Can the Dixie Chicks sue on the grounds of Free Speech?

If a person knows that they will get blacklisted for expressing an anti Bush or anti war comment, it denies them their free speech because they know they will be punished for expressing those ideas.

Free speech is not equal for both sides and blacklisting is different than boycotting.

The Dixie Chicks made some anti Bush COMMENTS in London not in song form mind you.

And, all their MUSIC was subsequently blacklisted from country radio.

If the radio stations put a disclaimer on saying that the artist views do not represent the views of the radio station and continued to play their music, then you could say that
Free Speech is equal for both sides, but there was no particular song to boycott.

Go ahead and boycott their music if you want but Blacklisting them from
radio stations is a clear attempt to deny all people of their Free Speech.

Blacklisting does deny free speech.

Let’s say Shania Twain came out of the closet and said I’m actually a lesbian.

Although she has never written a song about homosexuality, she is blacklisted
on country radio anyway.

I think that’s a clear case of discrimination.

Although the Dixie Chicks made anti Bush and anti war COMMENTS, they don’t
even have a anti Bush or anti war song to boycott; yet, ALL of their music has
been blacklisted from country radio anyway.

When country radio plays pro war songs all the time and blacklists artist’s
who even make an anti war comment, it is clear that the message of blacklisting is meant
to discourage anyone else from expressing similar ideas, thus blacklisting does deny
free speech.

If your music doesn’t sell, then why would Radio stations play your music?

But clearly, this isn’t the case with the Dixie Chicks #1 CD.

The only other explanation for the blacklisting is to discourage a certain kind of speech.

Can the Dixie Chicks sue Clear Channel or whoever owns these radio stations?

Clear Channel has no duty to play the Chicks, and no duty to provide a forum for their music.

And I hope CC loses its ASS over it. But not in a lawsuit.

Bake

Clear Channel. So to Hell with country, welcome to the real world!

I'm not a fan of country music and the previous CDs were good but not quite my taste.

But this one was more my style with a bit of a rock edge and less of a country - definately a good addition to my collection. Perhaps I'll buy some of their older CDs if only as a way to 'donate' money to three women who stuck to their guns.

is stopping you from singing. Just because I happen to sing, do you think radio stations should be required to play my music?

Nobody has the "right" to be on the radio. Stations put programming on that gains enough market share to entice advertisements. If the Dixie Chicks want to be on the stations that do not play thier music, they need to get a representative to iron out the problems with the station.

It's getting kind of old when somebody does not get thier way, all of a sudden thier "rights" have been violated. Somebody doesn't get what they want, well LET'S SUE THEM!!!!!

Blacklisting, and boycotting are the same thing, a personal choice. How many times have you heard the cry to boycott Wallmart? You may not agree with the stations choice to not play Dixie Chicks music, but what gives anybody the right to force them to play it?

C/W fans are not the ones making their cds best sellers, alternative fans are. C/W is a limiting label, anyways.

The 1st Amendment only applies to actions by the government. Private org ionizations have an absolute right to discourage or not allow any and all speech they chose.

It would be among the more frivolous ones ever made.

The only blacklisting that violates the spirit of this country is a government sponsored one.

So if all the book stores decided they didn’t want to sell Ann Coulter’s books
Anymore because she said the 911 widows have enjoyed their husbands deaths, she
wouldn’t have the right to sue on the basis of free speech?

So you mean I could sue and force booksellers to carry my book?

Sweet....

That said, people keep making the mistake on free speech that is made here. No radio station is forced to play a given song.

YOU can start campaigns and boycotts and such against such radio stations, but free speech is a requirement on GOVERNMENT to not oppress people. You can not force a radio station to play certain songs.

There is all the difference in the world over what the federal or state GOVERNMENT requires or forbids, and what a radio station does. Radio stations can chose what to promote and not promote, they are not forced to play any given song.

A court can throw out the action before it is even heard if the judge determines it is not an issue to be settled via the courts.

And even if it stays in, you can't always win.

Law professor: If the facts are on your side, pound on the judge. If facts are on your side, pound on the jury.

Student: What if you have neither?

Professor: Pound on the table.

It is possible to sue under the Sherman Act for a concerted boycott. Granted, I'm not terribly interested in the Dixie Chicks and the fuss, but if the facts fit, then maybe.

They are doing fine & making new fans. Some of their old fans have probably remained--Country fans are quite loyal. These are true Country fans--the ones who are also disgusted at the crap played on "Country" Radio.

The Chicks did have a tiff with Sony (their label) a couple of years ago, because they thought they weren't getting their share of profits. They took time off & recorded some "non-commercial" tracks--more acoustic & less "produced" than their norm. Sony settled with them. The Chicks released the "demo" tracks as "Home"--& it sold quite well.

They don't need to sue anyone.

Edited to add: "Living Well is the Best Revenge."

........playing them! Plus, their album shot to NUMBER ONE, so America is voting with their pocketbooks about this subject!

GO MAVS!!!