than a 110V curling iron plugged into a 220v outlet. Free speech violation or violation of someone's right of free speech. Whatever. You knew exactly what I meant, and chose to be argumentative for your own sake.
Obviously, over your head. My apologies.
But, that's not the point of the first amendment protection. It doesn't protect you just from arrest, it protects you from any government abridgment of that freedom -- including arrest.
And, you can be arrested for what you say.
You were the one pretending to be the expert. And, actually, considering the poor construct of the rest of your post, no, there was no way to know exactly what you meant.
Right, those examples that everyone knows like yelling "Fire!" in a movie house. Obviously not the case with the DCs or Hank II. Try to stay on task, or use a better example that applies to the discussion at hand and the thread.
Compared to the average person, I am. Hank II himself cried about free speech after he was let go. Everyone and their mothers cries about this when faced with some non-legal consequence(s) of putting their foot or both feet in their mouths. I understand that is a legal distinction. The average idiot, and Hank II easily qualifies, thinks there can be NO consequences to their speech, legal or otherwise. That's not the world we live in.
I was thinking more like going to your next door neighbor and telling him you're going to kill him and his entire family if he doesn't quit letting his dog crap in your yard.
You can be arrested for that speech, as well.
I'm focused on this like a laser beam. I was only responding to your idiotic proclamations in that first post.
Okay, your words that prompted me to respond:
That would include you, apparently.
That's not "it." It's not even the principle purpose of the first amendment protection of your free speech rights, as I've already explained. But, just wanted you to know why I was explaining since you can't seem to recall your own asinine statements.
Just like I can call you and idiot for saying the first amendment only protects you from arrest. That's it.
I'm not sure Hank cried in his beer that long. He was fishing the next day and wrote a song that moving like hotcakes.
I'm sure he'll recover.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions