From: Brady_David@Tandem.Com (David Brady)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: SINEAD O'CONNOR AND THE PERILS OF FREE SPEECH
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:36:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: tandem.1992Nov5.193657.14747
Organization: Tandem, Inc.
X-Xxdate: Thu, 5 Nov 92 19:37:09 GMT
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d11

In article <Bx8J79.I35@cs.vu.nl> Bruschke BAH, ben@cs.vu.nl writes:
>Now, first of all, I'm not the religious type and I don't really have (or
>rather had) anything against Sinnead O'Connor in particular but I think tearing
>up the picture was a stupid act. I'm completely fed up with people that do
>things like this to get attention (and I do think that was the only reason she
>did it) just because their music is not interesting enough.

(I've noted you don't want flames, but, like you, I would like to make a
general statement.)

You've implied that O'Connor did this because her music is uninteresting.* 
Instead, I would say that she did it because she feels she has a responsibility
to educate the public about perceived injustices in the world.  Whether she is
right or wrong doesn't matter.

The role of entertainers is more than simply being an entertainer - it has
always included using your influence to get your opinions to the masses. 
Everyone, famous or unknown, has this same basic right to express themselves. 
The famous, however, have an easier time publicizing their causes.  

Stating that an entertainer should keep out of politics/causes is like saying
that Perot really shouldn't have run for office.  After all, he is only a
businessman.  Or Ronnie, our president, a few years ago should stay out of
office - he's only an actor.  Or the tall bald fellow (can't remember his name)
in Midnight Oil shouldn't run for office in Australia - he's only a singer.  
All used their fame to get some points (good or bad) across - just like Sinead
used her fame to do the same.  I might or might not agree with any of their
ideals, but I respect them for actually doing something about it.   

O'Connor's act was intentionally designed to provoke a response.  She didn't
understand what huge repercussions her action would cause.  What she was hoping
for was some sincere discussion, but she instead caused people to become
polarized - people tend to either completely agree or completely disagree with
her.  But you can look at it this way - it worked, although at the expense of
her career perhaps.  She got a topic that is normally undiscussed in the media
- shortcomings of the Catholic ideology - discussed.  (For example, in one of
the newsgroups there has been a thread going on for about a MONTH now
discussing this.)  As a side issue it has also brought about discussions like
this regarding an artists right to express themselves and their
responsibilities to the public.

In my opinion, the more we discuss anything the better off we are.  Ignoring
does more harm than good.





* (Sinead fans would probably think otherwise.  I kind of liked her first
album.  The second one was OK.  Her newest is an interesting experiment.  To
set the record straight though - she doesn't irritate me, and I'm not a fan
either.)
--
email: Brady_David@Tandem.Com
(Note: This message is from me, not my employer.  React accordingly.)

Always remember -  David Brady IS Lee Harvey!
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc