Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe

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

I believe that in the olden days......they called it broadcasts in the 
"public interests"  and they fulfilled their obligations by providing 
airtime for opposing spokespersons, announcing public events, AND the 
public could file notices with the FCC is they felt a station wasn't 
providing it (not that the public did a lot of that and I doubt the FCC 
cared ) to the amount legally really required.

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?)

As annoying as the ring at my doorbell or my telephone with the voice "hi 
i'm calling for Candidate Stupid running for Mayor of Los Angeles..." is 
to me, I can always say "Please leave" and that minor annoyance is solved 
without requiring local ordinances be debated in the city council 
chambers.

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.




Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
09/18/01 02:56 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

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



--- 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. A private entitiy, 
such as
a radio station has no legal or moral obligation to communicate a message 
to
your liking. In fact, just the opposite, they have the right not to. 

> I agree that the FCC (or, more rightly, the Telecommunications Act) gave
> these private corporations the power, but they are not carrying the
> responsibility.
> 
> When someone has power over what plays and what does not across the 
board
> (rather than on one station in a market with lots of stations run with
> diverse interests), then that someone is capable of censorship in their
> personal choices.

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: It's not just for governments anymore.

Censorship by private entitites is more accurately called "freedom of 
speech
and press". If you want to call it censorship, then you censor your own 
email
against messages you disagree with. 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.



__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/