Censorship and the Free Market of Ideas
(This is a commentary piece written by staff writer Jesse Jeffers, which may not reflect the opinion or outlook of the Liberty Restoration Project)
Ted Nugent has recently drawn a lot of criticism for some comments made on stage about Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Several years ago, the Dixie Chicks were subject to a media blackout because lead singer Natalie Maines said, on stage and overseas, “We are ashamed that President Bush is from Texas.” Toby Keith has also drawn criticism for his staunch support of the Bush war policy, singing songs such as “The Angry American,” and “The Taliban Song.” In the film industry, Sean Penn has been under intense scrutiny by some for taking action in opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq. In 1999-2000, then Atlanta Braves pitcher John Rocker became a household name for his criticisms of racial minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, and “kids with purple hair.”
Such comments and the reactions to them are perfect examples that government censorship of these individuals is unnecessary and improper. In a truly free republic, the free market determines whether or not these issues will be damaging to a person’s career relatively quickly. For example, when you go to a store to buy a CD or DVD, or to see a movie, it is your right as a free citizen to buy or not to buy the CD, DVD, or movie ticket for whatever reason you choose. If a certain musician, movie star, or professional athlete has said things that are offensive, then you can boycott that individual’s product. At the point that sales start slipping into the red, the free market has effectively and Constitutionally censored the unpopular comments or opinions.
It seems that the reverse happens with sports. Often, people seem to come to stadiums to see a notorious figure like a John Rocker or a Barry Bonds just to express their objections to that person’s comments, demeanor, or lifestyle. Despite fan “disapproval”, their attendance probably encourages the controversial behavior more than their catcalls and home-made signs discourage it. An organized boycott appears to be a much better way to protest “unbecoming” behavior.
Americans as a whole grant far too much relevance to the opinions of these so-called “celebrities” anyway. One should ask himself or herself why they care when a celebrity makes a divisive statement. Some will say that society should be less tolerant of “controversy” from movie stars, athletes, and professional musicians because of their impact on the younger generation. Perhaps it is the case that the younger generation looks up to these individuals because the people who have closer relationships with them haven’t done their job of being good role models and setting an example that the children want to emulate.
Rather than censoring so-called “celebrities” on an organizational level, it is far more in line with the principles of liberty for individuals and the free market to determine what issues and opinions will be embraced and which will be discarded.
Tags: censorship, controversial statements, dixie chicks, free speech, Hillary Clinton, Sean Penn, Ted Nugent, toby keith
June 4th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
You are right on the money-I find the fact that celebrities’ opinions matter so much to their audience an odd mix of disturbing and funny-What is sad is,to an uninformed public where not even half the populace votes,they think these people are going to do it all for them,somehow,as in more people vote for the outcome of AMERICAN IDOL that for the president of the USA-Ben Affleck was trying to play pundit and activist,BUT WAS NOT EVEN REGISTERED TO VOTE(according to Larry Elder)-You are correct,these big-mouthed celebrities should not to be taken seriously until they think before they speak-It comes down to personal responsibility,as has been said before-Peace!
June 5th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Well, as a student who has a Ph.D on the thoughts of Charlie Daniels, let me just say that if a person wants to blindly follow a celebrity, that’s his business. The point I was trying to make is that sometimes individuals in the limelight make a lot of really divisive statements, and it makes no sense to censor these individuals on a government level. If you don’t like what a person says or does, boycott his or her product, plain and simple. If a person wants to take the words of Sean Penn or Charlie Daniels for gospel, then they have every right to do so in a free republic. Just don’t get upset when these individuals disagree with you.