In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Give me a Break another new law Proposed
grumpygy
Member Posts: 48,464 ✭✭✭
About singing the National Anthem. While people Like Roseanne Barr Need shot the rest at least are trying .
quote:
Absurd is a fitting description of a bill recently introduced by Indiana Republican state Sen. Vaneta Becker that would fine anyone, professional or amateur, who modifies the National Anthem while singing at a public school or a university-sponsored event in the state.
No doubt the National Anthem Police will soon be deployed to keep all performers of the song in line. Surely Becker's state has bigger issues to tackle.
Her bill, if passed, would require performers to sign a contract pledging to stick to the originally written lyrics and traditional melody of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Those who change the words could be subject to a $25 fine.
"Sometimes it's (the tweaking of the song) just done in a joking manner, but I don't think the National Anthem is something we ought to be joking around with," Becker told the Indianapolis Star.
As part of the proposed legislation, schools would be forced to maintain audio recordings of every National Anthem sung in their gyms and on their fields, in case anyone complains. Indiana wouldn't be the first state to enact a bill setting standards for the anthem - Massachusetts and Michigan already ban embellishments to the tune. Talk about states with control issues.
So Becker's a Republican? Isn't that the party that rails against big government interfering in the lives of Americans and advocates cutting government spending and bureaucracy? Now Becker wants to add yet another foolish law to the books and let the state pay to enforce it?
We concur with this observation about the proliferation of such laws on the online blog Helium: "What has crippled America, and will continue to do so, is the belief that government, in whatever form, should legislate all wrongs, eliminate all risk, provide a remedy for all social problems, and provide for `everybody,' at the expense of `everybody,' and by doing this, create so many laws they truly do * American society."
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of The First Amendment Center, makes excellent points about Becker's bill:
"The problems come in trying to legislate that strong feeling of respect within others, and to punish those who do not comply.
"First, the First Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to sing from different songbooks, so to speak, without fear of government punishment. Making light of lyrics or turning the words to a particular purpose may well offend some, but `offending some' is not a criterion we want government using to restrict our freedom of speech," Policinski writes.
"Speech we don't like is countered best by more speech, not by trying to shut off, or fine, the potentially offending speaker.
"And as a practical matter in an age of YouTube viral videos, trying to suppress a performance may just guarantee it as an instant, worldwide sensation."
As for the bill's requirement that performers sign a contract pledging to stick to the originally written lyrics and traditional melody of "The Star-Spangled Banner," Policinski notes: "Some decades ago, Jimi Hendrix's guitar version most likely would have fallen outside those definitions. But for a Baby Boomer, a replay today likely evokes more nostalgia - even patriotic feelings - than counterculture protest."
We cringe, too, whether someone unintentionally flubs the National Anthem or deliberately disrespects it. But Becker's defense of the anthem isn't the issue. What's at stake is the freedom of speech we all are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Sen. Becker, patriotism cannot be legislated, and government should never be in the business of trying to control what people feel or what they think.
The world's been down that frightening road before.
quote:
Absurd is a fitting description of a bill recently introduced by Indiana Republican state Sen. Vaneta Becker that would fine anyone, professional or amateur, who modifies the National Anthem while singing at a public school or a university-sponsored event in the state.
No doubt the National Anthem Police will soon be deployed to keep all performers of the song in line. Surely Becker's state has bigger issues to tackle.
Her bill, if passed, would require performers to sign a contract pledging to stick to the originally written lyrics and traditional melody of "The Star-Spangled Banner." Those who change the words could be subject to a $25 fine.
"Sometimes it's (the tweaking of the song) just done in a joking manner, but I don't think the National Anthem is something we ought to be joking around with," Becker told the Indianapolis Star.
As part of the proposed legislation, schools would be forced to maintain audio recordings of every National Anthem sung in their gyms and on their fields, in case anyone complains. Indiana wouldn't be the first state to enact a bill setting standards for the anthem - Massachusetts and Michigan already ban embellishments to the tune. Talk about states with control issues.
So Becker's a Republican? Isn't that the party that rails against big government interfering in the lives of Americans and advocates cutting government spending and bureaucracy? Now Becker wants to add yet another foolish law to the books and let the state pay to enforce it?
We concur with this observation about the proliferation of such laws on the online blog Helium: "What has crippled America, and will continue to do so, is the belief that government, in whatever form, should legislate all wrongs, eliminate all risk, provide a remedy for all social problems, and provide for `everybody,' at the expense of `everybody,' and by doing this, create so many laws they truly do * American society."
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of The First Amendment Center, makes excellent points about Becker's bill:
"The problems come in trying to legislate that strong feeling of respect within others, and to punish those who do not comply.
"First, the First Amendment guarantees the right of Americans to sing from different songbooks, so to speak, without fear of government punishment. Making light of lyrics or turning the words to a particular purpose may well offend some, but `offending some' is not a criterion we want government using to restrict our freedom of speech," Policinski writes.
"Speech we don't like is countered best by more speech, not by trying to shut off, or fine, the potentially offending speaker.
"And as a practical matter in an age of YouTube viral videos, trying to suppress a performance may just guarantee it as an instant, worldwide sensation."
As for the bill's requirement that performers sign a contract pledging to stick to the originally written lyrics and traditional melody of "The Star-Spangled Banner," Policinski notes: "Some decades ago, Jimi Hendrix's guitar version most likely would have fallen outside those definitions. But for a Baby Boomer, a replay today likely evokes more nostalgia - even patriotic feelings - than counterculture protest."
We cringe, too, whether someone unintentionally flubs the National Anthem or deliberately disrespects it. But Becker's defense of the anthem isn't the issue. What's at stake is the freedom of speech we all are guaranteed by the Constitution.
Sen. Becker, patriotism cannot be legislated, and government should never be in the business of trying to control what people feel or what they think.
The world's been down that frightening road before.
Comments
What Roseanne Barr did to the song should've been criminal....
and lately there have been some singers that didn't know the words or chose to change them.
I still like Jimi Hendrix's instrumental version --
It ain't like Francis Scott Key is getting royalties from "The Star Spangled Banner" -- the song is in the public domain which means it's subject to fair use, and that alone would negate Beker's proposal.
What Roseanne Barr did to the song should've been criminal....
and lately there have been some singers that didn't know the words or chose to change them.
I still like Jimi Hendrix's instrumental version --
Someone brought up Jimi Hendrix's and would that be against this Bill. Some make changes and do a great Job, and some piss us off. But no need for a law.
What about the Kid at the Portland Basketball Game that just froze Should she get fined. I think Not.
In Politics, Sports on November 30, 2011 at 9:00 AM
Unanimous.
WASHINGTON-Recent surveys have shown that 74% of Americans want the national anthem changed from the current "Star Spangled Banner," which has served as the anthem since the country's inception, to the more modern and contemporary "NFL on FOX theme song." In a show of good will to the public after months of negative publicity, Congress wasted no time in passing this bill.
"Who doesn't get fired up when hearing that?" said Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) speaking of the new national anthem. "[The Star Spangled Banner] was always kind of a crappy song anyway. It's clumsy sounding, it's hard to sing, and dammit its not `MERICAN enough!" McCain then spent the rest of his statement to the media obnoxiously singing the theme. "Dah-dah-dah dah-dah DAH! Dah-dah-dah dah-dah DAAAAAAHH!"
Polls also show that not only do Americans want the national anthem changed to the NFL on FOX theme song, but they want it sung and performed by Toby Keith. "One thing at a time, folks," continued McCain. "Baby steps. We'll get there."
On the same bill, Congress also included the rule that the President must now conclude his speeches with "'Merica for `mericans, and freedom isn't free," replacing the customary "God bless the United States of America
OK So it is a Fake report...
It's easy to critique something using today's thinking....
the rose ann example given here is perfect example, she screwed up and is still paying the price, can you imagine the already pressure someone may have singing the song in front of tens of thousands, and possibly millions on television, and now the added pressure of "screw this up and your going to jail"
how about adding the weatherman in there for lousy forcast
1. First Amendment
2. Imagine the litigation costs attached to the prosecution and defense of such a law. All for a $25.00 fine?
Idiocy gone awry.