Re: Censorship Run Amok: XM, Big Money at the FCC, and the Rest

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Jackson <tom_jackson () sbcglobal net>
Date: May 18, 2007 8:20:25 PM 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....

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 face
content-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 not
stipulate that everyone must own a radio or satellite service.  There  
is no
obligation that the owners of such businesses tolerate anything they
consider inappropriate.  The radio and satellite corporations are  
interested
in the same thing as any other corporation - the bottom line.  If XM
suspended 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 smart
business 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'll
make 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