Interesting People mailing list archives
Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Fri, 18 May 2007 20:59:30 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Jackson <tom_jackson () sbcglobal net> Date: May 18, 2007 8:20:25 PM EDT To: dave () farber netSubject: RE: [IP] Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest
For IP, if you wish....After many years of reading Lauren's posts, I compliment him on his reason and insight. But this time I respectfully disagree with his conclusions.
First, just as a matter of clarification, CBS fired Imus. CBS owned stations, and stations affiliated with CBS, are broadcasters, and facecontent-based regulations. XM/Sirius do not face content based regulations.
(Same distinction as between broadcast television and cable television.)That's one reason Stern moved to satellite. When he said a "dirty word" on broadcast, stations got fined, and that made his life unpleasant. When he does it on Sirius, there is no applicable FCC regulation. So broadcast radio
and satellite radio function in completely different regulatory worlds. For better or worse, the constitutional right to free speech does notstipulate that everyone must own a radio or satellite service. There is no
obligation that the owners of such businesses tolerate anything theyconsider inappropriate. The radio and satellite corporations are interested
in the same thing as any other corporation - the bottom line. If XMsuspended O&A because of a desire to placate the FCC, why is Howard Stern
(who cost stations millions of dollars in FCC fines) still on Sirius? If anything would bring cheer to the FCC, it would be reining in Stern.It seems to me that what we're seeing isn't all that sinister. Consider -we see American soldiers brutally killed in Iraq every day, day after day -- we read about the pointless, and seeming endless bloodbath in Dafur -- we watch a disturbed young man gun down students on campus. Perhaps a substantial number of people - advertisers, non-listeners, listeners, and even corporate
decision-makers, aren't much in the mood for hate speech. Calling young, smart, talented college students "nappy headed hos" isn't very amusing.When a mentally-ill homeless man tell us, in the most base terms possible, whom he'd like to rape, we don't find ourselves amused. I don't think it takes an Al Sharpton or pressure group to make us aware of when we're not
amused. And...just possibly, someone at XM, and somebody at CBS, made a smartbusiness decision and said, "Black people listen to radio/satellite. Women
listen to radio/satellite. Maybe it doesn't make sense to gratuitously offend them. Maybe if we don't stop, fewer people will listen, and we'llmake less money." Maybe the day of the shock-jock is doing a slow fade out -
just like minstrel shows. Tom Jackson -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net] Sent: Friday, May 18, 2007 4:11 PM To: ip () v2 listbox com Subject: [IP] Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest Begin forwarded message: From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com> Date: May 18, 2007 12:00:08 PM EDT To: dave () farber net Cc: lauren () vortex com Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest Dave, I'm afraid that it's Steve who may be missing the point that EEkid and myself were making (I'll presume to speak also for EEKid in this case...) Neither of us said that XM didn't have the legal right to fire Imus, or suspend O&A. XM does have editorial control. However, if CNN's Lou Dobbs suddenly started editorializing for an open borders policy and increased trade with China, one might suspect that something was amiss. In a universe where fewer and fewer corporate boards have control over an ever larger percentage of communication, broadcasting, and Internet assets, a tremendous amount of content control power is in a limited number of hands, meaning that pro-censorship pressure groups need merely target these concentration points of power to have enormous potential impact given the reduction in corporate diversity. Editorial control is one thing, but knee-jerk, self-protective panicky reactions can be viewed as something else. As I've said, I'm not a fan of "shock jock" radio in general, but I have a pretty good idea of the content. As obnoxious as Imus' and O&A's comments were, I believe that there was nothing about them particularly "beyond the envelope" in the normal expectation of people who listen to such programming, particularly in the O&A case on a pay service. What changed was the way that pressure groups used the news media in these cases to forward their own censorship agendas -- and censorship is the right word for what they have in mind. XM got scared -- they want their merger with Sirius and they want it bad, so remarks that probably would have just rolled by six months ago -- however disgusting -- were elevated to a punishable offense this time, because XM knew the pressure groups would be screaming at the FCC if XM didn't make an example of O&A in this case. Remember Al Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's protests over Michael Richards' use of the "N-word" at a comedy club here in L.A. recently? That seemed to trigger a newly invigorated campaign at speech control. The demands were that the club ban the use of the word, which they did. Imus got fired. O&A got off relatively easy with a suspension, but the chilling effect is now omnipresent. This extends to the Internet in the political realm as well, such as Google pulling videos from global YouTube access because one country found them objectionable. (The fact that the videos are still widely accessible is not the point, the issue is that Google was willing to pull the copies that they knew about.) Here's the real danger. All over the world, political entities and religious pressure groups are not only asking people not to say this or that -- they're *demanding* that governments *enforce* such policies in ever expanding realms. In most cases they're not yet going as far as the Taliban thought police, but theocracies aren't built in a day either. Pressure groups demand that the FCC take restrictive actions. The FCC, responding to the pressure, has called on Congress to expand FCC content control to satellite and cable. Laws like COPA would effectively censor the Internet by driving away vast numbers of users unwilling to identify themselves before accessing wide ranges of content considered to be "objectionable to children." There's no practical way to do age verification without doing ID verification, so the chilling effect in this case is enormous. It's important to look at what's going on from a longitudinal standpoint. This isn't about parents telling their kids not to use "dirty words." It's about efforts to turn the governments of the world into speech enforcers in all possible contexts, to dictate particular points of view regarding which speech is acceptable. And each time we give an inch on this, the proponents of speech control will be back at the table demanding more. This is why we need to draw a line in the sand to stop the forces who would use government power to muzzle free speech, even if that means we end up in bed with some speakers whom we personally find to be obnoxious or worse. That's the price of freedom. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren () vortex com or lauren () pfir org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, IOIC - International Open Internet Coalition - http://www.ioic.net Founder, CIFIP - California Initiative For Internet Privacy - http://www.cifip.org Founder, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com DayThink: http://daythink.vortex.com - -
Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Lamont <spl () ncmir ucsd edu> Date: May 18, 2007 9:54:21 AM EDT To: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest For IP, if you wish. EEkid () aol com sez:Mr. Weinstein makes an interesting point. Where does censorship end and freedom of speech begin?Indeed he does, albeit a somewhat specious one. The more appropriate question is where do *editorial judgement and responsibility begin*?
------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Current thread:
- Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 18)
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 18)
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 18)
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 18)
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 18)
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 18)
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 18)
- Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest David Farber (May 19)