Hollyweird Still Doesn't Get It

The Dixie Chicks are at it again. A CBS news interview records the following remarks:

"The Dixie Chicks also expressed disappointment in President Bush's remarks about Maines' overseas comments. The president said of the group, 'They can say what they want to say. ... they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. I mean ... you know, freedom is a two-way street.'

Emily Robison said Mr. Bush 'wasn't standing up for the principles that our country are founded on.'

Martie Maguire said he basically was saying, 'You got what you deserved' and 'This is what's going to happen if you keep speaking out.' "

Is Ms. Robison implying that one of the principles of this country is that I have to support the Dixie Chicks by buying their products, even though I disagree with the Dixie Chicks sentiments? Even if I don't like country western music? What these entertainers (and others) still don't get is that although the right to speak freely is guaranteed, the freedom from the consequences of your speech is not. It is disingenuous to make the implication that it's not American to NOT buy their records, but it's the American way to not shop Coke (an anti-apartheid target in the late 80's/early 90's) or Wal-Mart and to organize such boycotts. Every individual has the right, the RIGHT, to express displeasure with the actions of others, even if the expression of that displeasure is by not purchasing products of those persons or companies that offend the individual.

I find that in the context of the quote made in the CBS interview, President Bush is simply taking the position that individuals may exercise their rights as consumers to not purchase their products. It would seem from the article as well that the group is reading too much into the President's remarks.

Eugene Volokh wrote and excellent blog entry back in April 2003 examining this matter. Volokh makes an interesting point as he finds that although it is within our rights to not frequent businesses or entertainers who we might find offensive, it MAY BE unethical to organize economic boycotts because it may impair "the ability to speak without the fear of losing one's livelihood as a result". He does not quite conclude as such (insofar as that particular blog entry is concerned) for he stops just short with a call to investigate such issues.

(Hat tip to Allah in the House for the article reference and for much sarcasm: "Is this the kind of Jew you want as your leader? One who defends your right to buy what you want? Oh the wind--it blows chilly!")