Whatever happened to free speech?

[MarkG]

let me know when no radio stations will play their stuff... then you can call it blacklisting.

yes, lets wait until we have someone calling himself Hitler II before thinking if anything in in our democracy is going wrong


ming, how about "partial texas-wide blacklisting"?!?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Ming
Like any public figure, if you step up in front of a microphone and say something, you have to deal with what happens.

So where do you draw the line between a backlash and persecution? And I'm speaking strictly hypothetically here, the question has nothing to do with the Dixie Chicks.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Willem


If an employee of a firm is fired from their job because of a political view, they can file a wrongful dimissal suit against the company. What recourse does a celebrity have if he/she is blacklisted?

Sorry, if you offend a key client you would be fired in many cases. Wouldn't matter what you said, you'd be SOL.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So where do you draw the line between a backlash and persecution?

As soon as you take their rights away (and there is no right to make a crapload of money).

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

So where do you draw the line between a backlash and persecution?

As soon as you take their rights away (and there is no right to make a crapload of money).

Does that not include the right to hold a political view?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't see where the Dixie Chicks are being denied their right to a political view. You keep parrot the same tired mantras, which are always shot down, and yet blame Ming of doing it?

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't see where the Dixie Chicks are being denied their right to a political view. You keep parrot the same tired mantras, which are always shot down, and yet blame Ming of doing it?

Like I said, I was thinking hypothetically with that question. I'm trying to move away from the Dixie Chicks and look at it from a broader view. Which is essentialy what I was trying to do in the first place.

So please explain to me, what rights would have to be violated before a backlash becomes persecution? And what legal mechanisms are in place to ensure that it doesn't become that? What protections are there for anyone faced with the prospect of being blacklisted?

As Korn has pointed out, media is becoming more and more concentrated, not just in the US but all over the world. We've had an ongoing debate about that issue here in Canada for awhile now as well. So what steps should be taken to ensure that these media conglomerates don't abuse their economic power to block someone's message?

Or would you prefer to deny that there is a potential of abuse?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So please explain to me, what rights would have to be violated before a backlash becomes persecution? And what legal mechanisms are in place to ensure that it doesn't become that? What protections are there for anyone faced with the prospect of being blacklisted?

First: Blacklisting isn't violation of anyone's rights. You can still exercise speech, but not in someone's movie, or on someone's TV channel, etc.

Second: The courts are there to ensure that your rights do not get taken away. If you are jailed for speaking a political view (for example) then the court can say no.

As Korn has pointed out, media is becoming more and more concentrated, not just in the US but all over the world. We've had an ongoing debate about that issue here in Canada for awhile now as well. So what steps should be taken to ensure that these media conglomerates don't abuse their economic power to block someone's message?

Nothing. As pointed out, as media becomes more and more concentrated, the harder it is to exercise total control by the center. Since the sizes are so big, to go into every part and enforce dictates (or even making dictates) will take too much time and money.

Most media conglomerates allow the media outlets to remain free, as long as they make money.

[chequita guevara]

I'd just like to interject that the airwaves are our property, not the media corporations'.

[Arrian]

So go ahead and broadcast Dixie Chicks songs yourself.



I can't believe this thread is still going.

-Arrian

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
First: Blacklisting isn't violation of anyone's rights. You can still exercise speech, but not in someone's movie, or on someone's TV channel, etc.

So depriving someone of their career and livelihood doesn't violate their rights? What if there's no big money involved, that someone was just a bit actor trying to make it into the big time. Being denied the opportunity to pursue their chosen career is perfectly acceptable?

Second: The courts are there to ensure that your rights do not get taken away. If you are jailed for speaking a political view (for example) then the court can say no.

We're not talking about a government intervention, this is about a corporate decision.

Nothing. As pointed out, as media becomes more and more concentrated, the harder it is to exercise total control by the center. Since the sizes are so big, to go into every part and enforce dictates (or even making dictates) will take too much time and money.

So the media conglomerates are to have total control over what gets aired?

We had a situation here in Canada a short while ago. One of the leading editors of the newspaper in our capital was fired by the head of the conglomerate owner, who favours the current Prime Minister. The editor claims it was because he wrote an editorial unfavourable to the PM, the conglomerate simply said he wasn't doing his job. The incident raised a big stink, with many journalists and media people siding with the editor.

Should we just turn a blind eye and allow that sort of thing to occur? Give the media conglomerates carte blanche to mould the messages and information people receive as they see fit?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So depriving someone of their career and livelihood doesn't violate their rights

Do you think that it is a right to have any job you want? Do you believe that if you apply for a job, they must hire you? Come on!

So when you get rejected for a job, you think the company is violating your rights?

So the media conglomerates are to have total control over what gets aired?

Should we just turn a blind eye and allow that sort of thing to occur? Give the media conglomerates carte blanche to mould the messages and information people receive as they see fit?

It's their property, so yep. Even media conglomerates have freedom of speech.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's their property, so yep. Even media conglomerates have freedom of speech.

So the fact that they have the ability to influence the ideas and opinions of millions of people means nothing? You certainly are a trusting soul.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So the fact that they have the ability to influence the ideas and opinions of millions of people means nothing? You certainly are a trusting soul.

Yes, it means nothing. and who ever said I was trusting. I don't trust the media worth a damn, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say what they want.

Hell, just because I don't trust the Commies, doesn't mean I'll take away their free speech rights .

[SlowwHand]

Guy just doesn't get it, does he?

Hanoi Jane could tell the Dixie Chicks a thing or three.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Yes, it means nothing. and who ever said I was trusting. I don't trust the media worth a damn, doesn't mean they don't have the right to say what they want.

And does that right include depriving others of the chance of having their views heard as well? If they control the media, they also control the avenues for expressing a dissenting view.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yep... if its their property, they can pick and choose who they want on the air. That's their free speech right.

I think you now understand what we Americans mean by total free speech.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yep... if its their property, they can pick and choose who they want on the air. That's their free speech right.

I think you now understand what we Americans mean by total free speech.

But how can it be free speech if only one side gets heard? What about the voices that don't happen to have access to a mutli-million dollar media conglomerate? Isn't that denying them their right to free speech?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Willem


But how can it be free speech if only one side gets heard? What about the voices that don't happen to have access to a mutli-million dollar media conglomerate? Isn't that denying them their right to free speech?

Nope-- people can exercise their free speech with the resources available to them. if you go further and say there is a right to be " heard effectively", you create a mess. Every wingnut, racist, false propet etc would be claiming their right to access to the airwaves using the resources of others.

Now, these folks have a right to speak but they will be heard only so far as their resources permit

[Flubber]

and if you try to differentiate which opinions get the right to be heard you create a new mess. The right to speak cannot depend on the quality of the opinion.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
MOST of this is being done by individual radio DJs on their shows.

Where do you live that there are still individual readio djs? All my stations are preprogrammed.

[korn469]

i think the main problem is that some how large media companies have the same rights as an individual, but they have resources that far outstrips all but the very wealthiest people

If a media company decides on a message they can reach millions, while an average person would never have the resources to even come close. Many of these large companies can if they choose engage in a media blitz that can rival the amount of propaganda a nation conducts in times of war. It would be one thing if there weren't significant barriers to entry in the media sphere. Even if a person had the money to buy radio equipment, without a license from the FCC they simply couldn't start broadcasting.

I guess this is more of a freedom of the press, than a freedom of speech issue. I think all individuals should have freedom of speech. I even think if a DJ doesn't want to play a song on their show that's one thing, but when all of the might of a corporation such as clear channel, or viacom is brought to bear on an individual, that seems like it crosses a line. It seems like if there are only a very small number of corporations that own the vast majority of media outlets, then they should have to play by a slightly different set of rules than an ordinary individual. I believe that media companies if they control enough marketshare could engage in cenorship, I'm not saying they do, or they are even at they point where they can right now, but it looks like it is a very real possibility if trends don't change.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Where do you live that there are still individual readio djs? All my stations are preprogrammed.

Atlanta?
Dallas isn't pre-programmed.

[chequita guevara]

That was a rhetorical question.

[SlowwHand]

Well, hell. I don't know how it is in all places.