It's still a marketplace type decision that isn't illegal. Some people find it unethical and others don't.
No, not illegal. Highly unethical and downright fuck*ng wrong, but not illegal. Are you saying that you don't find this unethical?
If the company fails due to this decision, that's the market at work. If it doesn't, it doesn't.
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.
Entertainment is entertainment. It's not news that's being 'censored'; no one is being muzzled here.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Righteous indignation is worthless unless it's an impetus to action. Out of all the complaining, someone should organize a boycott; start a letter writing campaign, get a congressman to sponsor a bill that would legislate against the harm you perceive, or something. Otherwise, just sit back and accept it.
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.
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.
Author
Topic: AT&T Edits out (censors) anti-Bush lyrics (Read 5149 times)