You're pretty hung up on the fact that I seem to think anti-Dixie Chick mobs NOT be able to express themselves. That must have been from my comment "You know, anti-Dixie Chick mobs shouldn't legally be able to express themselves". Of course, I'm looking.....looking.....looking.....damn, son, I can't find where I said that. Maybe you can point it out to me.
say this..... "If people wanna take a page out of pre-war Berlin and act like easily controlled petty thugs, more power to em."
Hmmmmmn. Sounds like more liberal totalitarianism to me, don't it now?
....it's that time honored conservative tradition of making up both sides of the argument, just to expedite righteousness!? You be the judge.)
This is not
the First Ammendment argument you want it to be. I never said arrest the anti-Chick chicks. Or guys. Or poodles.
Now, on to der Vaterland.
Most of the heinous sh*t done in the last gasps of the Weimar and the indifferent early days of Hitler's reign were done by the Nazi Party. Party rallies, not government
rallies. So there goes the comparison that CD
steamrolling events have the blessing...at least officially... of the local town elders.
And what happened at those rallies
. Precisely what makes THIS COMPARISON valid.......Symbols of hated, despised opinions were destroyed by self righteous mobs.
Did we get that? I'll say it again....Symbols of hated, despised opinions were destroyed by self righteous mobs
. Is there anything in that one line that does NOT also cover a collection of stooges busting compact discs in a radio station parking lot? The answer is no. The actions are identical.
The comparison is valid. Now, if you'll also notice, I went out of my way to differentiate the environment. Is a radio station parking lot in Nashville, 2003, the same as a Nazi rally in Germany, 1938. No. You didn't pick up on that earlier, but I'll say it again. No.
The debate can continue to center around the premise that such an environment could exist
. Could modern America fall under the mental totalitarianism as Germany did, where CD
bashing parties are the least of our cultural worries? It's an interesting discussion. One that doesn't seem to want to be debated here. That's fine.
You could have taken the high road and finally opened your eyes to see this for exactly what it is - Ordinary citizens, exercising their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to Freedom of Expression, against someone else who was using their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights to Freedom of Expression.
Once again....say it out loud; this is NOT ....a.......First....Ammendment....Argument. I never said they couldn't.
And here's where we return to disagreement. You call them 'ordinary citizens'. I disagree. Oridinary citizens put the opinion of a rock star in its' proper context.
At the very least, they shrug it off as 'whatever' (Mel Gibson is a radically orthodox Catholic. Ahhhnold is an outspoken Repub. I still see and enjoy their movies. The Pope is almost strangely homophobic. As a result, I'll take a pass at attending one of his franchises every Sunday. But no, I'm not Sinaed O Connor, and yes, she was an idiot too).
At the most, not one more cent of their money goes to making that opinionated celebrity with whom they disagree any richer. I bought some Amway products once, way back before I found out the founders were almost single handedly funding some of the more radical right wing agendas. I don't buy them anymore. I did not hold a soap burning.
As to our book burners and our cd crushers, no I don't call them 'ordinary'. Their small numbers relative to the general populace indicate I'm correct in that assumption. And it's my belief that their action belies an uglier motivation......a "mob mentality", that because everyone around me is doing something I think is cool, it must be cool. It really is innocent enough when they're just compact discs. But ponder what that mentality could
(and has) legitimized in the past. And maybe...I'm not holding my breath, but maybe...you'll see a sliver of my original point.