How John Mellencamp Interprets Freedom of Speech
During an interview with John Mellencamp a few weeks ago, our conversation turned to his early songwriting, which he deemed "terrible," going on to say, "My first five albums are unlistenable." When it's mentioned that there's no longer a chance to develop a career after a bad record, he replied that we aren't going to have any more American heroes if we keep tearing people down on TV and online. I asked if he's heard of the Low Information Diet, which is a way to manage your time without being so burdened by technology. He wasn't familiar with the term, but heartily agreed with the concept. Then he launched into a long description about freedom of speech -- specifically what it does and does not mean.
"I don't have a cell phone. I mean, I can get on a computer and I can text people and e-mail people and I can look up stuff for information but I made the mistake once of reading blogs and I'm not doing that again," he said. "I believe in freedom of speech but I also have the freedom to say, ‘You're an idiot. You shouldn't be writing things like that because you're an idiot.'" He particularly condemns rude an unaccountable comments in blogs and YouTube videos.
"I don't think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don't think that's what freedom of speech is," he continued. "Freedom of speech is really about assembly -- for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That's freedom of speech -- to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it's turned into ‘I can be an asshole whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.' It's not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech. ...
"When I was growing up in the 50s, to be a good neighbor, you minded your own business," he said. "You were polite to other people. You were polite to their kids. You looked out for the kids. Now, none of those things mean anything. ... I don't think the founding fathers died so that you could call me or you or her anything you want to say about it. I think you have to be accountable for what you say and do. People just don't believe that anymore -- (and they think) ‘I can say whatever the f- I want.'"
©2008 Country Music Television, Inc., a Viacom company. A division of
CJ says:
I agree to a point. I think we all have the right to our opinion. To many things in life are sugar coated. Each person has the right to tell the truth. Good or bad we all have that right. I do think mean remarks that are uncalled for or you can not back up.Are just down right meaness coming out of that person. As long as you are telling the truth we should all have the right to say what we think.There is a huge difference.
solongsowrong says:
I don’t think he’s talking about people not being able to express a legitimate opinion, or telling the truth. I mean, isn’t that exactly what he was doing in this interview, expressing an opinion?
His quotes clearly point out he’s referring to those who are being an A-hole, say what they want, and being disrespectful simply because they can. They may be expressing an opinion when they do this, but it certainly doesn’t mean it’s the truth or based on any facts. As you say, there’s a big difference.
Just my opinion, of course. :)
hotelmotel says:
There’s obviously a big difference between a comment that expresses an opinion backed with reasoning or makes a true statement and a comment that is made out of spite, and with little or no concern for its truth.
But I’m not sure that distinction is relevant to the concept of “free speech;” for if we make it relevant, that distinction will surely be used to censor the speech of people who are trying to be responsible but are saying something that many people don’t want to hear.
If as Mellencamp says, “Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech,” we have a problem. To protect free speech, we will have to define “discourteous” as only the most shockingly outrageous of speech. To do so is to depart from the normal meaning of courteous. Or, alternately, we will have to run the risk that our speech will be deemed “un-free” so long as someone can plausibly claim that it was not courteous. This is a very risky road to go down. Censorship, and especially self-censorship, will multiply.
Mellencamp is confusing one of the benefits of free speech (it enables people to assemble and to make collective decisions) with the concept of free speech (which protects speech that is discourteous, rude, et cetera).
Free speech is rightly understood to protect all kinds of speech that many would say is “discourteous” - including burning the U.S. Flag, saying “politically incorrect” things, using strong, even vulgar language, to help express an opinion, subjecting politicians to harsh critique, et cetera.
Like Mellencamp, I wish many people would behave more politely. But rude behavior violates norms of civility, not norms of free speech. We shouldn’t confuse the two.
solongsowrong says:
So was he being rude to himself, or truthful in describing his earlier work? ;^)
Either way, I tend to agree, and might be part of the reason why he wanted to distance himself from his original stage name.
mjayhill says:
I agree with John Mellencamp that there is no shortage of idiots attempting to poison the blogosphere with mean-spirited remarks, but to link his conclusions to free speech is wrongheaded, at best.
Blogs are privately owned entities governed by the owner or/and an administrator. Each blog has the right to delete messages they deem inappropriate and ban the offender. There is NO freedom of speech on a blog. Just an accepted exchange of thoughts pertaining to a common subject. Some sites police trolls and troublemakers better than others. It’s to their discretion, not a rock star suggesting what the founding fathers meant.
That being said, my philosophy is that if you wouldn’t say it to the big fella sittin’ at the bar, then you might ought not peck it out on a keyboard in your PJ’s. Ten feet tall and bullet proof is easy in your mother’s basement.
kayefun says:
Craig, this is really a thoughtful blog with some DEPTH or HEIGHT to it, thank you for sharing it.
The one thing I’m learning the older I get is not the ‘freedom of speech’ card to cover everything everyone says in either a positive or negative way….but THE RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT when I so choose, or the right to contain or restrain my thoughts until they are more fully processed through my brain or formulated. With all that is out there ‘on-line’ and in the media, verbal responsibility is the CHOICE for me. Of course, I’m not ‘perfected’ at this and probs won’t be in this lifetime. Figuring out that discernment is the ultimate learning experience in this decade.
ALittleUnwell says:
Wonder if John would read this though? A good discussion with reasonable people with valid points. Blogs are not all bad.
thad says:
I’m a big fan of Mellencamp and I’m a big fan of freedom of speech. I think even idiots sitting in their bedroom making a fool out of themselves have a right to do so, that’s freedom of speech. We as readers have the freedom to not pay attention and read what those idiots say. That’s what most of us do…and that’s basically what John said he does.
As for his former name (Cougar). His manager gave it to him and he hated it from the beginning. He said no way. His manager said fine, go back to Indiana and pour concrete. The same guy that made up the name Cougar changed David Jones to David Bowie. John was emberrased by the name from the beginning.
ed sender says:
What The Ronin Edge said but with a little more vulgarity.
shunha7878 says:
John is no different then any other liberal, which is the only free speech is speech that John agrees with.
James says:
Mellancamp is a hypocrite, duffus and a dolt…
“Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendoes against President Bush last night at a Radio City gala that raised $7.5 million for the newly minted Democratic ticket of John Kerry and John Edwards. Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual wordplays on Bush’s name in a riff about female genitalia, and boasted that she’d refused to let Team Kerry clear her material.
Other celebs also competed to bash Bush. Singer John Mellencamp sang a specially written song that called the president “just another cheap thug” and ridiculed him as the “Texas bambino.” [ed --- the title of Mellencamp's "little diddy" is actually "Texas Bandito".]”
Hypocrite. Dolt. Doofus.
Tom says:
Johnny Cougar. John Cougar. John Cougar Mellencamp. John Mellencamp. John Mellonhead. Whichever it is this year…
I’m being a big ol’ meanie to you because it is my constitutionally protected right to say what I want to say when I want to say it to whomever I care to say it to so long as I do not make threats of physical harm or make an effort to incite others to inflict physical harm.
You sing name-calling songs discourteous of Presidents but discourtesy shouldn’t be allowed under Freedom of Speech?
You are dumber than a sack of hammers.
freeta goodholm says:
“Freedom of speech is really about assembly — for us to collectively have an idea.”
John Cougar MellenKampf.
Artist.
Activist.
Constitutional theorist.
Ignorant Baboon!
Rage John Rage!
Rage against Injustice! Rage against Hatred!
Rage against Things on high shelves!
Rip Ford says:
One wonders if Mellencamp is aware that the Founding Fathers, you know, the “people who fought and gave their lives” for free speech, occasionally engaged in speech that was so “mean” they would fight duels over it? Sometimes to the death? Witness the Alexander Hamilton - Aaron Burr duel for an example.
When you start saying it’s okay to infringe on some forms of speech it becomes awfully easy to label all speech you disagree with as unprotected speech. It would be impossible to define a standard that couldn’t be abused much less find an unbiased person who would enforce it in a fair manner.
in_awe says:
bet he loves the idea of reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine”…scratch a liberal find a fascist.
hotelmotel says:
Rip Ford says it best, I think: “When you start saying it’s okay to infringe on some forms of speech it becomes awfully easy to label all speech you disagree with as unprotected speech.” (well, maybe not “all” speech, but surely a lot of speech).
And that’s the problem, and that is why Mellencamp should reconsider his views. True, he is probably right that a lot of speech has little value, and maybe even “negative” value. But experience and history shows that it is probably better to put up with the idiotic and even hurtful speech than to empower censors, who will soon start censoring even legitimate speech.
One irony is that some people are insinuating that Mellencamp is a crazed leftist of sorts for believing “Freedom of speech…is for us to collectively have an idea.” Perhaps he is a crazed leftist, but his position, or something very close to it, was held by Robert Bork, one of the most conservative legal thinkers of the last 30 years. That position can be held by liberals and conservatives alike, and it is a position held by many respectable thinkers, both liberal and conservative, and a position that is even reflected in some language in some Supreme Court cases.
I do not agree with Mellencamp’s stance, and I admit he is open to charges of hypocrisy. But Mellencamp’s opinion is more insightful than some posters seem willing to acknowledge. At a minimum, it cannot be dismissed by claiming that Mellencamp is a fool, a fascist, a liberal, a possible supporter of the fairness doctrine, or an ignorant baboon (all charges made in comments above) because people who are none of those things also believe that free speech primarily exists to further collective decision making.
Mellencamp may be any or all of those things, but his opinion isn’t mistaken for those reasons. It is mistaken for the reason that Rip Ford points out: all sorts of perfectly legitimate speech will be censored as “discourteous.” But the censored speech won’t necessarily be conservative speech. If liberals are the censors, then, yes, we can expect just that. But if the censors are conservatives, we can expect liberal speech to be censored. The problem with Mellencamp’s view isn’t that it is “liberal;” the problem is that it opens the door to controversial speech - liberal or conservative or something else entirely - being censored under the pretext of promoting courtesy.
Who’s da Judge says:
wow, Johnnie …. guess you only want certain voices heard. Can’t live in a world where a man/woman can express their opinion in the fashion of their choice. That would be …huh… too American…
roflmao
Kettle Black says:
Couldn’t of said it better.
YOUR an IDIOT
Matt says:
John Mellencamp doesn’t “think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean.”. Furthermore, he describes freedom of speech as “Freedom of speech is really about assembly for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That’s freedom of speech to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it’s turned into ‘I can be an asshole whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.’ It’s not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech.”.
You don’t think people gave their lives to protect the freedom to say mean things, eh?
That’s going to come as quite a shock to the Founding Fathers. You see, it seems they did the whole collective thing too. They had a collective idea. But it required them to say some really mean, and I do emphasize “mean”, things about King George III. They accused him of all kinds of terrible things like levying horrible taxes, not listening to their numerous and collective attempts at sending spokesmen to discuss their grievances as a sector of people, about how they were unhappy with the idea of soldiers living in their houses and so on.
Finally, they had had enough of this, sat down and wrote a very long document called the “Declaration of Independence” that described in lengthy and very mean detail all the things that King George III had done and that they just weren’t going to accept any more.
In this document, they wrote down their collective ideas while sitting in a small bedroom and, in eloquent 18th Century terms, did call King George III an “asshole” many times over. It was very disrespectful of the King. You don’t say and talk about a King in that way. It was not gentlemanly or polite at all.
And when they were done, they signed it as a collective group and contrary to your belief, did fight and gave their lives to sit in that room and be mean by ending their discourteous rant against the King by stating “we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”.
So what do you think? Was it appropriate or wasn’t the Founders sacrifice enough for you?
By the way, the freedom of assembly is only ONE of the five items specifically covered by the 1st Amendment. Assembly is useless without the freedom to speak at the same time. There are many countries that will punish the mere attempt to assemble very seriously before one mean word ever leaves the mouths of the people attempting it.
So have a little respect for the asshole in the bedroom because you just might need him someday.
JTHM says:
Hey John….F-You…punk. That is all.
JTHM says:
P.S.
Don’t forget that he doesn’t necessarliy think that WWII was the proper way to defeat Japan and Germany, goggle it.
And ahh, nope I’m not 10 feet tall behind a computer. Anyone caught saying the drivel he puts out within earshot of me is going to feel it.
RFC says:
Yes Mr. Couger that’s what the First Amendment is for..protecting speech that everyone “collectively” agrees with. Agreeable speech always needs to be protected!
Mr. Couger you are the weakest link…
Bob says:
Only Mr. Mellencamp can really say what his true meaning is. But history shows that even our founding fathers disagreed with each other sometimes in very heated debates.
Our constitution was formed behind closed doors under guard with instructions to shoot anyone who entered or left.
I don’t think that the meaning of the first amendment is to regulate individuals or only permit a group or a designated leader of a group to say what they want.
I see his point about being courteous and having manners which is clearly lacking with some people. But I would never tell someone or think that someone’s opinion should not be individually voiced.
If they become mean spirited or just rude, then we have the ability to ignore them as well. No one can force you to listen or read the abusive comments.
Instead of making a statement that can be taken to limit an individuals freedom of speech, maybe he can promote the freedom to not pay attention.
Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » Mellencamp: First Amendment More of a ‘Collective’ Thing says:
[...] Mellencamp is the latest to notice that not everyone is part of the collective, and he’s mighty peeved, making this observation about free speech in general and bloggers in particular: “I don’t [...]
You got it wrong John says:
uuuuuuh, no that is NOT what it means John.
The 1st amendment is what covered YOU when you made fun of George Bush, and covers me when I make fun of you.
EdSki says:
Or to translate: We The People have a constitutional right to free speech, only if Mr. Mellencamp agrees with the idea.
I guess that puts him in good company with the rest of the socialists running the country these days.
ryukyu says:
I’m sure Mr. Mellencamp wasn’t being mean when he wrote “Texas Bandido” or “Rodeo Clown.” Good thing that’s exactly what our founding fathers did died for! These artist used to be about liberties and freedom. All they do now is criticize who they don’t agree with politically. Make sure you hate a little bit more in your new songs John while telling others without a voice to shut up.
Glen Hull says:
Imagine my surprise. I didn’t know Mellencamp was still
alive. Has this guy ever been anything other than a Springsteen clone? And his comment about free speech. Are you kidding me, John?
R.B. Glennie says:
It’s almost painful to listen to completely foolish and stupid opinions, with regard to matters of politics, coming from such a brilliant songwriter, as John Mellancamp.
Messge to John Cougar: you are wrong. Freedom of speech is not about… I can’t even figure out what your defintion is; some nonsense about freedom of assembly, I don’t know. It couldn’t more clear: freedom of speech is freedom of speech, including the right of anyone `to be mean’, from their bedroom or from anywhere else.
It proves that talent in one area - music - does not necessarily extend to any other area (especially politics).
David says:
Sounds like old age is starting to set in with John: “Aaaaaaaannnd another thing. Those dang kids are always playing on my lawn and ruining it.”
Oops. I guess that was mean. And I didn’t hold an assembly and nominate a spokesperson. Shame on me.
Irene Flick says:
One more good reason musicians should not be allowed to talk. Freedom of speech for everyone - except for them! And some athletes, too.
Shut up and play, John!
Leftist Rocker John Mellencamp: First Amendment More of a ‘Collective’ Thing says:
[...] “Cougar” Mellencamp is the latest to notice that not everyone is part of the collective, and he’s mighty peeved, making this observation about free speech in general and bloggers in [...]
Leftist Rocker John Mellencamp: First Amendment More of a ‘Collective’ Thing says:
[...] “Cougar” Mellencamp is the latest to notice that not everyone is part of the collective, and he’s mighty peeved, making this observation about free speech in general and bloggers in [...]
Jim says:
The key to what Mellencamp said — and the most idiotic — is his idea that freedom of speech is a “collective” right. Someone is magically appointed a “spokesman” for a “group” of people, and that person can say what he likes. The rest of the “group,” y’all shut up.
I don’t expect a barely educated folk/rock singer to understand the intricacies of what the Founders were attempting to build when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But even someone with a high school education should know that the First Amendment — and the entire Bill of Rights — were inserted into the constitution to protect the rights of individual citizens.
Of course, Mellencamp thinks he’s been appointed the spokesman for the Heartland, so he can say whatever he wants. Lucky him. Was there a vote on that?
Proletariat Blog » Blog Archive » A new leftist era? - the musings of worker7219-12 says:
[...] views our own consitution as a, ‘flexible,’ ‘living document,’ that can be reinterpreted as they see fit for every ‘new [...]
TSW2 » Shut Up and Sing, John Cougar Mellencamp Cougar Tiger Cougar or Whatever your Name is Now says:
[...] I’m on a slow burn early today thanks to … CMT: How John Cougar Mellencamp interprets Freedom of Speech. The operative word is most certainly “interprets.” “I don’t think people fought and [...]
TheMadKing says:
So John Mellencamp things collective groupthink is the only permissible freedom of speech? Does he prefer American dissenters get the Ahmie and Khamie protester treatment? And who decides what is free speech and what is not? The benevolent A**hole-Free Groupthink Collective, which treats Sarah Palin like Emmanuel Goldstein?
That is not a defender of the First Amendment talking here. It is a Stalinist komissar. Welcome to liberal left-wing freedom of speech and expression, where even opposing abortion, illegal immigration or blanket federal rule is a DHS-worthy offense.
Robert Sendler says:
“If you?re listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you’re a bigger moron than they are. Why are we rock stars? Because we’re morons. We sleep all day, we play music at night and very rarely do we sit around reading the Washington Journal.”
Alice Cooper
Saturday Free Speech Roundup | Popehat says:
[...] the First: John Cougar Mellencamp is a censorious twit: “I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and [...]
Jailed for spreading hatred on the internet - Page 2 - TeakDoor.com - The Thailand Forum says:
[...] Lil, you crack me up! Check this out O biased one! Big-time John Edwards Barack Obama supporter John Mellencamp shares his views on the First Amendment:
Nick Gerz says:
Mellencamp is an idiot. For the life of me i cannot name a single crappy song of his that I can listen to from beginning to end. They should use his music to torture criminals in Guatamano. The playing of “Small Town” or “Jack and Diane” will drive them to suicide
hotelmotel says:
For those who think Mellencamp is a constitutional moron because he sees free speech as a collective matter, you might consider the views of Supreme Court Justice, Oliver Wendell Holmes, a political conservative and a man whose thinking exhibted a profound impact on the way people view free speech.
As Summarized by Louis Menand, Holmes believed “freedom of speech is not an individual good, but a social good - that we have an interest in allowing individuals to express themselves because we need the ideas.”
Perhaps some posters can dismiss these ideas when coming from Mellencamp, who is just a rock star after all, but not so when coming from Holmes, who is one of the greatest Justices to sit on the Supreme Court. (And note too that other prominent conservatives, such as Judge Bork, have seen speech as worthy of protection for its contribution to collective government rather than individual pleasure)
While I think Mellencamp makes some serious mistakes about free speech, I also think the numerous posters who mock him as a fool, et cetera, do not use their speech rights productively. Free speech is valuable when used to prompt intelligent discussion, but speech is not so valuable (which doesnt mean unprotected) when it consists of little more than personal insults.
Ironically, just as Mellencamp often does little credit to his left wing views when he expresses them in vitriolic language, the right wing posters above do no credit to their views when they express them in similarly vicious language.
The posters who insist that Mellencamp is a fool and offer little or no supporting evidence other than insult deserve free speech protection. But their speech doesn’t do credit to their views or to the concept of free speech. If anything, their speech is an embarrassment to the concept.
Of course their speech is protected - not because their speech is valuable but because failing to protect their speech opens the door to censorship of socially beneficial speech that runs afoul of a censor’s tastes or interests.
in_awe says:
Holmes was admired by 20th century progressives and liberals in the U.S. especially in light of his willingness to confer an opinion of constitutionality on FDR’s social welfare programs and support progressive government policies.
We should also remember Holmes as the fellow who issued the majority opinion granting VA the right to pursue eugenics. He wrote: “the principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the fallopian tubes…it is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” He concluded by saying: “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”
Holmes was not the great Constitutionalist that legend makes him out to be.
How John Mellencamp Interprets Freedom of Speech - Political Wrinkles says:
[...] off and became Susan Sarandon… Ready for your typical celbrity elite intolerant hypocrisy?… How John Mellencamp Interprets Freedom of Speech [...]
John Mellencamp Doesn’t Like Free Speech | Deceiver.com says:
[...] Don’t get confused. Calling Bush a “cheap thug” is absolutely OK, but saying mean things about John Mellencamp on your blog is worth a tirade to CMT. [...]