Google backs fatwa with Cat Stevens?

[Wolter]

When the pawn hits the conflicts he thinks like a king
What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight
And he'll win the whole thing 'fore he enters the ring
There's no body to batter when your mind is your might
So when you go solo, you hold your own hand
And remember that depth is the greatest of heights
And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land
And if you fall it won't matter, cuz you'll know that you're right

If anyone can come up with a douchier, more pretentious album title, please share.

That's the worst. This may come in 2nd:

Hey, in what decade were both those douchey albums released?

Good question. Was it the same one that these were released?

[JennyB]

When the pawn hits the conflicts he thinks like a king
What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight
And he'll win the whole thing 'fore he enters the ring
There's no body to batter when your mind is your might
So when you go solo, you hold your own hand
And remember that depth is the greatest of heights
And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land
And if you fall it won't matter, cuz you'll know that you're right

If anyone can come up with a douchier, more pretentious album title, please share.

That's the worst. This may come in 2nd:

Hey, in what decade were both those douchey albums released?

Good question. Was it the same one that these were released?

[Dr. Medulla]

I got a whole truckload of that stuff for y'alls.

[rcs]

When the pawn hits the conflicts he thinks like a king
What he knows throws the blows when he goes to the fight
And he'll win the whole thing 'fore he enters the ring
There's no body to batter when your mind is your might
So when you go solo, you hold your own hand
And remember that depth is the greatest of heights
And if you know where you stand, then you know where to land
And if you fall it won't matter, cuz you'll know that you're right

If anyone can come up with a douchier, more pretentious album title, please share.

That's the worst. This may come in 2nd:

Hey, in what decade were both those douchey albums released?

Good question. Was it the same one that these were released?

come'on... hootie was all the rage! dan marino liked 'em!

[darter]

I'm not suggesting government censorship - rather I am suggesting that those who wish to protect free speech allow those who oppose it to quietly wither away. The royalties he will earn from selling his music prevents this from happening. Anyway, I see he has a comeback tour of England scheduled. Nothing good can come of that.

[arsebundren77]

I'm not suggesting government censorship - rather I am suggesting that those who wish to protect free speech allow those who oppose it to quietly wither away. The royalties he will earn from selling his music prevents this from happening. Anyway, I see he has a comeback tour of England scheduled. Nothing good can come of that.

I see where you're coming from but when you expect some sort of ethical behaviour from an entity that is concerned only with the shifting of units to an apathetic group of consumers, you're going to be invariably disappointed. The thing is, the average person -- unless they have an English degree -- has never heard of Salman Rushdie, let alone read any of his books or even realizes that Cat Stevens converted to Islam in the late 70's and changed his name to Yusef Islam and, henceforth, supported a fatwa against the former in the late 80's (which is, like, the stone-age) for, yeah, one of his books they've never read. Now, if Yusef Islam supported a fatwa against Dan Brown, Danielle Steele or John Grisham, Starbucks might have a shit storm on their hands. As it is, they don't.

[Olaf]

I'm not suggesting government censorship - rather I am suggesting that those who wish to protect free speech allow those who oppose it to quietly wither away. The royalties he will earn from selling his music prevents this from happening.

I can see where you're coming from too, but the result would be the same, a de facto occupational ban, no?

Even if I did agree with the boycott idea I'd find it difficult to draw the line. What about movie theatres showing "Harold and Maude"? What about other artists covering his songs?

[Olaf]

Cash's version of Father & Son is fucking tremendous (even with Fiona Apple)

Agreed. Can you imagine how good it could have been if he'd used someone non-hateful?

Like Ellen Foley.

[Flex]

I can see where you're coming from too, but the result would be the same, a de facto occupational ban, no?

I think the difference is that a government ban works by infringing on someone's rights (to free speech and so forth), while - in this particular case - a group of citizens agreeing to a boycott doesn't infringe on any rights. We, as consumers, are under no obligation to buy anyone's good or service and so long as there isn't force (or the threat of force) levied against anyone who is trying to buy that good or service, it's completely in keeping with upholding Yusuf Islam's rights for others to try and encourage folks not to buy his goods or service. The open and free marketplace of ideas and all that.

Or, in other words, Yusuf Islam has no "right" to a successful career. He simply has the right to pursue one without infringement from authorities of power. One might choose not to monetarily support someone for any number of ethical considerations. Encouraging others to do so is entirely in keeping with respecting the rights of others, so long as you aren't levying force against anyone.

Addendum: Ultimately, having a "right" doesn't mean "you can believe and say whatever you want with no repercussions." Maybe you think the latter should (or some modification thereof, since that was a rather extreme articulation of a basic idea) be true, and there's certainly an argument for it, but that isn't the same thing as a "right," which is a very narrow and particular thing, relating specifically to autonomy and how force can be applied against others. When we're discussing the difference between a private boycott and a government ban, the issue of rights make those two things very fundamentally different.

Addendum II: Hohfeld's Analysis of Rights was recommended to me a while back (not from eumaas, even!) and it's quite good.

[Olaf]

Of course there's a big difference whether the goose is slaughtered by the government or everyone just agrees not to feed it anymore. Not for the goose though, that's all I was saying.

But you're right, Flexy, I made it look like I was equating a boycott to censorship, shouldn't have put it that way.

[darter]

I really am wondering how his tour will go since Englishman have for many years fought to preserve nearly free speech in their country. Though, as an American I have one view and I suppose Europeans have quite another. I was astonished when I read that author/presumed nutjob David Irving was arrested for the offense of Holocaust Denial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4446646.stm

Arresting him just seemed like the perfect Nazi thing to do.

[Wolter]

I really am wondering how his tour will go since Englishman have for many years fought to preserve nearly free speech in their country.

Not really.

[Olaf]

I really am wondering how his tour will go since Englishman have for many years fought to preserve nearly free speech in their country. Though, as an American I have one view and I suppose Europeans have quite another. I was astonished when I read that author/presumed nutjob David Irving was arrested for the offense of Holocaust Denial.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4446646.stm

Arresting him just seemed like the perfect Nazi thing to do.

While I do not agree with that particular law, I think that's a bit harsh.

I think the idea behind it is that if you're denying the Holocaust, it's usually with discriminatory intent.

[matedog]

For the record I own every single Fiona Apple record, Cracked Rear View, and Melon collie. No August and Everything after though.

[darter]

I think the idea behind it is that if you're denying the Holocaust, it's usually with discriminatory intent.

Yes, though in America we would normally wait for the for the intentions to be realized through criminal acts that are themselves prosecuted (except threats, conspiracy,etc.) The concept of prosecuting "ideas" however is generally viewed as un-American. Hence, the debate arises whether burning an American flag is "speech" (sacrosanct) or criminal conduct. But jailing a mere author would be way to weird. That is why I am astonished to see American corporations supporting Cat Stevens.

Reminds me of :

"When we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use." -Stalin

Which could be a good start for an album title.