Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

Comments added in the text 




Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
09/18/01 07:01 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe



>
>
>--- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
>
>> As for censorship...censorship is not my throwing out political tracts 
>> from the republicans and the democrats or not allowing you to put a 
sign 
>> in MY yard (that would be conversion of my property for your use), 
>> deleting email that I don't want to read or skipping over political ads 
in 
>> the NY or LA Times. Censorship is stopping me from putting a sign in my 

>> property, speaking out for or against a candidate in public, going from 

>> door to door , calling over the telephone....by using the laws or 
physical 
>> force or even social pressure  (anybody know much about the Amish 
culture 
>> or what shunning is?)
>
>There is no right to own a TV station or a radio station, and wanting to
>control part of their programming is just as much conversion of property 
as 
>me  putting my politcal sign in your yard. 

You can own the station but NOT the spectrum. That's the point you are 
missing here. The spectrum is a public resource not a private one such as 
my yard.


>
>Censorship is "social pressure" !? So what is social pressure against 
social
>pressure? There is no right to have everybody in your area tell you that 
you
>are swell. 
>
>It sounds like you guys have trouble dealing with the fact that other 
people
>who happen to control resources don't agree with you. I suggest that you 
get
>your own resources so that you aren't dependent on others.
>

No it's not that they don't agree with me?it's that they decide that 
anyone who doesn't agree with them should not have access. This is fine 
for my own yard but NOT for a public resource. 

>> The PROBLEM here is that this act is not isolated to my yard, my 
street, 
>> my city, or my state. With multinational corporations it is worldwide. 
>> What is this act? Controlled and deliberate elimination of the means by 

>> which an idea can spread. Now THAT"S censorship. But that's just a 
song? 
>> Right? Look at the talking heads giggling during the news hour (showing 
my 
>> age..in LA its news bi-hour). Censorship may be desired by officers of 
a 
>> corporation for the benefit to their "bottomline" but as I've ranted 
>> before (and will again  ;-) it fails the "clear and present danger" 
test.
>
>I really don't know what you are talking about when you say "Controlled 
and
>deliberate elimination of the means by which an idea can spread." I don't 
see
>Clear Channel able to do that. 

You don't? They just did. What you keep missing here is the scope of the 
thing. One station doing it is not a problem but a large conglomerate that 
can dictate what ideas can and cannot be told to people..look up Dr. J. 
Goebbels in a good encyclopedia some time. This is exactly what he did in 
Nazi Germany. In fact it's what all the Axis powers did before WWII.

>In fact, if you call one of their live talk
>radio shows, you can probably actually use their resources to get your 
idea
>out.
>

I guess you don't know about the 5 second delay and the cut off switch or 
even pre-recorded canned shows?.

>What do you mean "elimination"? This implies something used to exist, but 
now
>it doesn't. I can't fathom what that could possibly be. When exactly 
could you
>force radio stations to play songs they didn't want to? In fact, with the
>advent of cable TV, it's actually very easy to create your own TV show.
>

The argument was not about cable TV but network broadcasts. Cable is not 
relevant.
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
>Donate cash, emergency relief information
>http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
>
>>