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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

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*?

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