Censorship for criticising Bush

[Shahil]

Just thought I'd bring up a topic I heard one of the radio DJ's talking about yesterday.

At the moment, she's in New York doing some showbiz work but she brought up something she observed over the last week whilst staying in America.

Why is it that all the people criticising the Bush Admin are being silenced? The Dixie Chicks told him of a while back and nobody has heard of them since, Linda Ronstadt (Spelling??) was thrown out of HER OWN Las vegas show after criticising him on stage. Quite a few other celebrities have lost endorsements for their comments. Also, this DJ said that celebrities shy away from political questions because of what MAY happen if they say something - even though they do have valid views on the subject ie. the Bush admin/War in Iraq etc.

Is it true that all these big co-operations do have the Bush admin in their pocket or is my imagination just running wild??

Any comments??

[Robert Zaleski]

And if your a sponsor or business owner that has a contractual relationship with one of these entertainers (dubious), you have a right to terminate their contract if they say something that's detrimental to your business.

[the number 42]

Why is it that all the people criticising the Bush Admin are being silenced? The Dixie Chicks told him of a while back and nobody has heard of them since, Linda Ronstadt (Spelling??) was thrown out of HER OWN Las vegas show after criticising him on stage.

I hate to admit it, but you have just given me the only two reasons I know of to be thankful for Bush :frown:
I can only hope that a few of those talentless airhead boy bands will start criticising the government. Some hope :rolleyes:

[Njorl]

Private companies and individuals are free to grant or deny access to their venues as they see fit. It is only the US government that is prohibited from restricting political speech (here in the US anyway).

I think it is just fine. Celebrities have influence out of all proportion to their wisdom. The use of their celebrity for political purposes should be a calculated risk on their part. For consistency, those organizations that decide to retaliate against celebrities should also face risk of counter-retaliation from the customer base that agree with the celebrity's stance.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

There is a big, big difference between censorship and business. The people you listed made bad business decisions. Also, celebrities are typically too dumb to even understand the difference - which is why they get so mad about it.

[JohnDubYa]

Essentially, the businesses were exercising their right to free speech.

And no one is being silenced. Linda Ronstadt and the Dixie Chicks are perfectly free to shoot their mouths off as much as they want.

And yes, your imagination is running wild.

[loseyourname]

Indeed, this all hinges on public vs. private rights. Any performer can go screaming from the streets about whatever she wants, but she does not have the right to use a privately owned venue to make statements that the owner of the venue does not want made.

[BobG]

Being a celebrity, Linda Ronstadt forgot that professional entertainers are actually employees, just like the common people. While she is free to voice her opinion on any subject on her own time, she was being paid to do a job.

The Dixie Chicks just misjudged their audience. Demographically, country music fans are a little more likely to have a 'support the troops' attitude than the average person and it should have come as no surprise that quite a few fans would be alienated by comments from one of the Dixie Chicks members.

It's beyond me why a person would be influenced by the political opinions of an entertainment celebrity any more than the political opinions of the guy living 12 houses down the street. But people are and if a celebrity wants to take advantage of that, then they also have to accept the risks. You have a right to say what you feel - that's not the same as having a right to be liked for whatever you say.

For what it's worth, my opinion of an entertainer's character or political opinions have no bearing on whether I listen, watch, or read them. In fact, I'd almost rather not know anything about the person - it's usually a little disappointing.

[Dissident Dan]

This brings up the excellent point of media ownership. Right now, we have 5 conglomerates that own most of the meda (there were 6 until recently, but Bertelsmann and Sony merged)-Viacom, Vivendi-Universal, Disney, Newscropt, Sony-Bertelsmann. This means that these few huge entities control what we see, read, and hear. If they don't like what someone has to say, they can shut him/her out. It has a chilling effect of dissident, public discourse, and representative government.

Ted Turner has some good things to say on this: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0407.turner.html
Consolidation has given big media companies new power over what is said not just on the air, but off it as well. Cumulus Media banned the Dixie Chicks on its 42 country music stations for 30 days after lead singer Natalie Maines criticized President Bush for the war in Iraq. It's hard to imagine Cumulus would have been so bold if its listeners had more of a choice in country music stations. And Disney recently provoked an uproar when it prevented its subsidiary Miramax from distributing Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11. As a senior Disney executive told The New York Times: "It's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle." Follow the logic, and you can see what lies ahead: If the only media companies are major corporations, controversial and dissenting views may not be aired at all.

This is what the state of media ownership looked like before the Sony-Bertelsmann merger: http://www.med.sc.edu:1081/bigmedia.pdf

[NateTG]

For what it's worth, my opinion of an entertainer's character or political opinions have no bearing on whether I listen, watch, or read them. In fact, I'd almost rather not know anything about the person - it's usually a little disappointing.

If that is true, then it's probably unusual. I bought a Tom Clancy novel at the airport bookstore a while ago, so I had something to read on the plane. The plot and writing were ok, but the crudely inserted political agenda makes me wonder, to this day, whether I should have read the book.

For many people authors, and by extension play and screenwriters' (not sure what the correct technique for typing that expression is) political views affect the content, and consequently also whether the person enjoys the work.

Although entertainment does incorporate elements from other aspects of society, political commentary is one of the fundemental themes of performance, and hence enterainment.

Similarly, I expect that the audience for Farenheit 9/11 was, on average, more politically liberal than the population as a whole, and that Rush Limbaugh's radio audience is liable to be more conservative.

For material that is less ovet in its political leanings, things are probably fuzzier, something like Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the USA" is an ironic example of this, since it is, in fact, a Vietnam War protest song, but is frequently mistaken as an endorsement of the USA.

Of course, for processed, homoginized, mass market pop music like Britany Spears, the political content is minimal since the goal is minimal offence.

[JohnDubYa]

If I let a songwriter's political leanings affect my musical tastes, then I would have to throw out over half of my music collection.

I even have one song in my collection called Hard Left, and the writer makes no bones about his leftist political leanings. Cool song, though.

[devil-fire]

i think its hard to say someone has freedom of speach if they get fired over saying something political.

what i herd about Linda Ronstadt is that she said Michael Moore was an american patriot (or something to do with being a positive citizen of the usa) and that she encouraged people to see his new movie and was booed off stage.

[the number 42]

Being a celebrity, Linda Ronstadt forgot that professional entertainers are actually employees, just like the common people. While she is free to voice her opinion on any subject on her own time, she was being paid to do a job.

True, but what if the Pope excommunicated Kerry for his views on abortion? Or if your boss penalised you for saying (or posting) something political during office hours? I would agree that having an entertainer use the stage as a soap box isn't what most people call entertainment - especially if you don't agree with the views, as in the case of the Dixie Chicks' audience - but the penalty should fit the 'crime'. Let the audience vote with their feet.

It's beyond me why a person would be influenced by the political opinions of an entertainment celebrity any more than the political opinions of the guy living 12 houses down the street. [QUOTE=BobG]

I agree that it doesn't make sense, but we are often swayed by emotional factors that don't make sense. That's why celebrities in adverts sell more.

[QUOTE=BobG]For what it's worth, my opinion of an entertainer's character or political opinions have no bearing on whether I listen, watch, or read them. In fact, I'd almost rather not know anything about the person - it's usually a little disappointing.

If I know in advance that a painting is by a serial killer, it will certainly influence how much I like it. In general, our heroes have feet of clay, so I prefer to enjoy the CD and skip the interview.

[JohnDubYa]

i think its hard to say someone has freedom of speach if they get fired over saying something political.

I think people misunderstand what we mean by freedom of speech. Essentially, the *government* cannot prohibit certain views from being aired. This amendment has little to do with the private sector.

All you have to do is think about this logically. If you walked into your boss' office and called him a lousy jerk, should he not be able to fire you? If you are working on the Kerry campaign and you stated publically that you are a Bush supporter, can they not dismiss you?

Another example: If a public school teacher tries to indoctrinate his students into a certain political view, they should be fired. (At the university level, things are a little different.)

In fact, Scharzenegger fired one of his campaign advisors because he espoused certain views on taxation that were contrary to his campaign platform.

Just think about it.

[JohnDubYa]

True, but what if the Pope excommunicated Kerry for his views on abortion? Or if your boss penalised you for saying (or posting) something political during office hours?

Both the Pope and the boss are in their right. If your boss is a member of the Republican Party and you paste up a picture of Kerry on your computer monitor, he can tell you to remove it. If you refuse, he can fire you.

If you don't like it, become the boss.

[GENIERE]

The city of Boston, in compliance with the request of the DNC has provided a fenced-in protest area called a "free speech zone”.

How nice of the Democrats!

[Dissident Dan]

The city of Boston, in compliance with the request of the DNC has provided a fenced-in protest area called a "free speech zone”.

How nice of the Democrats!

Are you serious? So they're taking after bush? (Bush has been doing that consistently for his public appearances). Damn, maybe Nader is right.

This is a ridiculous violation of the 1st Amendment.

BTW, got a link?

[JohnDubYa]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0220-02.htm (I know nothing about the source.)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/20/convention_plan_puts_protesters_blocks_away?mode=P F

Voting Nader this year?

[kat]

Are you serious? So they're taking after bush? (Bush has been doing that consistently for his public appearances). Damn, maybe Nader is right.

This is a ridiculous violation of the 1st Amendment.

BTW, got a link?
Sorry, but I think you're mistaken here. I'm pretty sure that Bush actually followed Clinton's example. So, They're actually taking after Clinton.

[russ_watters]

The city of Boston, in compliance with the request of the DNC has provided a fenced-in protest area called a "free speech zone”.

How nice of the Democrats!Yes, nice to see the shoe on the other foot.

[Shahil]

Thanks Dissident Dan for the Quote there about the Broadcast industry!!

What scares me is that the companies (through mergers) are being slowly becoming fewer and fewer. Therefore, in a couple of years, we may have 1 or 2 companies controlling everything. And since they'll be so powerful, govt. would have a great say in what they broadcast and don't broadcast. Where would we get all our "proper, un-biased" info from then?

That's what I can see going on now - As has been posted, the Dixie Chicks were banned from 42 odd stations. So where can you here them then? Ja, they're free to shout their mouths off (paraphrasing JohnDubya :wink: ) but where can they do it?? Sure, their opinions may not be educated ones but they should be allowed to make it in the same way they pro-Bush opinions were made on the 42 radio stations not playing them.

[JohnDubYa]

Ja, they're free to shout their mouths off (paraphrasing JohnDubya ) but where can they do it??

They can write their Congressman. They can visit local political rallies. They can write letters to the editor (that WILL be published since they are celebrities). Are they entitled to more voice than you or me?

And what percentage of country stations in this nation does 42 represent? 1%, perhaps?

Hard left messages are broadcast all the time in rock. And how many Christian bands (other than P.O.D.) get any real airplay in rock? Is that censorship?

I suggest if they want to focus on politics that they consider a change in audience.

[Shahil]

Hard left messages are broadcast all the time in rock. And how many Christian bands (other than P.O.D.) get any real airplay in rock? Is that censorship?


Left message in rock? That would be contrary to the hedonistic rock 'n roll lifestyle wouldn't it? :wink:

Seriously, for the Dixie Chicks, the stations that banned were where their songs were getting played. For Christian rock bands, their songs aren't even playlisted on these rock stations.

It's kinda like saying that you're silencing the people who don't have a voice to start with.

The Christian rock bands MUSIC does not appeal to the demographics of the radio station - if you got a problem with that, it's something you need to take up with the progtam manager and somehow prove to him/het that the inclusion of these bands would up ratings. In the Dixie Chicks case, their MUSIC is/was not considered. Even though their sound was exactly the type of music their listeners enjoyed, they were taken of the playlist as a result of political censorship. Now that is wrong in my view.


They can write letters to the editor (that WILL be published since they are celebrities).


Isn't that the same as them giving an interview and airing their views? I say yes coz they're both media publicity and my argument at the beginning was that even this is being censored.

[the number 42]

If you walked into your boss' office and called him a lousy jerk, should he not be able to fire you?

Amusing, but calling your boss a jerk would be at the extreme end of the freedom of speech curve, and not what I am arguing for. Of course I think that anyone should be free to question their employer's employment policies etc, but to blatantly insult anyone directly is to invite a negative response.

If your boss is a member of the Republican Party and you paste up a picture of Kerry on your computer monitor, he can tell you to remove it. If you refuse, he can fire you.

Now THIS is what I'm talking about. What kind of freedom do you have if your boss can fire you for this? Freedom to express approval only for the ruling party is not freedom at all. Amazing. It would be just as bad in principle if the parties were reversed.

If you are working on the Kerry campaign and you stated publically that you are a Bush supporter, can they not dismiss you?

Another extreme example. In reality, wouldn't the person be campaigning for the person they support?

If a public school teacher tries to indoctrinate his students into a certain political view, they should be fired. (At the university level, things are a little different.)

Prevailing norms are implicitly imposed on pupils. Teachers only come under scrutiny if they speak against the status quo. To give an extreme example, think of schoolteachers in nazi Germany.

By the way, do you share you views with your students? If so, what kind of reaction do you get?

[JohnDubYa]

Amusing, but calling your boss a jerk would be at the extreme end of the freedom of speech curve, and not what I am arguing for. Of course I think that anyone should be free to question their employer's employment policies etc, but to blatantly insult anyone directly is to invite a negative response.

How is calling someone a jerk extreme? You are telling that person what you think of him. And those that question an employer's employment policies can be accused of not being a team player. Bosses should be allowed to fire them.

Suppose a company employee publically espoused a view that runs contrary to the company's values? Or, an employee tells a newspaper that they think their managers are incompetent. What then?

Who's company is it, anyway?


Now THIS is what I'm talking about. What kind of freedom do you have if your boss can fire you for this?

Once he fires you, you have LOTS of freedom.

[/quote] Freedom to express approval only for the ruling party is not freedom at all. Amazing. It would be just as bad in principle if the parties were reversed.[/quote]

Not amazing at all. If it's my damn company, I can fire those that make public statements contrary to my values and beliefs. Why not?

Now, there could be a backlash against my company. That is the chance I take.

Here's an example: Jimmy the Greek made comments about Black athletes that many felt were racist. So his network (NBC, I think) fired him. Should the network have that right? Should a tv reporter be allowed to make any statement they wish without losing employment? What if they repeatedly drop the N-bomb when being interviewed?


Another extreme example. In reality, wouldn't the person be campaigning for the person they support?

Not necessarily. They could be working on the campaign with their wife, who happens to be a supporter. So what then? Can you answer to this hypothetical situation?

Prevailing norms are implicitly imposed on pupils.

Such as? Let's work with some real examples.

Teachers only come under scrutiny if they speak against the status quo.

Teachers come under scrutiny when they teach doctrine in opposition to the beliefs of parents. Teachers should not assume the role of parenting. Any teacher doing so should be counseled and possibly reprimanded. (My original call for firing was overblown. I just had a bad day.)

By the way, do you share you views with your students? If so, what kind of reaction do you get?

I am not sure what views you are talking about. (Keep in mind that I teach college students.)

[JohnDubYa]

The Christian rock bands MUSIC does not appeal to the demographics of the radio station - if you got a problem with that, it's something you need to take up with the progtam manager and somehow prove to him/het that the inclusion of these bands would up ratings. In the Dixie Chicks case, their MUSIC is/was not considered. Even though their sound was exactly the type of music their listeners enjoyed, they were taken of the playlist as a result of political censorship. Now that is wrong in my view.

The radio station is privately owned. They are under no obligation to play music that agrees with demographics of any sort. If the owner of the station simply doesn't like Christian rock, or the message that they deliver, he should be able to choose a different format. Do you not agree?

How can you advocate forcing a station or programmer to play music they, for whatever reason, don't want to play? Where is their freedom?

If anything, the radio station owner is exercising his right to free speech. He is telling his audience how he feels about the Dixie Chicks' stance, and his means of expression is to not play their music. You are in favor of freedom of expression, right?

Isn't that the same as them giving an interview and airing their views? I say yes coz they're both media publicity and my argument at the beginning was that even this is being censored.

I am not sure what you mean, so let me re-phrase my stance. The Dixie Chicks' right to free speech is not being usurped because they still have many avenues to publish their views. Hell, they can create their own radio stations and broadcast their views 24 hours a day if they wish. What they cannot do is force someone else to carry their message for them.

[Shahil]

Here's an example: Jimmy the Greek made comments about Black athletes that many felt were racist. So his network (NBC, I think) fired him. Should the network have that right? Should a tv reporter be allowed to make any statement they wish without losing employment? What if they repeatedly drop the N-bomb when being interviewed?


Aren't you comparing Apples and Oranges? Does racism equate to govt. policy?? When you'e being racist, you're voilating human rights. When you criticise your govt. for going into a war; esp. this one where the reason used (WMD) was proved to be false; you're criticising a "worker" you have elected to run the country.

Let's extend that. Elected officials are, basically, accountable to the people. After all, in a democracy, YOU decide who runs the country. In simple terms, you're the boss of the govt. NOT vice versa. By criticising, you're telling your "employee" (in this case the govt.) that they're doing a bad job. However, you, as the boss here, are being told to shut up. Somethings wrong here, don't you think??

[JohnDubYa]

Aren't you comparing Apples and Oranges? Does racism equate to govt. policy?? When you'e being racist, you're voilating human rights.

That is simply false. A person can espouse racism to any extent he wishes and never violate anyone's human rights. If a reporter drops N-bombs, no one's rights are violated. So this is not apples and oranges whatsoever. In both cases, the question revolves around the airing of one's personal views, whether it be war, race, ... whatever.

In essence, you are reserving the freedom of speech for certain issues, but not others. That is inconsistent.

However, you, as the boss here, are being told to shut up. Somethings wrong here, don't you think??

Sure, if you are being told by the employee (the government) to shut up. But the First Amendment already covers that case.

The owner of the radio station playlist is not the government. So your analogy does not hold. If anything, your analogy is telling us that we have two bosses. One boss of the employee is asking another boss of the employee to publicize a message about the employee, but the latter boss refuses. That is within the latter boss' rights.

[the number 42]

If it's my damn company, I can fire those that make public statements contrary to my values and beliefs. Why not?
Its hard to take this sort of comment seriously.


What if they repeatedly drop the N-bomb when being interviewed?
:confused: Right. I really don't know what you mean.


They could be working on the campaign with their wife, who happens to be a supporter. So what then? Can you answer to this hypothetical situation?
Again, so what? He expresses his views - how scarey for the candidate! What's so threatening about allowing someone to express an opposing view, John? And look, life is too short to be answering minor hypothetical questions :frown:


Such as? Let's work with some real examples.
You want me to list examples of how cultural values are reflected in the classroom? Seriously? :zzz:

[Shahil]

If anything, your analogy is telling us that we have two bosses. One boss of the employee is asking another boss of the employee to publicize a message about the employee, but the latter boss refuses. That is within the latter boss' rights.

I think you're mixing up your apples and oranges here. You're confusing the radio issue with my argument. The above argument is between the govt. and the people.

I was just provided an analogy to show you what power the govt. does have. We have given the govt. the power to take certain decisions. But, as the govt. IS accountable to the people in a democracy, when the govt. "step's out of line" as such, they should be repriimanded and put back into line.

[Prometheus]

When you'e being racist, you're voilating human rights.

I am sorry, but I must have missed something. What does this statement mean?

[JohnDubYa]

Again, so what? He expresses his views - how scarey for the candidate! What's so threatening about allowing someone to express an opposing view, John? And look, life is too short to be answering minor hypothetical questions

It can cost the candidate the election. Remember Schwarzenegger firing his campaign finance manager earlier this year? Arnie took a hit in the polls when the manager advocated raising property taxes, contrary to Arnie's political platform. So this is hardly a hypothetical question.

And you have yet to answer my question about what should happen to a prominent tv reporter that makes blatantly racist statements to the public? Should the network have the right to fire that reporter? Let's hear it.

[Dissident Dan]

Sorry, but I think you're mistaken here. I'm pretty sure that Bush actually followed Clinton's example. So, They're actually taking after Clinton.

This is what I've found on that:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_10_19_dneiwert_archive.html

"There's also some evidence of excluding protesters from designated public forums during President Reagan's tenure -- the cases we've actually seen involved Vice President Bush. And then we've got one reported case involving President Bush out of Ohio, and then one documented instance during Clinton's administration involving an attempt at excluding anti-abortion protesters from the Inaugural parade route in January of 1997. And that was smashed by the court.

"Clearly the number of uses of this kind of protest zone by a presidential administration has increased dramatically under the current White House. It didn't start with them -- I think since Nixon, there were isolated examples of this. This is the first time where we've really had a sufficient number of complaints to say that there really appears to be a pattern here."

[JohnDubYa]

Its hard to take this sort of comment seriously.

Well try harder and respond, if you please.


Right. I really don't know what you mean.

Ace reporter for KKDH is being interviewed on tv. Ace reporter claims that in his opinion Blacks are an inferior race. Should KKDH have the right to fire that reporter?
Yes or no?


You want me to list examples of how cultural values are reflected in the classroom? Seriously?

Yes, let's work with some real examples.

[russ_watters]

That's what I can see going on now - As has been posted, the Dixie Chicks were banned from 42 odd stations. So where can you here them then? Ja, they're free to shout their mouths off (paraphrasing JohnDubya :wink: ) but where can they do it?? Sure, their opinions may not be educated ones but they should be allowed to make it in the same way they pro-Bush opinions were made on the 42 radio stations not playing them. I don't think "banned" is the right word. 42 stations had their listeners bombard them with complaints and thus stopped playing the Dixie Chicks rather than lose money. The Christian rock bands MUSIC does not appeal to the demographics of the radio station - if you got a problem with that, it's something you need to take up with the progtam manager and somehow prove to him/het that the inclusion of these bands would up ratings. In the Dixie Chicks case, their MUSIC is/was not considered. Even though their sound was exactly the type of music their listeners enjoyed, they were taken of the playlist as a result of political censorship. No. The Dixie Chicks became unpopular with the listeners, so the music was pulled. If Creed announced that they are Christian and their music is, in fact, about Christianity (they deny it, but it really seems like it is), the same thing would happen (not as dramatic, but it would happen). Regardless of the quality of the music, listeners often make choices based on their opinion of the band itself.

I also don't see why its hard to make the connection between one group (Dixie Chicks) who'se beliefs rather suddenly became unpopular (when they started making them an issue) and a class of groups (Christian rock) who don't ever get serious consideration because of their beliefs.

[BobG]

I think people misunderstand what we mean by freedom of speech. Essentially, the *government* cannot prohibit certain views from being aired. This amendment has little to do with the private sector.

All you have to do is think about this logically. If you walked into your boss' office and called him a lousy jerk, should he not be able to fire you? If you are working on the Kerry campaign and you stated publically that you are a Bush supporter, can they not dismiss you?

Another example: If a public school teacher tries to indoctrinate his students into a certain political view, they should be fired. (At the university level, things are a little different.)

In fact, Scharzenegger fired one of his campaign advisors because he espoused certain views on taxation that were contrary to his campaign platform.

Just think about it.

True, but what if the Pope excommunicated Kerry for his views on abortion? Or if your boss penalised you for saying (or posting) something political during office hours? I would agree that having an entertainer use the stage as a soap box isn't what most people call entertainment - especially if you don't agree with the views, as in the case of the Dixie Chicks' audience - but the penalty should fit the 'crime'. Let the audience vote with their feet.

There's a fuzzy line on these and I'm not sure either of you have it quite right.

The average person only needs to separate work from non-work.

Yes, your boss can fire you for disrupting the work environment with issues that have no relevance to your work. Actively campaigning for one of the candidates or trying to recruit members into your religion could both fall into this category.

No, your boss can't fire you for your political or religous views, even if you advocate those views publicly outside of work, UNLESS you're also making an effort to let everyone know who you work for when you air those views. You don't have the right to represent the company or use them in your views (neither positively nor negatively).

A Kerry campaigner couldn't be fired for being a Bush supporter, but he could be fired for standing in the Kerry campaign office and saying he was a Bush supporter on TV. He's actively damaging the efforts the office is trying to accomplish.

Celebrities are a different breed, since their public persona is the commodity being bought or sold.

The Linda Ronstadt situation is a slam dunk - she should have concentrated on doing what she was paid to do. (I still like her music)

Actively suspending the Dixie Chicks from radio playlists because of their political statements is a little fuzzier. The only true justification is the possibility that playing their songs might imply that the Dixie Chicks were representing the station's political views and that line of reasoning is a little thin. (But, I never listened to them, anyway)

Firing a reporter/commentator/DJ for making public political or racist statements is a little stronger case. Since the employee's public persona is the service the station is purchasing from the person, the employee's public image is a little more relevant. In other words, there's a reasonable possibility the reporter/commentator/DJ's views may be interpreted as representing the station.

[JohnDubYa]

Actively suspending the Dixie Chicks from radio playlists because of their political statements is a little fuzzier. The only true justification is the possibility that playing their songs might imply that the Dixie Chicks were representing the station's political views and that line of reasoning is a little thin. (But, I never listened to them, anyway)

They don't need to justify it. The radio stations are privately owned. The owners are under no obligation to play music by an artist.

When Cat Stevens made his comments about Salman Rushdie, many radio stations banned the playing of his music. That is in their right. There is nothing fuzzy about it.

[the number 42]

What if they repeatedly drop the N-bomb when being interviewed?

This is what you posted that I don't understand. I understand the rest of what you posted, but the above quote seems odd. Does it mean anything, or were you just being surreal?

[JohnDubYa]

Can someone else tell him? I don't want to be accused of anything sordid.

[russ_watters]

This is what you posted that I don't understand. I understand the rest of what you posted, but the above quote seems odd. Does it mean anything, or were you just being surreal? Here's the quote: Here's an example: Jimmy the Greek made comments about Black athletes that many felt were racist. So his network (NBC, I think) fired him. Should the network have that right? Should a tv reporter be allowed to make any statement they wish without losing employment? What if they repeatedly drop the N-bomb when being interviewed? If you don't know what th "N-bomb" is, its a more derogatory derivative of "negro." The problem is that blacks tend to use it all the time - but if a white uses it, its racism (it usually is anyway). In short, Jimmy the Greek was fired for using language considered by many to be racist.

[NateTG]

They don't need to justify it. The radio stations are privately owned. The owners are under no obligation to play music by an artist.

When Cat Stevens made his comments about Salman Rushdie, many radio stations banned the playing of his music. That is in their right. There is nothing fuzzy about it.

Actually, it's not that easy. Radio stations have a government sponsored monopoly on a particular bandwidth. This would not be a real problem if there were unlimited bandwidth available, but, unfortunately, regulations only allow a fixed number of radio stations in a particular market. Consequently, if I wanted to broadcast otherwise legal material, but the radio stations refused to, I would not be legally able. Compare this to paper publishing where, if push comes to shove, I can always print my own paper.

Admittedly, it's not cut and dried that radio, or television, stations are actually government monopolies, but if you accept that the radio stations are, then the radio stations must be subject to the same requirements and scrutiny that other government monopolies are subject to, and consequently, that they must standardize the way that they make airtime available.

A second issue is that, in addition to broadcasters being a de facto government monopoly, there are legitemate freedom of the press issues about denying access to the mass media to people.

P.S.
"Banned" is probably a poor choice of words, "ceased playing" would be more appropriate, and, I think, more accurately describes your position.

[JohnDubYa]

Hasn't the government set up public radio to air views from the citizenry? If the Dixie Chicks asked (say) National Public Radio to air their songs to support a particular view, and NPR refused, who is doing the censorship then?

BTW, Jimmy the Greek never said the "n word." Here is an interesting sidenote:

________________



More than three days after "CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather invoked an anti-black stereotype in a nationally broadcast radio interview, the network refuses to comment on complaints over the incident, in marked contrast to the way it handled a similiar episode 13 years ago involving the late CBS Sports commentator Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder.

On Jan. 15, 1988, Rather himself aired video shot that afternoon at Duke Zeibert's restaurant in Washington, D.C., featuring Snyder explaining why he thought African-Americans excelled in sports.

"The black is the better athlete," The Greek said. "And he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started."

Though the film was shot by WRC-TV, the Washington affiliate of network rival NBC, and WRC reporter Ed Hotaling acknowledged that The Greek had said he was speaking off the record during the interview, Rather decided Snyder's remarks deserved national coverage.

During the "CBS Evening News" broadcast, the politically correct newsman noted his network had received hundreds of complaints about Snyder's remarks. He ended the segment with Snyder's abject apology.

"I'm truly sorry for my remarks earlier today and I offer a full, heartfelt apology to all I may have offended," Rather quoted Snyder as saying.

Despite the apology, the CBS newsman's prominent coverage of his colleague's faux pas helped seal Snyder's fate. After The Greek's off the record remarks were turned into national news, black organizations from coast-to-coast felt compelled to comment.

The Urban League called Snyder's statement "ludicrous" and suggested he shouldn't be on-the-air. The NAACP was more direct, calling on CBS to fire The Greek, saying his comments "could set race relations back 100 years or more."

The next day, Rather's network handed Jimmy the Greek his walking papers.

Thirteen years later the shoe is on the other foot.

"They got the willies, they got the Buckwheats," Rather blurted out to radioman Don Imus Thursday, while explaining why his bosses had caved to outside pressure and forced him to cover the Chandra Levy-Gary Condit story.

Minutes after NewsMax.com reported Rather's verbatim comments, e-mail began to pour in saying the anchorman had slurred African-Americans by likening his bosses' cave-in to Buckwheat, the easily-frightened black character from "The Little Rascals."

Over the weekend, the nation's most prominent conservative black minister, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), slammed the CBS anchorman for his "Buckwheat" remark, saying it was so offensive that Rather shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

As the protests pour in, will CBS brass decide to give Dan Rather the same treatment they gave Jimmy the Greek?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cbsfired.htm

[Njorl]

Hasn't the government set up public radio to air views from the citizenry? If the Dixie Chicks asked (say) National Public Radio to air their songs to support a particular view, and NPR refused, who is doing the censorship then?

BTW, Jimmy the Greek never said the "n word." Here is an interesting sidenote:

________________



More than three days after "CBS Evening News" anchorman Dan Rather invoked an anti-black stereotype in a nationally broadcast radio interview, the network refuses to comment on complaints over the incident, in marked contrast to the way it handled a similiar episode 13 years ago involving the late CBS Sports commentator Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder.

On Jan. 15, 1988, Rather himself aired video shot that afternoon at Duke Zeibert's restaurant in Washington, D.C., featuring Snyder explaining why he thought African-Americans excelled in sports.

"The black is the better athlete," The Greek said. "And he practices to be the better athlete, and he's bred to be the better athlete because this goes way back to the slave period. The slave owner would breed this big black with this big black woman so he could have a big black kid. That's where it all started."

Though the film was shot by WRC-TV, the Washington affiliate of network rival NBC, and WRC reporter Ed Hotaling acknowledged that The Greek had said he was speaking off the record during the interview, Rather decided Snyder's remarks deserved national coverage.

During the "CBS Evening News" broadcast, the politically correct newsman noted his network had received hundreds of complaints about Snyder's remarks. He ended the segment with Snyder's abject apology.

"I'm truly sorry for my remarks earlier today and I offer a full, heartfelt apology to all I may have offended," Rather quoted Snyder as saying.

Despite the apology, the CBS newsman's prominent coverage of his colleague's faux pas helped seal Snyder's fate. After The Greek's off the record remarks were turned into national news, black organizations from coast-to-coast felt compelled to comment.

The Urban League called Snyder's statement "ludicrous" and suggested he shouldn't be on-the-air. The NAACP was more direct, calling on CBS to fire The Greek, saying his comments "could set race relations back 100 years or more."

The next day, Rather's network handed Jimmy the Greek his walking papers.

Thirteen years later the shoe is on the other foot.

"They got the willies, they got the Buckwheats," Rather blurted out to radioman Don Imus Thursday, while explaining why his bosses had caved to outside pressure and forced him to cover the Chandra Levy-Gary Condit story.

Minutes after NewsMax.com reported Rather's verbatim comments, e-mail began to pour in saying the anchorman had slurred African-Americans by likening his bosses' cave-in to Buckwheat, the easily-frightened black character from "The Little Rascals."

Over the weekend, the nation's most prominent conservative black minister, Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson, head of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND), slammed the CBS anchorman for his "Buckwheat" remark, saying it was so offensive that Rather shouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

As the protests pour in, will CBS brass decide to give Dan Rather the same treatment they gave Jimmy the Greek?

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/cbsfired.htm


I googled <"the buckwheats" -rather> and came up with only plants. If this is a racial slur, Dan Rather is the only one who seems to have ever used it.

NewsMax.com claims links to the NAACP decrying the use of the term in other circumstances, but the links do not actually go anywhere.

I don't even think you can say for sure that he was talking about the "Little Rascals" character. I had heard the term "buckwheat", referring to literally getting the sh*t scared out of you, but never connected it to the kid in the old TV show. Sounds to me like right-wingers grasping at straws.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

I had heard the term "buckwheat", referring to literally getting the sh*t scared out of you, but never connected it to the kid in the old TV show. Sounds to me like right-wingers grasping at straws.

Njorl So.....you don't know where it came from, therefore right-wingers are grasping at straws? Hmm....

[JohnDubYa]

Why shucks, all ya' need to do is look up the ole' Racial Slur Database:

http://www.rsdb.org/

[loseyourname]

Are you serious? So they're taking after bush? (Bush has been doing that consistently for his public appearances). Damn, maybe Nader is right.

This is a ridiculous violation of the 1st Amendment.

BTW, got a link?

Do you think this is something new? The DNC did the same thing 4 years ago here in LA, forcing all the protests into Pershing Square, almost half a mile from the Staples Center.

[the number 42]

If you don't know what th "N-bomb" is, its a more derogatory derivative of "negro." The problem is that blacks tend to use it all the time - but if a white uses it, its racism (it usually is anyway). In short, Jimmy the Greek was fired for using language considered by many to be racist.

Given that the thread is about cencorship for criticising Bush, this is almost certainly a side issue. However, it does illustrate that when censorship (or in this case self-censorship) is enforced, confusion and misunderstanding follow.

In an open society, what we need is clear and open discussion of politics. This does not include trading insults, but should allow for people to have an equal platform to express their views in a civilised manner. In a land that champions freedom of expression, is this a tall order?

[the number 42]

And for the record, I had never heard the term 'N-bomb' before yesterday. :rolleyes:

[Shahil]

Why are you all nit-picking around racist slurs. The bottom line is THEY SHOULD NOT BE USED IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE!!!!!!!!!! end of story! If you use them, you should be reprimanded. There usage is based on simply belittling and insulting a fellow human being for no reason whatsoever. Race and skin colur is NOT a reason because, we all are human beings - nothing more, nothing less.

Political comment, though, is based on something. The present system of politics seems to be causing a problem (In this case - the whole Iraq thing) and since, in your view, this is a problem, you are speaking out to say that it is a problem and one that you would expect to be fixed.

[russ_watters]

Given that the thread is about cencorship for criticising Bush, this is almost certainly a side issue. However, it does illustrate that when censorship (or in this case self-censorship) is enforced, confusion and misunderstanding follow. I tend to agree - I was just explaining the quote.

[the number 42]

Thanks Russ.

If there was a top ten of 'presidents who discouraged free speech', 1/ where would the current president come, and 2/ what has been the public reaction of the time? I ask because Aldous Huxley once wrote an interesting paper called 'Brave New World Revisited' in which he suggested that once we start giving up hard-won freedoms we may lose the capacity to regain them. I am shocked that you now have 'free-speech zones' (what next - free speech booths, like peep-shows?), without apparent protest. Is this the result of gradual erosion?

[NateTG]

Hasn't the government set up public radio to air views from the citizenry? If the Dixie Chicks asked (say) National Public Radio to air their songs to support a particular view, and NPR refused, who is doing the censorship then?

National Public Radio (NPR) is not a radio station, and does not control any radio stations. NPR produces programming (content) that radio stations buy. As such, NPR is not capable of airing anything. I'm not entirely clear about what you mean by 'public radio station' otherwise.

Regardless, inequitable treatment from a government monopoly represents a problem, according to a similar argument, for example, it's OK for the telephone company to refuse to put a line into your house because they provide public telephones, even if they provide that service to some people.

And, although I believe in the notion of corporate censorship, and I think that it may be a problem, my argument here isn't about censorship but about disenfranchisement.

Notably, getting back to the original topic of the thread, the practice of creating protest zones is almost certainly political censorship because people are cordoned into these protest zones based on the message that they're promulgating, and not because of their behavior.

PS Is the "Hasn't the government set up public radio stations..," an intentional reference to Scrooge's argument about poorhouses in A Christmas Carol?

[JohnDubYa]

Okay, so let's go back to my question: If a tv news reporter uses the N-bomb (now that we know what it is) in a public interview, should the network have the right to fire him?

It seems as if freedom of speech only extends to those situations that agree with a person's political beliefs.

[NateTG]

Okay, so let's go back to my question: If a tv news reporter uses the N-bomb (now that we know what it is) in a public interview, should the network have the right to fire him?

My position is that any employer can fire any employee for any reason, but that those reasons, and the nature of the termination is subject to any restrictions described in the contract of employment.
Depending on context, dropping N-bombs probably qualifies as unprofessional or inappropriate conduct in some situations.

[JohnDubYa]

And the same reasoning applies to radio station owners and their playlists. That's all I was saying.

[Njorl]

So.....you don't know where it came from, therefore right-wingers are grasping at straws? Hmm....

No, I was unable to find a single other instance of this racial slur used like Rather is accused of using it, therefore the right wingers are probably grasping at straws.*

I have seen "The Buckwheats" refer to:

1. Diarhea - probably referring to the similarity of such to buckwheat pancake batter.

2. Being frighted to the point of 1. above.

3. A slow death by beating involving the breaking of most of the large bones in the body.

4. A type of pillow.

"A case of the buckwheats" sounds to me like number 2. (No pun intended)

*I have since found one, but it seems to be mimicking the Rather comment.

Njorl

[Robert Zaleski]

Heeeere's Buckwheat. Bill "Buckwheat" Thomas died in Oct 80.

[JohnDubYa]

No, I was unable to find a single other instance of this racial slur used like Rather is accused of using it, therefore the right wingers are probably grasping at straws.*

No one here is saying that Rather should be fired. It was just an interesting story, that's all. What I found most interesting is Dan Rather's handling of the story, which to me is pretty underhanded.

As for more on Dan, here is a link to some of his politically biased comments:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/7/16/214343.shtml

[JohnDubYa]

By the way, if the term "buckwheats" means "scared," I think we know where it comes from, and it has nothing to do with pancakes. It is still a racial slur.

[JohnDubYa]

No, I was unable to find a single other instance of this racial slur used like Rather is accused of using it, therefore the right wingers are probably grasping at straws.*


Haven't I already posted a link showing that it is indeed a racial slur? (And a pretty obvious one, considering the character Buckwheat on tv.)

[the number 42]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

[NateTG]

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

The belief of 'freedom of expression' because the US spouts massive propaganda about it, and produced most of the mass media content in the world. In many ways, I see the mainstream US culture as puritanical and repressive, which is quite ironic considering how focused we are on physical beauty.

From my experience, monied interests control almost all media dissemination methods. So, while you may be able to personally express any opinion you like, you need to get advertisers in order to publish, or broadcast it. Since there are something like 5 companies that control all of the broadcasr TV channels, something that is contrary to their interest isn't particularly likely to make it to broadcast TV. It's a bit easier to get on the radio, but even that is steadily being monopolized.

[BobG]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

Actually, I understand the reasoning behind it, even if I disagree with it. Its a pragmatic solution designed to reduce some of the problems protests can create with the least amount of effort.

There should be some limits. Examples:

Protestors blocking abortion clinics and harassing the people going in and out is a little extreme. While I certainly don't support abortion, it is legal and the decision to opt for abortion isn't normally an easy decision. I think harassing the folks going in and out is a little stronger violation of their rights than having telemarketers call you at any hour. Forcing protests to be a safe distance away was a good solution.

During a war protest here in Colorado Springs last year, the protest wound up spilling into the street, forcing traffic to be shut off until the protestors could be removed. The protestors exercise of their right to free speech extended to violating the rights of other inhabitants of the city.

Regardless, the idea of 'free speech zones' is kind of ominous. The better, if less efficient solution, would be to deal with the few problems as they crop up.

[NateTG]

Actually, I understand the reasoning behind it, even if I disagree with it. Its a pragmatic solution designed to reduce some of the problems protests can create with the least amount of effort.

The notion of a free speech zone represents prior restraint if people are assigned to the free speech zone based on the message that they endorse, which, as far as I know, happens quite frequently.

Protestors blocking abortion clinics and harassing the people going in and out is a little extreme. While I certainly don't support abortion, it is legal and the decision to opt for abortion isn't normally an easy decision. I think harassing the folks going in and out is a little stronger violation of their rights than having telemarketers call you at any hour. Forcing protests to be a safe distance away was a good solution.

Harrasment and assault are crimes. If the police wanted to do something about it, they should arrest people for those crimes, and prosecute them. One of the massive policy snafus in this country is that people want to make additional laws when enforcing existing ones would be quite adequate.


During a war protest here in Colorado Springs last year, the protest wound up spilling into the street, forcing traffic to be shut off until the protestors could be removed. The protestors exercise of their right to free speech extended to violating the rights of other inhabitants of the city.

Exactly what rights were the protestors violating?


Regardless, the idea of 'free speech zones' is kind of ominous. The better, if less efficient solution, would be to deal with the few problems as they crop up.

My understanding is that police tactics have been rather devious. It has been suggested, with some good evidence, that the police goal is to create a dangerous situation so that they can take drastic action. Consequently, the protesters are cordoned into small areas and the police are systematically noisy and intimidating, in an attempt to provoke a reaction so they can break out the tear gas and capsicum and break up the protest.

[BobG]

The notion of a free speech zone represents prior restraint if people are assigned to the free speech zone based on the message that they endorse, which, as far as I know, happens quite frequently.



Harrasment and assault are crimes. If the police wanted to do something about it, they should arrest people for those crimes, and prosecute them. One of the massive policy snafus in this country is that people want to make additional laws when enforcing existing ones would be quite adequate.



Exactly what rights were the protestors violating?



My understanding is that police tactics have been rather devious. It has been suggested, with some good evidence, that the police goal is to create a dangerous situation so that they can take drastic action. Consequently, the protesters are cordoned into small areas and the police are systematically noisy and intimidating, in an attempt to provoke a reaction so they can break out the tear gas and capsicum and break up the protest.

I agree with most of your post.

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic. This is a long tradition which even carries over to rivers - i.e. in the Eastern US (which has a longer tradition) land owners don't own navigable rivers which pass through their land and they can't do anything to block river traffic.

The professionalism of police departments varies from locale to locale, so I'm sure you could find some instances of which you speak. I'm not sure it would be as easy to support the idea that police in general are out to provoke a riot.

[Dissident Dan]

I agree with most of your post.

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic. This is a long tradition which even carries over to rivers - i.e. in the Eastern US (which has a longer tradition) land owners don't own navigable rivers which pass through their land and they can't do anything to block river traffic.

We're talking about dissenters at an already-occuring event. They are not blocking anything any more than the pro-bush attenders of his appearances are.

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

[the number 42]

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all.
Interesting. So how has the Bush administration managed to implement this with so little protest. And I don't mean mass demonstrations, I mean just general protest in the media etc. Don't tell me the media restrict your every word :eek:


Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.
Hmmm... Someone's bound to call you on this one, Dan, so it may as well be me.

[kat]

We're talking about dissenters at an already-occuring event. They are not blocking anything any more than the pro-bush attenders of his appearances are.

This is not something that normally is done. Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

What did I miss? I thought you had posted about the "Free speach zone" outside of the Democratic convention? Employed by the DNC?

[JohnDubYa]

... which as caused you to change your vote to Ralph Nader. :)

[NateTG]

The protestors were violating the rights of other city inhabitants by blocking a public thoroughfare. Contrary to what some may think, a public street doesn't mean it can be used by the public for anything they please. You can't construct barricades (human or other), etc. which block traffic.

Isn't it a bit strange to suggest that blocking a public thoroughfare is a violation of rights when there are regular planned and sactioned events - motorcates, parades, and road construction - that block them? The arguments made to justify removing protesters from streets are typically couched in notions of safety and the greater common good rather than some nebulous right to use public thuroughfares and, in general, these arguments make sense.

However, since the establisment controls the issuance of demonstration permits as well as the ability to remove protesters from the streets, it has powers that, in combination, can be used to squelch public assembly by issuing protest permits to inapprorpate locations followed by police action based on these notions of public safety and the greater common good.

[JohnDubYa]

Heh. The Establishment. Right on!!!

However, since the establisment controls the issuance of demonstration permits as well as the ability to remove protesters from the streets, it has powers that, in combination, can be used to squelch public assembly by issuing protest permits to inapprorpate locations followed by police action based on these notions of public safety and the greater common good.

Well, some entity has to have control unless you favor anarchy.

Suppose a few of my friends decided to block the street, thus preventing you from leaving for work. Who ya' gonna' call? I hope it isn't THE ESTABLISHMENT.

[NateTG]

Suppose a few of my friends decided to block the street, thus preventing you from leaving for work. Who ya' gonna' call?

I would probably go around. Of course, your question is mostly rhetoric, since I did conceede that removing blockages is usually appropriate. Moreover, there is obviously a difference between people who are deliberately blocking traffic, and people who are trying to produce political discourse.

The problem is that giving a single licence to disperse spillover, and control over protest locations (e.g. 'free speech zones') is tantamount giving that organization from preventing protest outright.

[Dissident Dan]

Interesting. So how has the Bush administration managed to implement this with so little protest. And I don't mean mass demonstrations, I mean just general protest in the media etc. Don't tell me the media restrict your every word :eek:


Many groups, such as the ACLU, have spoken out. I have read a few online articles regarding it, some from regular newspapers, but by and large the media hasn't done its job. Why? Because the corporate media does not see profits in that.


Hmmm... Someone's bound to call you on this one, Dan, so it may as well be me.

Well, do it, then. What I meant by my statement is that for the vast majority of our history, these "free speech zones" were not set up at presidential appearances, and all hell did NOT break lose. Therefore, these zones have been empirically shown to be unnecessary.

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

BTW, I am not voting for Nader.

[the number 42]

Only bush has employed it to this degree. I think that most presidents never employed it at all. Empirical evidence shows that it is not necessary.

...for the vast majority of our history, these "free speech zones" were not set up at presidential appearances, and all hell did NOT break lose. Therefore, these zones have been empirically shown to be unnecessary.

Fair enough. I usually think of 'empirical' as meaning 'research based', usually quantitative, but that's just me. In any case I accept your point - what can be better evidence than repeated experience? It just make the current 'free speech zone' seem all the more unnecessary.

[Njorl]

Can we stick to Bush & censorship please? The other topic is interesting, but for another thread.

I am still curious about the lack of public reaction against the free speech zones. Other parts of the world have traditionally admired and envied the freedom of expression championed by the US.

Evidently, the free-speech zones at the DNC are pretty much empty. There are many protestors at the Fleet Center, but they are behaving themselves. They seem to be using weirdness rather than confrontation to get attention.

Njorl

[russ_watters]

Evidently, the free-speech zones at the DNC are pretty much empty. There are many protestors at the Fleet Center, but they are behaving themselves. They seem to be using weirdness rather than confrontation to get attention. Have you ever been to Boston (nice town, my sister lives there). There are always protesters at Harvard Square and they are very entertaining, but also usually polite.