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 10:34:16 -0400
Begin forwarded message: From: Steve Lamont <spl () ncmir ucsd edu> Date: May 18, 2007 9:54:21 AM 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. 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*? Mr Weinstein conflates the public and the private sectors when suggesting that XM is somehow "censoring" Mr Hughes and Mr Cumina, better known as "Opie and Anthony". What XM is doing is exercising editorial judgement. You or I may disagree with their editorial judgment, but it's XM's radio station, not Hughes's and Cumina's. XM gets to set the rules. Let's take a look at the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Note that it says *Congress*, not XM Satellite Radio Holdings, Inc. In fact, one could reasonably argue that forcing XM to keep the "Opie and Anthony" program on the air or preventing them to discipline their employees or contractors would be an abridgement of those very free speech and/or free press rights. At one time in my rather odd and checkered career, I was a "radio personality" myself and was literally fired in the middle of an air shift for something I said on the air -- and it wasn't anywhere near as egregious as making a joke about raping a woman. I simply made a wisecrack about the station management -- a throwaway line coming out of the 1970s hit "You'll Never Get to Heaven" something to the effect of "I know I'm going to heaven. I've already worked at K---". I may not have liked it but it was their radio station, not mine.
. . . If we can restrict the open speech of a closed for pay media vehicle such as XM, when will they be able to restrict free speech in closed, pay to enter, comedy clubs? Once we have restricted free speech in comedy clubs, what about private clubs, political clubs and finally the homes of Americans?
If the writer means "we" in the sense of Congress and the government, then of course "we" cannot restrict free and open speech. But the owners of the media sure as heck can. Do any of us challenge the right of Dr Farber to act as a gatekeeper for this very mailing list? If he chooses to consign this posting to the bit bucket, is that not his right? It's happened to me more than once. I may not be very happy about it but as the owner of the list, it is within his rights and responsibilities. For that matter, free speech is already restricted in private homes. Most parents do not allow their children to "mouth off" or use vulgar speech at will. Is that restricting the free speech rights of their children? Of course not. If a visitor comes into my home and begins making vulgar or obscene comments, I am perfectly within my rights to show that person the door and if they refuse to leave, call a cop and have them forcefully ejected. Am I being a censor? Or am I just exercising my own rights as a citizen? Those who criticise XM for their relatively minor disciplinary actions against Mr Hughes and Mr Cumina and the firing of Don Imus misunderstand the whole notion of free speech. We may or may not agree with Al Sharpton or Media Matters but is it not also their free speech right to protest speech and actions which they find offensive? Do we promote one form of free speech while suppressing another? While I would most vociferiously object if Mr Hughes and Mr Cumina were clapped in jail for thirty days by a govermental entity for saying objectionable things on the radio, satellite or otherwise, or a government order banning Mr Imus from broadcasting, it is well within the rights and even the responsibilities of the owners and managers of those media to deal with their employees as they see fit, within the limits of the law. I'd even go so far as saying that the protests against Don Imus and the "Opie and Anthony" program are very much part of the ecology of free speech. No action is without consequences. Thanks and best regards. spl ------------------------------------------- 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)