I don't really see how that would affect you any. It was the guy that said it, not you. You interviewed Mel, Mel said shit that would offend people, so Mel gets the repercussions. How you could be held responsible for what someone else said is beyond me. Unless your magazine already endorsed the idea of a holocaust conspiracy then the mag wouldn't be affected.
The pont is I have the right not to include it if I dont want to. That is MY right.
How is someone's art that I paid for being displayed in my home any different than someone's art that AT&T paid for (sponsored) being displayed on their website? They didn't actually stop him from saying what he wanted to say, all they did was stop it from being shown on their site.
How is someone's art that I paid for being displayed in my home any different than someone's art that AT&T paid for (sponsored) being displayed on their website?
music is copy written.paintings are not.
you buy the painting it's yours,you are free to do with it as you please.My freedom of speech is not for sale and you don't have the right to do with it as you please.
so you think that AT&T can censor/alter whatever they want and PJ has no rights just because it was an AT&T SPONSORED event?
They didnt censor Eddie at the event. They censored the broadcast that they put out there for FREE. IF they went up to Eddie before the show and said "you are not allowed to say this or that" that would be AT&T censoring Eddie. You are going after a company that is allowing people who cant be there to watch a show for FREE. Maybe next time they will charge us, run a disclaimer, and not bleep or drop any audio.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
I understand that. I'm just saying hiding under the banner of "supposed backlash" doesn't hold up.
When Imus made that comment about the Rutgers girls Basketball team, Sharpton was able to get him fired because he threatened CBS's advertisers with a boycott. Granted it is a little different because Imus was an employee of CBS, but still it is very similar.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
I see a bunch of great arguments on both sides of the issue. I think the statement, "There is a growing bipartisan outcry for Congress to promptly enact meaningful net neutrality legislation that protects the rights of all Internet users to send and receive lawful content, free of censorship by either government or corporate censors." from the testimony sums up the situation where laws are lacking or are ambiguous. If the internet is supposed to be free, and these internet providers are privatized providers of public information, then the law has to be established and interpreted. For example, in Mexico, you buy gas from the government. In the USA, there are several corporations. Those corporations have to follow all the rules as if they were part of the government. The government allows free speech but they don't provide the infrastructure. Corporations do. So I think this is all about establishing laws and rules for the road for corporations to host free speech.
Up here so high I start to shake, Up here so high the sky I scrape, I've no fear but for falling down, So look out below I am falling now, Falling down,...not staying down, Could’ve held me up, rather tear me down, Drown in the river
you buy the painting it's yours,you are free to do with it as you please.My freedom of speech is not for sale and you don't have the right to do with it as you please.
That's not really how copyright protection works. For one thing copyright protection covers all creative and artistic works. If paintings weren't protected, my 03 Toronto poster wouldn't say copyright Ames Brothers on it, and I could take it down to a commercial printing place, make a bunch of copies and sell them on ebay.
They absolutely have the right to censor whatever they want, just like I have the right to cancel my AT&T coverage for this reason...which I gladly did, and made sure the customer service rep knew the reason. Obviously, losing one customer won't make a big dent in their profits, but knowing that at least one customer is leaving because of their censorship has to make them a bit nervous. Losing money is the ONLY thing major corporations listen to.
Here's the thing that gets overlooked: Is some situations, broadcast companies are running their businesses using infrastructure which they are leasing from us, the people... by way of the federal government.
Traditional radio and broadcast television are relatively clear cut. The federal government claims that the airwaves are a public resource, so folks who want to make use of a part of the spectrum must abide by certain rules. The company gets to profit off of the resource, but in exchange must give something back to the "people" (ie government): things like money, a certain minimum amount of educational programming, cooperation with emergency broadcasts... and promises to respect free speech.
Is the internet subject to the same sort of regulation? To what extent is the infrastructure of the internet a public resource? If AT&T is in position to pull off a webcast only because of federally-funded research, tax subsidies to develop infrastructure, or deals with local governments to lay tracks of cable on public land... then maybe the federal government has an obligation to look after the public good and a right to say "the first amendment is going to apply here."
On the other hand, maybe AT&T has paid their dues, and is using infrastructure that was privately built? Maybe the barriers-of-entry are low enough on the internet that the government should stay hands-off and let the free market shake things out?
These are exactly the questions the media industry and government are wrestling with. Left to their own devices, if you trust that these two groups will come up with answers that give proper weight to the good of the people and the nation, then great. If you're concerned that the interests of the people might get short-changed if they don't think we're watching, then the first step is to come up with your own educated opinions... and then let somebody know you're paying attention.
During a performance by the rock group Pearl Jam at the August 2007 Lollapalooza concert in Chicago, Illinois, AT&T censored words from lead singer Eddie Vedder`s performance. The ISP, which was responsible for airing the concert via a Blue Room webpage, shut off the sound as Vedder sang, ``George Bush, leave this world alone`` and ``George Bush find yourself another home.`` By doing so, AT&T, the self-advertised presenting sponsor of the concert series, denied Blue Room visitors the complete exclusive coverage they were promised.
I guess this is what stands out to me. Perhaps ATT does have some rights, but if they, as a company, advertise complete coverage (profanity excluded), then it might be considered false advertising, if they cut out any part of the coverage that does not contain profanity simply because they don't like it. You can't advertise what you don't then provide.
R.i.p. Rigoberto Alpizar.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
I guess this is what stands out to me. Perhaps ATT does have some rights, but if they, as a company, advertise complete coverage (profanity excluded), then it might be considered false advertising, if they cut out any part of the coverage that does not contain profanity simply because they don't like it. You can't advertise what you don't then provide.
I dont think AT&T were thinking the lead singer was planning to go off about the president.
While I wish AT&T and other companies like CBS radio would just allow "free speech", it is a business and they have to act in their best interests. Its not like they had weeks or even an hour to decide if they should broadcast what eddie said. They had to make an on the spot decision. It came down to dealing with the backlash from annoyed PJ fans or people who are offended by AT&T allowing someone to bash the President using thier service. While I dont agree with the decision, I totally understand why the decision was made, especially when you consider the time they had to make it.
Again be grateful that AT&T offers this free service to see live music you normally wouldnt get to see. Instead of complaining about the 20 seconds that were omitted, be thankful for the 2 hours that werent.
My 2cents.
I dont think AT&T were thinking the lead singer was planning to go off about the president.
While I wish AT&T and other companies like CBS radio would just allow "free speech", it is a business and they have to act in their best interests. Its not like they had weeks or even an hour to decide if they should broadcast what eddie said. They had to make an on the spot decision. It came down to dealing with the backlash from annoyed PJ fans or people who are offended by AT&T allowing someone to bash the President using thier service. While I dont agree with the decision, I totally understand why the decision was made, especially when you consider the time they had to make it.
Again be grateful that AT&T offers this free service to see live music you normally wouldnt get to see. Instead of complaining about the 20 seconds that were omitted, be thankful for the 2 hours that werent.
My 2cents.
But those 20 seconds were the most important of the whole weekend
This is your notice that there is a problem with your signature. Please remove it.
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
Comments
apples and oranges.
The pont is I have the right not to include it if I dont want to. That is MY right.
"We're running out of beer, too?" EV 6/19/08
How is someone's art that I paid for being displayed in my home any different than someone's art that AT&T paid for (sponsored) being displayed on their website? They didn't actually stop him from saying what he wanted to say, all they did was stop it from being shown on their site.
music is copy written.paintings are not.
you buy the painting it's yours,you are free to do with it as you please.My freedom of speech is not for sale and you don't have the right to do with it as you please.
They didnt censor Eddie at the event. They censored the broadcast that they put out there for FREE. IF they went up to Eddie before the show and said "you are not allowed to say this or that" that would be AT&T censoring Eddie. You are going after a company that is allowing people who cant be there to watch a show for FREE. Maybe next time they will charge us, run a disclaimer, and not bleep or drop any audio.
"We're running out of beer, too?" EV 6/19/08
I understand that. I'm just saying hiding under the banner of "supposed backlash" doesn't hold up.
When Imus made that comment about the Rutgers girls Basketball team, Sharpton was able to get him fired because he threatened CBS's advertisers with a boycott. Granted it is a little different because Imus was an employee of CBS, but still it is very similar.
"We're running out of beer, too?" EV 6/19/08
And he wasnt. I was there. He said it.
"We're running out of beer, too?" EV 6/19/08
FUCK AT&T!!!!!!!!!
I was there too and heard it.... guess you get what you pay for
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
That's not really how copyright protection works. For one thing copyright protection covers all creative and artistic works. If paintings weren't protected, my 03 Toronto poster wouldn't say copyright Ames Brothers on it, and I could take it down to a commercial printing place, make a bunch of copies and sell them on ebay.
Traditional radio and broadcast television are relatively clear cut. The federal government claims that the airwaves are a public resource, so folks who want to make use of a part of the spectrum must abide by certain rules. The company gets to profit off of the resource, but in exchange must give something back to the "people" (ie government): things like money, a certain minimum amount of educational programming, cooperation with emergency broadcasts... and promises to respect free speech.
Is the internet subject to the same sort of regulation? To what extent is the infrastructure of the internet a public resource? If AT&T is in position to pull off a webcast only because of federally-funded research, tax subsidies to develop infrastructure, or deals with local governments to lay tracks of cable on public land... then maybe the federal government has an obligation to look after the public good and a right to say "the first amendment is going to apply here."
On the other hand, maybe AT&T has paid their dues, and is using infrastructure that was privately built? Maybe the barriers-of-entry are low enough on the internet that the government should stay hands-off and let the free market shake things out?
These are exactly the questions the media industry and government are wrestling with. Left to their own devices, if you trust that these two groups will come up with answers that give proper weight to the good of the people and the nation, then great. If you're concerned that the interests of the people might get short-changed if they don't think we're watching, then the first step is to come up with your own educated opinions... and then let somebody know you're paying attention.
Hail Hail HIPPIEMOM
Wishlist Foundation-
http://www.wishlistfoundation.org
info@wishlistfoundation.org
I guess this is what stands out to me. Perhaps ATT does have some rights, but if they, as a company, advertise complete coverage (profanity excluded), then it might be considered false advertising, if they cut out any part of the coverage that does not contain profanity simply because they don't like it. You can't advertise what you don't then provide.
R.i.p. My Dad - May 28, 2007
R.i.p. Black Tail (cat) - Sept. 20, 2008
I dont think AT&T were thinking the lead singer was planning to go off about the president.
While I wish AT&T and other companies like CBS radio would just allow "free speech", it is a business and they have to act in their best interests. Its not like they had weeks or even an hour to decide if they should broadcast what eddie said. They had to make an on the spot decision. It came down to dealing with the backlash from annoyed PJ fans or people who are offended by AT&T allowing someone to bash the President using thier service. While I dont agree with the decision, I totally understand why the decision was made, especially when you consider the time they had to make it.
Again be grateful that AT&T offers this free service to see live music you normally wouldnt get to see. Instead of complaining about the 20 seconds that were omitted, be thankful for the 2 hours that werent.
My 2cents.
"We're running out of beer, too?" EV 6/19/08
But those 20 seconds were the most important of the whole weekend
Admin
Social awareness does not equal political activism!
5/23/2011- An utter embarrassment... ticketing failures too many to list.
I know thats why I flew to Chicago.
"We're running out of beer, too?" EV 6/19/08