Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> --- Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> wrote:
> > 
> > With power comes responsibility.
> 
> But with responsibility does not come an obligation to use your
> resources to communicate messages you don't want to communicate.

What ELSE would responsibilty MEAN?

> A private entitiy, such as a radio station has no legal or moral
> obligation to communicate a message to your liking.

The use of public resources brings the responsibility of public service.

They DO have a moral obligation to ensure that all views are available to
the public.  If a broadcaster sees that nobody in the region is providing
one type of information, then it is the responsibility, nay, the
OBLIGATION, of that broadcaster to provide that information to the public.

> In fact, just the opposite, they have the right not to.

They have the right to use the public airwaves, but not HOWEVER they see
fit.  Some of the restriction is legal and some is moral.

But a corporation cannot be moral.  It can ONLY make decisions based on
what maximizes shareholder value.  In the realm of commercial
broadcasting, this means service to the sponsor, not to the public.

> If by "power" you mean discretion, then so what. I don't agree that
> this is censorship at all. Censorship is the use of governement force
> (physical force) to punish or prevent speech.

Censorship is restricting the expression of others, no matter what the
forum.

Choosing not to place certain songs on the global satellite feed is one
thing.  Banning all local deejays and station managers from playing
certain songs (at the risk of their jobs) is censorship.  This is most
true when the broadcaster has monopolistic or cartel control over a
"market" or broadcast region.

> > Censorship: It's not just for governments anymore.
> 
> Censorship by private entitites is more accurately called "freedom of
> speech and press".

When the private entity runs a monopoly or has enacted barriers to
competition, then it is censorship.

Each and every broadcast frequency is a public forum.

> If you want to call it censorship, then you censor your own email
> against messages you disagree with.

I am an individual capable of expression.  A corporation is not.

When I choose not to write, I do not inhibit others from writing.  A
corporation that resolves not to disclose certain information is gagging
every employee, contractor, vendor, and partner.

> I bet you don't allow political candidates you disagree with to put up
> signs in your yard -- that's censorship. I want to paint your front
> door yellow and purple to express my support of the people of Poland.
> You are censoring me by not allowing me to do this.

My yard is not a public space.  The broadcast spectra are.
My front door is not a public resource.  The airwaves are.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org