No, not illegal. Highly unethical and downright fuck*ng wrong, but not illegal. Are you saying that you don't find this unethical?
It's highly ethical if your ethical standpoint is that your actions are primarily to protect your shareholders. It's highly unethical if you believe no content should ever be curtailed for any reason.
Ethics can be subject to your position relative to the fence.
True. But the free market relies on the free flow of information. And unless we're able to communicate about what utter scumsuckers AT&T are, nobody will know enough to vote with their dollars. Of course, the huge (scary) irony of the situation is that AT&T has a great deal of control over the most effective means of communication that people like you and I have access to. Plus, they've shown that they're not above censoring content to further their own ends. It's not really a free market if one of the parties doesn't have access to all the information about the transaction.
Because of the number of other outlets and their willingness to point out what is perceived as censorship on the part of AT&T, there is plenty of access to information about the transaction, and probably about most transactions. That's why the market works - competition. As long as monopolies can be prevented or dismantled through government vigilance and action, we'll still have choice and we will still be able to count on the competitors to point out the issues of their competitors.
Unless Pearl Jam agreed to give AT&T the right to edit their performance for political content, they most certainly are being censored. Also, I think your distinction between entertainment and news is a little facile. There's a loooong history of "entertainment" products which have had significant political impact. Slaughterhouse 5 and Catch-22 were both "entertainment" products. Are they less deserving of protection from censorship.
This is an interesting question - and I would love to see the contract, because I would bet that there is in fact plenty of language that allows AT&T broad latitude for self-interest. But here again competition works - because other washed-up 90's bands seeking relevance will possibly avoid AT&T, and maybe some relevant ones as well. That's the cost of the action they took.
As to the idea that no one is being muzzled. I grant you that the government is not the one doing the censoring in this case. There's no first amendment issue here. But I do think we should consider the realities of the situation when we talk about muzzling. AT&T is the 800 lb gorilla in the internet room. They could flex considerable muscle if they chose to, and they've just indicated that their intentions aren't good.
And if they lose in the long run, too bad for them.
Why doesn't it bother you that they've indicated a willingness to abuse their control over the internet tubes? It could just as easily be your ox being gored. As you say, their responsibility is to the bottom line. They'd kiss Stalin's ass if it would make them a buck. So as so-called conservatives, are you defending this just because a large corporation did it? Surely you recognize the terrifying implications this story has for the future of free communications on the internet?
Actually, I don't yet - I see a lot of power and influence in the hands of individuals and people who previously could not have banded together in their basements to bring down CBS News and Dan Rather. I think that there is a shift in what the terms "Free Communications" means but I don't see that eroding.
I thought conservatives were for limited government power. Does that mean you're OK with your freedoms being infringed when a huge corporation is doing it?
I don't think I talked at all about government power. I talked about market forces. The government's role in this case to me is limited to assuring Anti-trust laws are followed and that businesses conduct themselves in a legal fashion. I don't call for the government to regulate the content or the decision-making beyond the requirements for taxation, accounting, anti-trust and other 'administrative' processes. If they want to fuck up and lose their business, that's - well, that's their business.
But talking about it IS action. People need to know what AT&T did. They need to think about what it means that the company who brings the internet into their homes took a blatantly political action. People can't be true partici****** in a free market unless they have all the relevant information about their transactions. Talking about it lets more and more people know that AT&T are sleazeballs. It's not the only action that's needed, but it's a start.
True, it's a start. Another issue for another day is the fragmentation of opinion and action, the busy-ness of Americans, and our increasingly short attention span. Talk gets cheaper every minute, and unfortunately it's hard to get a significant number of people behind anything anymore.
Fuck AT&T. If I have anything to say about, they'll never get another dollar of mine. If I can get another person to think the same way as a result of my righteous indignation, I've done my job.
A Free market at work is a beautiful thing.
Author
Topic: AT&T Edits out (censors) anti-Bush lyrics (Read 5147 times)