• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hank Williams Jr., 1st Amendment Rights?

Hank Williams Jr.'s 1st Amendment Rights were they violated or infringed upon?

  • Total voters
    59
Dav said:
Not that much longer. The ratio of Bush results to Obama results are more than 7 to 1.

You're probably right about Bush haters using the Internet more, but I highly doubt that's the sole reason for such a huge difference.

You also have to account for there being continuously more people on the Internet; at least, there's more people online now than there were in 2003. That should actually increase the results for Obama, even if other things work against it.
Click to expand...


People who compared Bush to Hitler don't stop comparing Bush to Hitler just because he's out of office. And the results probably contain this page which contains both Bush and Obama together with the term Hitler.

Also the Dixie Chicks got pulled off the air just for criticizing Bush.
 
PzKfW IVe said:
When the Dixie Chicks said somethng critical about GWB and their songs were pulled from country radio, the liberals whined about their right to say what they wanted.

Guessing those same people are pretty silent now. Wonder why that would be.
Click to expand...


Who said that the Dixie Chicks' first amendment rights were violated on this forum?
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
of course, absolutely!

but that doesnt mean there isnt repercussions for what one says or that sometimes what one says cant be taken back.

And not that it matters but in my opinion he planned and wanted to say that, (not all of it but talk about the golf game) if you watch the video its not like a segway led into it, he kind of randomly brought it.

and what does george dickle have to do with it?
Click to expand...
Well if we can agree that Hank likely doesn't know what the hell he's talking about half of the time and that (even though I llike his music) he's a washed-up performer, burned out on alcohol and drug consumption then common sense should tell us that statements like this from him are completely irrelevant and in no way reflect negatively upon ESPN...............BUT...........our politically correct tendencies tell us that he must be held accountable for such horrific remarks, thus the infraction was laid down by ESPN. Who, in their right mind, with any shred of common sense, would hold ESPN accountable for what someone with the mental capacity of Hank says? See the lack of rational behavior and lack of common sense yet?
 
FluffyNinja said:
Well if we can agree that Hank likely doesn't know what the hell he's talking about half of the time and that (even though I llike his music) he's a washed-up performer, burned out on alcohol and drug consumption then common sense should tell us that statements like this from him are completely irrelevant and in no way reflect negatively upon ESPN...............BUT...........our politically correct tendencies tell us that he must be held accountable for such horrific remarks, thus the infraction was laid down by ESPN. Who, in their right mind, with any shred of common sense, would hold ESPN accountable for what someone with the mental capacity of Hank says? See the lack of rational behavior and lack of common sense yet?
Click to expand...

Well I agree that MOST wouldnt hold ESPN accountable I still dont see the lack of rational behavior and commons sense except on the part of Hank

im a nobody lol but if I get on TV and say the wrong thing I could lose my job too :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Centrist77 said:
I read on here and some other places that people think that Hanks/1st amendment rights were violated or infringed upon in some what.

DO you think this is true?
Click to expand...
No, his statement was edited by a privately owned company that has every right to censor its content. The first amendment protects the Peoples right to freedom of speech from being abridged by the government. ESPN is not the government. Carry on.
 
Well im glad everyone agrees I guess the few people I say say otherwise realized how wrong they were
 
FluffyNinja said:
Well if we can agree that Hank likely doesn't know what the hell he's talking about half of the time and that (even though I llike his music) he's a washed-up performer, burned out on alcohol and drug consumption then common sense should tell us that statements like this from him are completely irrelevant and in no way reflect negatively upon ESPN...............BUT...........our politically correct tendencies tell us that he must be held accountable for such horrific remarks, thus the infraction was laid down by ESPN. Who, in their right mind, with any shred of common sense, would hold ESPN accountable for what someone with the mental capacity of Hank says? See the lack of rational behavior and lack of common sense yet?
Click to expand...

ESPN made the smart bet with regard to firing Hank. It's not about reflecting negatively on them. It's about the advertising slots immediately before and after the intro to MNF. Advertisers, worrying about people's political sensibilities, don't wish to be associated with such inflammatory statements in any way so they choose to avoid those advertising slots.

This costs ESPN money.

ESPN is in the business of making money, so they eradicate the problem by firing Hank. Now they get advertisers for those slots (Which are prime real estate in the ad world).

If we're going to talk about common sense, then we have to include the most important variable in ESPN's decision making: money.

Hank Williams Jr didn't generate any revenue for them. He's totally and completely expendable. Those advertising slots are generate quite a bit of revenue for them. They are the most important part of the MNF intro for them.

Thus, the common sense decision is to fire the expendable, no-revenue-generating singer in order to protect those advertising slots and the revenue that they generate.
 
VanceMack said:
You have the right to say pretty much anything you want. You dont have the right to avoid consequences.
Click to expand...

Actually, people have every right to avoid consequences for their actions, if they are smart enough to figure out how. It may not be moral, but if they are smart enough to outwit any blow back from their actions, they are free to do so for good or ill.

This could be a good or bad thing, depending on perspective and the exact nature of the situation.
 
Hank can say what he wants, he has to live with the consequences. I think its kind of dumb to drop him over this, and I think the story became far larger and far more wide spread because ESPN took action than if they HADN'T taken action, but I don't think its a huge deal.

I think in reality they probably would like to go with a more modern intro but its hard to get rid of something that has become a tradition and this gave them a great out.
 
To me this goes back to the Dixie Chicks thing. There is nothing wrong with not playing them, but seriously, what the ****? They are entertainers. I don't care what a musician thinks about politics, that is not why I listen to them. It's the same thing as my not caring who politicians sleep with...it is irrelevant to what I want out of politicians, which is good politics. What I want out of musicians is good music, and I could care less who they think is like Hitler.
 
Redress said:
To me this goes back to the Dixie Chicks thing. There is nothing wrong with not playing them, but seriously, what the ****? They are entertainers. I don't care what a musician thinks about politics, that is not why I listen to them. It's the same thing as my not caring who politicians sleep with...it is irrelevant to what I want out of politicians, which is good politics. What I want out of musicians is good music, and I could care less who they think is like Hitler.
Click to expand...

What's interesting to me is this kind of blowback seems to affect country music more than other music.
 
Tucker Case said:
What's interesting to me is this kind of blowback seems to affect country music more than other music.
Click to expand...

The words "country" and "music" do not belong together.
 
Redress said:
The words "country" and "music" do not belong together.
Click to expand...

Maybe back in the old days with guys like Johnny Cash the two words could be side-by-side. Now country is just about who can sing with the most country twang and talk about the most redneck topics.
 
I saw what he said and I don't for one minute think he called Obama Hitler. He was only pointing out how ridiculous he thought it was for the two of them to be meeting and playing golf.
 
Councilman said:
I saw what he said and I don't for one minute think he called Obama Hitler. He was only pointing out how ridiculous he thought it was for the two of them to be meeting and playing golf.
Click to expand...

Why is it ridiculous for two people to play golf while they negotiate? It is used in every other profession when people want to get together and talk business. Let's call a spade a spade here, these are two professionals with two different view points who met together over a sport to talk politics. What is wrong with that? It is not like they went and saw a romantic comedy together. If Obama and Boehner go see "27 Dresses", give me a call then.
 
All I can say is that you can take the boy out of the trailer, but you can't take the trailer out of the boy.
 
Hank Williams' freedom of speech rights were NOT violated. The 1st Amendment protects that freedom from against the government, not a private company.
 
Hank Williams Jr.'s rights were certainly NOT violated... a corporation made a legal albeit politically correct move - a move that lowered my opinion (further) of the producers of Monday Night Football. Others have mentioned the left-leaning double standard and that, unfortunately, comes with the vast majority of major network media. That was par for the course. I am most disappointed in Hank Williams Jr. for apologizing for a perfectly good analogy! As others have said, he did not appear to call Obama Hitler, but used the hypothetical Hitler/Netanyahu scenario to show what should be the difference between Obama's policies and expected Republican policies. Williams appeared to be as disgusted as I tend to be when Republicans cozy up to Democrats socially in the name of compromize as if there is some good to be had by compromizing in the destruction of the US economy. His analogy and the apparent reason of his remark seemed quite defendable in my mind... then he apologized. Hank, you're probably too popular to lose your huge country music fans... but you lost status in my eyes! You should have stood your ground, but maybe you needed the money... that's too bad!
 
Councilman said:
I saw what he said and I don't for one minute think he called Obama Hitler. He was only pointing out how ridiculous he thought it was for the two of them to be meeting and playing golf.
Click to expand...
What he said could possibly be considered seditious.
 
rebelbuc said:
Hank Williams Jr.'s rights were certainly NOT violated... a corporation made a legal albeit politically correct move - a move that lowered my opinion (further) of the producers of Monday Night Football. Others have mentioned the left-leaning double standard and that, unfortunately, comes with the vast majority of major network media. That was par for the course. I am most disappointed in Hank Williams Jr. for apologizing for a perfectly good analogy! As others have said, he did not appear to call Obama Hitler, but used the hypothetical Hitler/Netanyahu scenario to show what should be the difference between Obama's policies and expected Republican policies. Williams appeared to be as disgusted as I tend to be when Republicans cozy up to Democrats socially in the name of compromize as if there is some good to be had by compromizing in the destruction of the US economy. His analogy and the apparent reason of his remark seemed quite defendable in my mind... then he apologized. Hank, you're probably too popular to lose your huge country music fans... but you lost status in my eyes! You should have stood your ground, but maybe you needed the money... that's too bad!
Click to expand...
What double standard? The Dixie Chicks made a disparaging remark against Bush and Clear Channel, the nation's leading radio broadcaster, banned them from their some 1,200 stations.
 
Redress said:
I suppose that is possible, in the Bizzarro universe.
Click to expand...

I'd say a case can easily be made that declaring the president and vice president your enemy qualifies as sedition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom