Slashdot Mirror
XM Satellite Radio Backlash
mrchubbs writes "Sponsors and subscribers to XM Radio are protesting the decision by XM management to suspend the Opie and Anthony show for comments made on an uncensored channel. Subscribers are canceling subscriptions — some estimate that between 20,000 and 40,000 have cancelled. Some are even smashing their radios in protest. Sponsors are pulling ads. Also, there is some evidence of XM not honoring cancellation requests, forcing multiple calls to finally get accounts canceled." Of course this dispute isn't a free-speech issue. "Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government; XM is free to do as it wishes with the content it broadcasts, within the law.
And, as The Dixie Chicks found out, the public is free to respond as they see fit.
That's why I performed the ultimate protest and never signed up with them in the first place.
I'm glad this situation validates my accidental act of protest.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Problems with XM? Surely you can't be Sirius. ;-)
Login: abuse@slashdot.org
Password: slashdot
Enjoy!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And things are happening just exactly as they should! It's a free enterprise system and people are voting with their dollars exactly as they should. I'm really happy to see the enormous backlash even if I am a little surprised by it.
Cable TV was supposed to deliver the kind of raw material that the public craves. It wasn't able to sustain it. Satelite radio is supposed to deliver the kind of raw material that the public craves. It has been delivering but the moment someone decides "too far" then they are removing the key value that the public craves.
They should either reverse their decision immediately (for the sake of stock holders!) or go out of business. They no longer offer on their hype and promise... now they are just another radio source and as such, has nothing to offer over terrestrial radio.
(I felt the same way when Dell outsourced its support to other nations... Dell said "everyone's doing it" and I replied, "but that's the advantage Dell had over all the others...their last unique value and now it's gone!")
It's hardly a censorship issue. XM, as a private company can hire ad fire whoever they like, so long as they don't violate anyones rights. XM took offense as to what they did and handed them their walking papers.
Cool, they canceled Opie & Anthony. I don't listen to talk radio. It's useless to me. I'm serious -- maybe they can shove bandwidth back towards music channels.
Too bad they can't dump Oprah, as well, and a bunch of other stuff.
Get off my launchpad!
It's called "Vote with your feet". Perhaps if the people at XM would do what these people have asked, namely, admit their mistake, and put O&A back on the air, then things would be different. As it stands, this is unlikely, and thus, XM's survivability is also unlikely.
But this is slashdot. A slashdoter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber!
Now why can't people start to protest Microsoft on a similar scale?
OSx86 FTW
Calling the channel "Uncensored" is a marketing ploy. Every workplace -- especially radio stations -- have limitations. XM logically figured that an impromptu bit of business in which the US Secretery of State is raped crossed those limitations, particularly since XM's uber-management is in the process of calling in every US government favor it has to grease the skids for a clearly lucrative merger with their lone competitor, Sirius.
It fascinates me that this is framed as a "Free Speech" issue. The airwaves that XM uses aren't of the public variety, it has nothing to do with constitutional amendments.
You know, for a generation raised on digital music, you sure all get caught in the same groove, sounding like broken records, a lot.
in a very roundabout way. The reason XM suspended the show is mainly out of financial self interest; they were afraid that if it seemed like they condoned this type of behavior they would be sued, and they are probably right. The fact that they can be sued over something this banal is the fault of the government. The government can get away with making people afraid to say what they want(no matter how dumb it may be) without directly abridging someone's first amendment rights by awarding huge law suits to whomever feels offended enough to sue. It's still government censorship, but with a better disguise.
Monstar L
It's insanely funny that these are the poster boys. I can't wait to hear the crickets chirp once XM decides it can have 26 minutes of advertising each hour like regular radio. I think XM's got us exactly where they want us.
It's hardly a censorship issue. XM, as a private company can hire ad fire whoever they like
I hear this argument a lot - That doesn't make it any more accurate.
It very much still counts as censorship - Just not the "protected" kind that the government can't do.
Yes, Sirius has the legal power to get rid of any of their employees, within the terms of their employees' contracts and various antidiscrimination laws. But that doesn't make it right, and we need to stop putting up with crap like this, much less justifying it with "as a private company...".
this just goes to show how completely retarded the management + opie n anthony show really were. They found a way to get kicked off of an uncensored channel... how dumb do you have to be to have that happen to you? Talk about lack of faith from management!
stuff |
This happened to me... XM is definitely messing with people's accounts. I canceled my service about a year ago, but a few months after canceling they started charging my card again. I can't think of a worse way to treat a customer. If someone charges your card out of the blue just because they have your account info, they are committing credit card fraud.
It's totally time that we, the people, are empowered to tell them, those other people (who don't count as much as we), what they can and can't do with their property.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
1. Why aren't they broadcasting on the internet?
2. Why isn't there a link to the offending content in the article?
3. I for one welcome... wait.. who are the new overlords again?
The government grants private monopolies for speech over the airwaves supposedly for the "public interest", but really for the corporate elite that run America. You don't have the right to broadcast audio speech over radio waves at frequencies and strengths that would give you a mass audience unless you pay massive licensing fees that are prohibitive to any working class individual. This means that religion and capitalism maintain their cruel grip on the consciousness of the American public through manufactured deceptions on a massive scale. AM, FM, Satellite, it's all the same. How anyone can justify this by saying that it's a "free market" that lets people "vote with their dollars" is beyond me. How can "voting with your dollars" be democratic? One class of people have literally billions of these dollar-votes at their disposal while another has negative dollar-votes (debit). We need social democratic management of the means of speech in a mass society. True free speech can only prosper when both the right to speak and the right to be heard is available to all equally.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
Its not, so why is it under the free-speech topic?
Sounds like bad business practice to me. Offer a service people want and pay for, then yank the rug out from under them when they get what they want. And, if they are refusing to cancel subscriptions, sounds like a class action lawsuit. Putting them out of business would make a good point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
We are endowed with natural rights as an intrinsic property of our human nature. The constitution may or may not *recognize* these rights, and it may or may not recognize them in the full scope to which they intrinsically apply - however, a political prisoner in China has the *same rights* as you are I, although his government may not recognize them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights
If those who own the printing presses censor what the rest of us write, we do not have freedom of the press.
If those who own the medium of communication censor what we say, we do not have freedom of speech.
In the market context, freedom of the press is dependent on the existence of a large group of publishers, so that if one publisher refuses to carry what you wish to publish uncensored, you can find another that will. Essentially, this requires a true market (an effectively infinite number of players, low barriers to entry, etc.)
Radio broadcasting is not a market.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Who the hell was advertising on XM? All I hear is ads for gotomypc.com and for other XM shows.
Uncensored only means it's uncensored by the FCC over the F word and topless titty (which, admittedly, isn't a big problem on the radio). But anybody who you sign a contract with is gonna maintain some editorial control over what you do, and if you suddenly started spouting Nazi propaganda, they wouldn't want to be associated with you. Now, we're currently undergoing one of those public hysterias over shock radio, so everybody is hypersensistive, and it's an overreaction in one sense. But....
Mostly what's going on is that shock radio has jumped the shark. It's going out of style, and this is what it looks like. Imus caught some heat, and it turned out he had some listeners but no loyal fans to defend him. Stern went to Sirius and a fraction of his audience followed. It's not that the radio stations are becoming more censorious, it's just that the shows are now disposable, they don't make enough money anymore to make it worth the hassle.
Have XM stock, do you? If they are charging people who have cancelled their accounts, they are stealing from those people. They should be facing criminal charges.
Of course this dispute isn't a free-speech issue.
Yes it is. That's the whole point.
"Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government;
No it doesn't. Free speech refers to the ability to speak without anyone attempting to stop you. Free speech can be actively enhanced by private individuals and organisations and can also be restricted (although not so easily). Free speech is a principle. It was the principle that guided the creation of the first amendment. It is not a result of it. XM is free to do as it wishes with the content it broadcasts, within the law.
No they aren't, except legally speaking (but that's a tautology). They are legally free to be total jerks. That doesn't mean we should let them. XM have decided that there are some things that their DJs are allowed to say amd some things that they are not allowed to say. If they break these rules, then they are censured. Does this suggest that they are "free" to "speak"?
We're already empowered. For example, these other people can't shoot us with any guns they own, because they don't count as much as we.
I signed up for a XM for the variety of programming it offers, not just O&A. If one is hell bent against O&A, then call XM and tell them you want channel 202 removed from your radio. You still get the variety of programming that XM offers and still protest. They *DO* watch the lists that are created by what the customer does NOT want on their radios.
Look, O&A aren't all that important in the big scheme of things...to get angry over this is just petty. Two useless radio jocks, that's all they are! Move on with your lives already!
If you want TRULY uncensored radio, go to XM150, the comedy channel. This channel is not broadcast as part of CBS' radio network, so you won't have to worry about any censorship.
I do wish they would bring back XM51.
Your definition of "Free Speech" doesn't really matter in this situation.
The real issue is that there are people who actually pay money for, and listen to this program. They want what they want, and right now XM isn't giving it to them.
-- lol pwned
You have freedom of speech if they can't lock you up for saying what you say. But freedom of speech does not include a right to be published. And there's a corresponding freedom not to listen to you, and certainly a corresponding freedom to refuse to publish your garbage.
You want to be published? Buy and run your own printing press or radio station.
Social democratic management of the means of speech? Your mouth is your own, and pens and paper are really, really cheap. Beyond that, it's not about speech, it's about publishing, and that's a different story.
I piss off bigots.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's totally time that we, the people, are empowered to tell them, those other people (who don't count as much as we), what they can and can't do with their property.
I consider myself rather cynical, but even I wouldn't call employees "property".
More importantly, though, "those other people" don't exist as people! Call me crazy, but I strongly believe that real live humans should have far, far more rights than fictional legal entities.
Why, you might ask?
Simple - You can't imprison a corporation (and only rarely do we imprison the leaders thereof; lookup "hydra" on Wiki for an idea of the effectiveness of that). You can't kill a corporation (well, you can, but in 230 years of abuse by our corporate masters, the government has only used it a very, very small number of times, and never for actual "crimes" such as Bhopal - No, they've used it in reponse to manipulations of another legal fiction, the economy). You can't meaningfully impose any punishment on a corporation, beyond fines (which with very, very few exceptions amount to nothing more than a nuissance, "just the cost of doing business").
So, that leaves us with entities with the rights of real live humans, with absolutely no morals, a single-minded obsession with profit, and no reason to fear serious punishment.
So yeah, I damned well do think we should have the right to tell these legal fictions what they can and can't do with "their" property - Starting with not allowing them to own property in the first place.
They were discussing the rape of another person. I must be crazy, because I see this as wrong. I do support free speech, but advocating violence against women crosses the line. Were they advocating it? They didn't say it was wrong, they were laughing and joking and acting like if was funny. When did rape become funny?
It seems to me that the dogmatic adherence to say anything one wants has as many problems as how to define what should be the minimum standards of behavior.
I certainly think this was a shameful move by XM. I am definitely opposed to such censorship. What they did is not illegal, but it is wrong. Part of the issue is XM does control the market for satellite radio, and there is little alternative for broadcast over the medium, free of censorship restrictions. Since XM controls the satellites and there is no law that says they must not censor information on leased space on those satellites, there is little alternative for people to broadcast censorship free over the medium. In fact similar laws do exist for terrestrial common carriers such as telephone companies, and as well they should apply to ISPs, that require them to carry customer data free of censorship and modification. This is essential, given the monopoly position of the telephone company, and their position in society in providing a telecommunications link which needs to be used by customers, information providers and users, to distribute content. Content distribution should not be centralised but decentralised, this assures freedom of speech, and this requires that one should not need to own a communications grid to do it, but rather should be able to rent space on another communications grid which is shared with others. The communications network can be more easily be funded as such with many users who alone couldnt afford to build their own network using it, and it encourages intellectual diversity in society, keeping access to these networks open and affordable for all.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
So, is making jokes about rape on national radio "right"?
I hear this argument a lot - That doesn't make it any more accurate.
It very much still counts as censorship - Just not the "protected" kind that the government can't do.
You're right. For example, if a university fired a professor for expressing unpopular views, as they often do, that would be censorship.
And in this case, if they were motivated by their upcoming merger, then it's government censorship after all.
It's true that XM's actions aren't justified just because the company has a legal right to do them; we just don't have a legal method of forcing that judgment on them. Instead what people are doing is exercising their own right to cancel their subscription, which will influence the company's decision in turn. I see the backlash as normal and healthy.
Revive the Constitution.
You still reject the blatant reality thtat the Bhopal incident was a blatant act of sabotage, don't you.
No, they were afraid they would be portrayed as condoning jokes about women getting raped, and that would have caused many people (who don't think the Secretary of State getting raped is funny, which believe it or not represents the majority of the public) to cancel their subscriptions or just never subscribe anyways. There are certain things you can't say in today's environment, not because the government won't stand for it but because the public won't stand for it. Just ask Don Imus. He wasn't pulled because of FCC regulations or because CBS thought the Rutgers basketball team would sue them, he was pulled because of pressure brought on by the public.
And btw, the government does not award huge law suits just because someone feels offended by something. Only juries have that power. So even if you buy your argument that they were afraid Condi Rice was going to sue XM radio (which seems very unlikely), it still wouldn't be government censorship.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
So, you have an opinion that these guys shouldn't have had a suspension? I'm curious, is it that:
1) What they said wasn't grossly racist and offensive?
or
2) What they said was grossly racist and offensive, but once they are hired they can't possibly be fired or have any disciplinary action.
or
3) They are supposed to be grossly racist and offensive, so any complaints about it should be ignored.
If there were no legal fictions, there wouldn't be satellite radio.
And besides, Opie and the other guy are shouting at the wind without the satellite, which seems like something that can be called property without much hand wringing.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
t's totally time that we, the people, are empowered to tell them, those other people (who don't count as much as we), what they can and can't do with their property.
No, but as you see, the people (listeners), the other people (advertisers), are free to pull their support from that other other's people property, and thus in effect turn the property into nothing (since without listeners and advertisers, what's a radio's worth anyway).
As another blog has posted, I have verified. XM is not canceling accounts when you call. Merely just putting a hold on them. My cancellation date when I called back was May 26th, when I asked for it immediately. May 25th is a shareholder's meeting. Coincidence?
When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
...but how much of this outrage is due to the fact that the subject of the bit was Condoleezza Rice, a member of the Bush administration, and Opie and Anthony's target demographic feels that anything involving Bush is fair game?
because they already said what they said on the air. What this is would be punishment for making racist or bigoted remarks like Don Imus did and got busted for and so many others.
This is a new trend, if a DJ or announcer or talk show host on the radio says something racist or bigoted they will get punished for it now.
Free Speech does not give you the right to violate station policy, nor does it give you the right to avoid social norms or insult groups of people with. It is about time that people are held accountable for what they say, instead of getting away with murder.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
"It's hardly a censorship issue. XM, as a private company can hire ad fire whoever they like, so long as they don't violate anyones rights."
/. people who gets that.
Bingo! Thank you for being one of the few
This post is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
No, "free speech" refers to our inalienable right to speak freely, limited only by restrictions on harm it does to others.
The Constitution does not constrain only the government. This kind of thinking comes from the basic fallacy that "the Constitution gives us certain rights". No: we have certain rights, and we people create the government to protect those rights as described in the Constitution.
For example, you cannot keep slaves on your private plantation. There are many other Constitutional controls that obviously do not stop at your property line.
There is, however, the right to control one's own private property, primarily by controlling access to it by other people. And there is the middle ground, private property to which access is granted to the public, even by degrees (eg. from a parking lot to a shopping mall to a diner to a private club to an invite-only house party).
And then there's the in-fact results of the exact circumstances of private owners prohibiting certain rightful actions. If only one club prohibits speech, and there are plenty of other venues, then that club is not suppressing the rights. But if every venue for speech is private, and prohibits speech (or every golf course prohibits Germans), then that prohibition is suppressing the rights, and the government has business removing the infringement on the rights.
Satellite radio is an exclusive (literally - it excludes nonsubscribers) club, but it's offered to the public. And, especially since the Sirius/XM merger, it's a very limited venue. There's some worthwhile debate of whether alternate media offer alternate venues, like Internet and broadcast radio. Today they do, since satellite radio is a small audience that is also reachable with audio telecasts. But they might have a majority audience, or perhaps one demographic segment of its audience is large and otherwise not reachable. A future lawsuit might have to decide on the actual situation.
Opie and Anthony have a contract, in which it surely states what speech can get them thrown off the air. Subscribers have contracts which surely state what content can be removed suddenly and without warning. Those terms are enforceable, without violating the Constitution. Not because there is free speech as unlimited as in a public park - and certainly not because the government has no jurisdiction in the encrypted satellite band.
But because of how our actual rights are protected by the actual situation, in its real details. When our rights are at stake, the Constitution is there to protect them. But not when someone's just waving the Constitution because they didn't get the entertainment they can get elsewhere.
--
make install -not war
In this day and age, though, "more channels of mainstream content" isn't enough. The public grew tired of that with cable TV in the 80's and 90's. Satellite radio will have to adopt either time-shifting (in the manner of PVRs) or collaboration (in the manner of YouTube and Digg).
Right now, I'm having to accomplish time-shifting of talk radio via a thumb drive and an FM-broadcasting MP3 player. I'd rather have the convenience of an in-dash Tivo-style device that did it for me. No, it's not something that couldn't be copied by terrestial and Internet radio, but satellite radio could be first.
Building on that, my other suggestion was for user-created content. "Podcasting" was always kind of a misnomer since downloading and listening were discrete steps. Again, a Tivo-style satellite radio would simplify this, and combined with user-created content uploaded to the Internet (rated and ranked similar to Digg), satellite radio could usher in peer-to-peer broadcasting.
However, Big Media, Big Government, and Big Corporations would not like it and would try to see that it wouldn't happen.
fuck you asshole. i called and demanded i be cancelled and refunded my money. they said ok, we are cancelling your account. the very next day I see that my account is still active, and when i called XM I found out that they had suspended my service for 30 days that I strictly said no to, I wanted to be cancelled.
what if your faggity xbox live needed to be cancelled and they didnt bother to listen to you, same fucking deal asscunt.
flush buy fuck
They said something someone didn't like, and they're being taken off the air for it. The fact that the official public sphere (meaning the FCC) doesn't claim an interest is a detail -- the issues are still the same. Censorship is speech denied, and the "gubmint" isn't the only entity that practices it. Whatever Opie and Anthony said (something about raping Condoleeza Rice, am I right?), their right to say it should be defended and it's good to see a groundswell of support on principle.
"The deep-fried Mars bar is a symptom of a wider crisis." -- Nutritionist Ann Ralph, on the Scottish diet
"Those people" signed an agreement for a subscription.
n t.xmc
http://xmradio.com/about/customer-service-agreeme
It states that special deals may have different rules regarding cancellation. It also states that both parties agree to binding arbitration for resolving disputes, so there won't be any criminal charges.
Welcome to the United States of Corporations, where contract law is the law of the land.
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
I consider myself rather cynical, but even I wouldn't call employees "property".
Neither would I. However, XM owns a bunch of microphones, and they get to decide in which direction they want to point them. The microphones are their property.
the o/p show is completely unlistenable. complete snore fest. they took a very funny idea, raping the presidents wife, and made it unfunny, like every bit they have ever stolen from Howard Stern. I've only known 1 o/p fan, and he has asperger syndrome.
20-40k have canceled... they were suspended, not fired. What will these losers do when their heros go back on the air?
Now all of Slashdot has the opportunity to RTFA!
But that's about as far as it goes.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
There are two kinds of censorship:
1) The kind done by governmental bodies, which has the force of law, and is often constrained itself by "free speech" guarantees. That's de jure censorship.
2) The kind done by private entities, which can be legally circumvented, but which can go beyond what the government is allowed to do. That's de facto censorship.
Each of these is a Bad Thing. If the government is non-democratic, de jure censorship is inherently destructive to the betterment of society, and infringes on the rights of the individual, because there's no way to effectively challenge it. If the private entity is a monopoly or has insufficient competition*, or if it is highly influential (e.g. religious bodies), de facto censorship can be just as bad, for the same reason. So saying "that's not censorship; it's not the government" is missing the point, and offering rather cold comfort to anyone who has had their work suppressed or their reading/entertainment options limited by self-appointed censors.
*Whether that applies is this case is certainly subject to debate, and I don't have a strong opinion on that point; I'm talking about the general principle.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I guess I need a phrase with a more narrow definition that that. I don't consider Morning Edition type stuff to be talk radio. Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, the stupid guys on the local radio stations in the mornings... that's talk radio, to me. Which is why I have no use for it. I can't imagine calling Rush Limbaugh a shock jock, though :)
Free speech is the right do say what you believe without fear of (pretty broadly) being stripped of your freedom because of it (meaning incarceration, death...)
If you guys are going to argue that anybody who owns a medium should have no control over its editorial line, you are seriously wrong, IMO.
Granted, you cannot expect to be able to speak up without *any* form of consequence, but that's a private citizen issue. The only thing the first amendment assures you is that the government will not prevent you from speaking (and should protect your life from the results of such speech I guess).
As some pointed out here, the issue here is what XM promised to deliver and if it held up to it. If not, then paying customers are gonna leave them and that's the end of it.
Opie and Anthony were hired because of that kind of stunts, and XM knew what to expect from them.
Nobody here has any idea of what limitations XM gave to them and if they went over them. If there is a breach of contract or whatever issue of that kind, let them deal with that in court.
But please do not start saying that a news-paper/TV station/radio should publish anything without control over their own publication, because it's not true.
That's not a nick, that's my NAME.
I don't think they have the several hundred million of us(in the U.S., their target market, blah blah blah) who are not subscribers exactly where they want us.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Sexual comment on Laura Bush, Condoleeza and the Queen?
I want to know what they said!!!That must be hilarious.
3) They are supposed to be grossly racist and offensive, so any complaints about it should be ignored.
Bingo. XM hired these guys to do pretty much exactly what they did. XM's commercials even bragged about how they their various celebrity shock-jocks could get away with saying anything, unlike their broadcast-radio counterparts.
Incidentally, I felt the same way about the Imus scandal, though in that case at least the use of publically broadcast radio made FCC intervention a possibility - XM doesn't even have that thin of an excuse.
No seriously. Do the world a favour and sue them. You're completely right: it is credit card fraud, and even as an honest mistake, it's completely unacceptable. If they can't take care of your details and be responsible with them, they should be severely punished.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
1: You have the natural right to have your words broadcast over other people's systems, be they newspapers or radio.
2: That the various media are not all in competition anyway. Web, newspaper, radio, TV etc are all in competition with each other, as well as within a particular techology.
Freedom of speech is the right to say what you think without being imprisoned, it isn't the right to require someone else to carry those words to their customers.
Deleted
Just like every other company, XM's only goal is to make money for its owners (technically maximize their wealth). They made a choice to remove two jokers whom they thought would bring bad PR. It's unclear from the OP whether the move saved a net number of subscribers or cost XM; perhpas that can't be known. Media companies allow talent they consider offensive to remain on the air so long as there isn't a backlash that could hurt revenues. I bet a lot of station managers dislike the opinions of Limbaugh, Hannity, or even Frankin, but they like ad sales enough to set those feelings aside. The most common form of this so called "censorship" is the removal of entertainers who are simply unpopular with the masses. Either way, grow a skin. The 1st amendment has been threatened throughout the Constitution's history, and the right to free speech is still best represented in the USA.
I think it's time we got off this childish and meaningless deliniation between huge centralized corporate power and governments.
Back in the days of our forefathers the king was also in control of business through either direct control of resources or indirect control over charters and taxes. Now corporations have multinational presence, and force governments to "compete" for the boosts to gdp they offer with bought legislation.
Many corporations have more assets than developing word nations, and bill gates could easily fund an army to seize half of africa if he wished, but corporate weasels learn well from the past and are now content to manipulate the puppet strings and cry "private property" whenever groups call a spade a spade.
When clearchannel controls more than half the radio market they carry as much or more power than government, and need to be held responsible for censorship.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
No, it does make it right. Their house, their rules. Dont like it, leave. Your right to free speech ends when you enter my house. If I dont like the things you say I have the right to ask you to shut up or get out. Same with organizations and businesses.
I'm no fan of censorship, but I am a big proponent of the rights of individuals and organizations to exclude whom ever they desire from their homes and organizations. I tend to look down on organizations that support censorship, but understand and respect their right to do so. I pretty much knew that XM wouldnt stand behind its talent. I'll be amazed if when they are fired XM honors their contract.
O/P should have been fired for not being entertaining a long long time ago. May they rot in the Status Quo hell.
Smashing radios as a protest? Isn't that like slashing the seats at a drive-in movie?
Especially when they control resources equivalent to royalty and greater than many of the world's nations.
Once you cross a threshold in percentage of societal resources controlled you should be held to constitutional and social standards.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Are you the crazy dude who posts those rants talking about "yOur creators" and stuff like that?
And I like all the deliberate miscomprehensions of the meaning of people and properties in this thread. Somehow, corporations have become the decision making force, not the people who run them, and somehow the airwaves became the property, not the equipment necessary to make use of them. I like when you can redefine common terms to suit your own goals. In that spirit, I call you all geniuses.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
If there were no legal fictions, there wouldn't be satellite radio.
No. It would be just companies owned by individuals who may or may not be rather wealthy. (Think Bill Gates or Rupert Murdoch)
However, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be stocks, shareholders, and CEOs but rather that corporations should not have their cake and eat it too by affording government protection from wrong doing.
As in either corporations must either by regulated by government since they are getting protection or they shouldn't be regulated by government and receive no government protection (I prefer the latter since I have Libertarian views towards economics)
The problem is that corporations of today are effectively using government regulations such as taxes, employment laws, lack of liability, stock market regulation, and of course local, state, and federal governments passing legislation on the request of corporate lobbyists. I could also say that the certain corporations are abusing FDA regulations, copyrights, and patents in order to gain profit at the expense of the free market and of course their competitors.
So in that respect, they have violated the spirit of private property and there should be some recourse... Either give up the benefits to be truly laissez-faire or expect more regulation.
Personally, I dislike the thought of more regulation internally so I would like to see more liability and responsibility of corporations by making it more privatized. That sounds like a paradox I know, but if corporations were treated or were required to have individual responsibility (like real people) as in the the company does a crime and CEO goes to jail for it and the stock holders are punished much like someone who owns a private business that isn't public, then the corporations will of course behave better ethically.
Of course in my idea, stockholders that didn't want to face such actions could simply buy non-voting stock for pure investment purposes, but if you have a say in the company that you should be responsible for what it does.
If you can simply hold companies accountable then we can start treating them like private citizens who are responsible enough to own their own property.
On a side note... I'd like to point out that corporations who maintain the majority of the voting stock in a small group of hands or have a single authority figure like Microsoft, Google, and Apple tend to have better control of where the direction of the company is going in a positive long term fashion. Much like private feudal fiefs (or mini-dictators as you could call Gates and Jobs) often have a vision that is good for the long term role of the company.
Companies that simply hire the latest and greatest CEO for a year or so are usually followed by share holders who don't give a damn about whether the company goes under in 6 months as long as they make a quarterly profit. These types of companies are usually headless chickens who hire way too many people, overspend, and always end up laying off people in the end.
In truth the best investments are in companies that the investors have little control over the actual business process itself which is why I argue even without change in the legality of corporations that the best businesses are ones that retain centralized private control rather than a board of directions elected by many shareholders.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You must be new here.
Watch Comedy Central just about any evening and you'll hear jokes about people being raped in prison. Read any Slashdot thread about someone being found guilty of a crime and you'll see the same jokes.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
I am so sick of people protesting and expecting dismissal or fines for "leud" or material "they might find inappropriate." If this material is on a non-public aka subscription venue, or requires you to search out the information, there should be absolutely no way you should complain. Satellite Radio is a monthly paid service with a broadcast of the show on a "un-censored" station. You a subscriber should know what type of station you are listening to or watching be it tv or internet etc. If you do not like what you hear or see guess what! Change the program. You are not forced to view it. It should be your ignorance up for fines for either allowing your children to listen to it or you for not "understanding" what type of program you are watching.
Some people think that bad things can only be done by governments, and that when those bad things are done by corporations, they aren't bad things at all, even though the act is the same.
I don't know why you think like that, but you're wrong. So, so wrong.
You can't take the sky from me...
So then, the Hays Code wasn't censorship, either?
Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
There is only so much time in the day and I typically listen to radio shows that teach me something. I considered Satellite radio but decided there was nothing on there that would really improve my personal satisfaction. NPR is one of the stations I listen to in the car. At work, I usually listen to classical music on Internet radio, because it makes it easier to ignore distractions while I try (sometimes vainly) to accomplish something.
Here is where we part ways though, I've listened to the "shock jocks" many times in my life. I crave humor and different perspectives. I enjoy being able to let my mind shut off for a while and just revel in the trivial. I used to anyway, but these days it seems to pointless, even for relaxation. I have listened to Opie and Anthony, but even when I was regularly listening to that genere, I found them absurd and pointless. I think that most people who shared my general taste for "shock jocks" felt the same.
The show has a cultish following though. "Most people" doesn't mean that a cause or idea is trivial. Most people don't know what Linux is, but that doesn't mean I don't support it. If I were going to try to sell software strictly for profit though, I expect I would try to sell software that I thought "Most people" want. I don't have MS on my home computers, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize the value of selling it.
The radio personalities in question offer a value to their employers, but when they embarrass the people who sign the paychecks enough, it shouldn't be surprising that they are removed from the air. The employer has to decide if the money they generate (from a minority of listeners) is worth the time and effort it takes to deal with the hassle keeping them on the air brings. Personally, I suspect that I would have been far less tolerant, and I would have asked the question "How much money do they bring in compared to how much they cost?" a long time ago. The margin there is absolutely the issue. If it's tremendous enough, then by all means keep them, but if it becomes tiny, or if it goes negative, boot to the head. My hunch is that all this publicity and current hassle brings them easily more money than they had coming in from keeping the show on air, and that after the ruckus dies down, there is no good financial reason to bring them back on.
Just as a side note, if they let me make those decisions, I would never have let them on in the first place. I don't want my name associated with anything so morally repulsive and wouldn't want to contribute to that mentality, just as an ethical call. I'm trying to pretend it was my job to make money for the station, not my job to care what reputation the station received. Fortunately for both myself and XM I have no plans to try to join their organization.
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
You want to be published? Buy and run your own printing press or radio station.
Sure, I can afford to buy or make the equipment, that's not the problem. Artificial government granted monopolies on spectrum licensing is. In the case of print, my market will be small...but I guess I can grow if people are interested in my work and my sales are successful. In the case of radio, my market will be near 0 unless I can afford to license real spectrum (AM, FM, long range S band). I don't have any place to start. The FCC hasn't even embraced low power FM (but thankfully people are still fighting for community radio).
Your mouth is your own, and pens and paper are really, really cheap. Beyond that, it's not about speech, it's about publishing, and that's a different story.
But ability to publish really does define free speech. The government isn't allowed to say that something can be spoken but not printed. Both forms are equally protected. The same should apply to broadcast. Under capitalism, however, private companies own the means of mass production. My ability to speak out is insignificant compared to News Corporation's ability. I as an individual am being told that I can speak audio but not over the radio; all the while corporations are free to speak over any and all media. Meaningful justice requires some level of equality. Our "democracy" grossly violates any sense of equality with it comes to the ability to speak out.
Almost even the most totalitarian societies will allow the drunken idiot rant in the public square. No one will listen to them. In a high tech, fast paced technological society, no one will listen to anyone speaking in the public square! Genuine free speech requires the freedom to speak where someone can hear you. In 2007, the ability to speak and be heard is provided through access to technology. Radio (including broadcast TV) is completely out of the picture as a means of two way communication for the working class...not because the tech is too expensive, but because the rich run the government (the guys with the guns). They conspire to keep us from speaking. If the same sort of regulations on broadcasts applied online it would cost you $10,000 to license your server because the hosting companies would want a government monopoly on providing content. Thankfully, because the (largely unregulated) Internet spans many nations and has been good for Wall Street, the corporate parties haven't put much effort into imposing such restrictions.
The FCC argues that the spectrum is limited and freeing it would mean whoever had the strongest transmitter would just drown everyone else out. This may have been true 50 years ago...but with intelligent spread spectrum tech, it simply no longer applies. Besides, if you are going to regulate the air, why should money be the determining factor in deciding who gets to go on? Why can't communities vote on regional spectrum allocation? Why can't the whole nation vote on the rights to long range RF communication? The corporate dominated regulated world ended up being just as bad as the "most wattage x-mitter wins" world would have been. Both mean that the rich monopolize public mass communication.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
So you browse slashdot at -1?
Wrong, this is still not censorship. O&A are still free to make any comments they like, uncensored. XM no longer wishes to be part of carrying that speach via satellite, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. We also have freedom of the press, too, but that doesn't mean you get to use someone elses press without their permission, go buy your own. Likewise, O&A can (or should be able) to market their show elsewhere, but if not enough people want to listen to it, then tough for them. Now, if XM cancels O&A, but then tries to block them from marketing to Sirius/etc, THEN I would agree with you that they are truly censoring them.
Now, backlash against XM is also perfectly valid and exactly how the system should/does work. And there appears to be enough to demonstrate O&A has some substantial value to XM.
Two things will likely happen. 1) XM will cave and put O&A back on. 2) Sirius will pick them up, and even more XM subscribers will move to Sirius.
Now, if you think "we need to stop putting up with crap like this", then by all means boycot/cancel XM. Let advertisers know that you listened, and now XM dollars can't reach you anymore. That is exactly how you influence them "as a private company". If your voice (and the advertisers) is loud enough, you get your way. If not enough people give a rat's butt about O&A, then they weren't really a good value for XM anyway, and are financially better off without them.
I don't have XM, so I fall in that "don't care" category, but do care that it looks like the system works as it's supposed to. And I think it is working like it should. I think this backlash will succeed in O&A being back on your radio soon. Although, you may have to subscribe to Sirius...
Okay.... hang on .... there. Done, now your turn.
Don't you wish you could actually get away with a lie like that? Everybody do something I'm not willing to do to support my preference in 3... 2... wait, where is everybody?
B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
You are not qualified to say what is and isn't "right" about what can be said on TV and radio.
You might be grossly offended by a rape joke, I might simply not find it amusing, someone else might chuckle.
We all have different moral standards.
As another example, what about insulting someone's religion? I couldn't give a shit if a broadcaster goes on a rampage against Christianity, but the Archbishop of Canterbury would clearly disagree with me.
Stop allowing others to censor what you don't like, just don't watch it.
</liberal rant>
I agree completely with what you're saying about corporations and too much power / not enough liability.
However, it's not like XM (or Sirius) is providing a public service. Their customers will decide how far they (as a company) can censor the content. If the majority of subscribers joined XM to get away from "terrestrial" radio censorship, then they will leave XM and take their money with them as it appears they're doing. If XM retains enough customers to continue to be profitable, then that's the business decision they made.
On the other hand, if I were a shareholder (NASDAQ - XMSR) I would probably be a bit pissed that this move is driving away a large number of subscriptions and advertisers and would demand (to the best of my ability) that the management remedy this situation or perhaps I'd just cut my losses and leave. The stock value is up from a few days ago but overall is less than its IPO and in a current downward trend.
The point being, censorship occurs everywhere but much of it is done by private businesses who live or die by the choices they make. If the public (i.e. the consumers) accept this censorship then the business continues. If it doesn't then the business fails. Unless there is blatant interference by the government I agree this isn't a free speech issue as much as it is freedom of choice. If you're a subscriber and don't want to allow this type of behavior, cancel your subscription and tell them why you're canceling. If you can't live without XM then they'll be able to censor anything they want without fear that you'll leave.
We can get our music elsewhere. There is still Sirius if you need streaming tunes in the middle of the Adirondacks or the Himalayas. There's still several Internet radio stations (not including the "pirate" ones) that have commercial-free music playing non-stop. These things called CD players and MP3 players still exist and still have the capacity for mobile music, and last but not least - there's still terrestrial radio and even "HD" radio if you want to buy into the hype and need your digital music fix.
...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
I say Rape is funny.
Right now, picture in your head Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. Maybe that's why they call him Porky!
binding arbitration clauses have no effect on criminal prosecutions, and it's unlikely that a judge will enforce the binding arbitration clause in a civil case since it's simply a consumer service. the customer has no reasonable expectation to be stuck in arbitration over a billing issue.
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
So you troll slashdot without reading articles? Are are you just too stupid to understand what you read?
The question of what a person chooses to read or not read is exactly the opposite of whether someone else has the power to enforce their own choice upon him.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
That it's embarrassing to be from Texas?
You should, however, learn the meaning of the words you use.
You can't take the sky from me...
I've been an XM subscriber for many years. I like to listen to Fox News and Fox News Radio on XM. I also like their trance station (82 - "The System"). When I heard about the anti-social behavior of O&A, I wanted to send a message to XM. I did so by getting on their subscriber web site and implementing "parental controls" on both of my XM radios. Now none of my XM radios are even capable of receiving O&A. I will continue to be a subscriber unless they cave in to this recent backlash. If they do, I will then cancel my accounts.
You *MUST* stay subscribed to XM radio or else the terrorists win.
I'm a student. I write iPhone apps.
-George Carlin
You can't take the sky from me...
This just gave them the excuse to do it. The show has been performing miserably and so is thier CBS radio show. If the merger of XM and Sirius happens they only need one Howard Stern.
This air of "political correctness" is diminishing or freedoms and will only lead to worse.
I hope that Sirius will grow a stiffer spine - they've set a good trend with Howard Stern. They should take on Imus and Andy & Opie. To hell with the "merger" that's a bad idea anyway, we need competition.
As far as I understand, the FCC cannot presently regulate satellite broadcasts - let's keep it that way. If they do, move your corporate offices out of the country.
Bottom line: if you don't like what's being said or broadcast, *turn it off* or change the channel.
Well, really it is also an example of property owning people if you think about it. And yes, many corporations do become/operate as sociopathic institutions for the very reasons you sighted, very often to the detriment of their property, or more correctly, employees.
You confuse the document clarifying it's legality with the concept itself. You need to learn the difference.
You can't take the sky from me...
One question that comes to my mind: Does the American right to free speech include the right to use someone else's newspaper / website / tv station / radio station / satellite radio / shortwave etc? If it does, I have some things I want to say on CNN during prime time so that everyone gets my message.
If CNN won't cooperate, maybe I can visit a church somewhere and crank the amps up to 11 so the whole neighborhood can hear, I at least have the right to amplified free speech, if not broadcast free speech. Right?
FrankThere are a lot of people who think that the Bill of Rights doesn't really apply to individuals, and needs to be changed.
Especially when it comes to the Second Amendment...
Okay fine, "We the customers" will make it into one. We will vote with our wallets and demand the same free speech rights as written, not interpreted, in the 1st amendment. Since the world is being run by corporations anyway, it's time we put the squeeze on them to operate under the same rules as we place on the "official" government. That should take of that little problem. This is great to see this kind of action from people. It's a sign of hope that the 08 election could go better than I otherwise believe it will. I sure hope to see lots more of this. It helps to demonstrate to people where the real power is, and it might encourage them to stand up to these weasels. Very good news. "You gotta fight...for your right...to paaaaarty!" Sad that we should have to fight for anything.
What?
I agree with you, based on this:
So XM chastized them publicly, and Opie and Anthony apologized, then whined about it the following Monday. XM suspended them for complaining, not for what they originally said. If they had not apologized, and were then suspended, they could argue the "censorship" case. But they (fearing for their paycheques, no doubt) apologized on Friday, then whined about "dumb rules" on Monday.
So I agree: this is an HR matter, not a censorship issue.
I don't care why you're posting AC
The only reason XM censored "Opie and Anthony" in the first place was to show the FCC that they are "responsible" so that will get in their good graces to pass the XM - Sirius merger. These protesters don't even know what they are protesting, by smashing their radios they are making it harder on XM and Sirius both. In full disclosure, I'm an XM subscriber (and I didn't smash my radio).
I know XM radios can record. But can they timeshift? By that I mean programming a date, channel, start time, and end time to record, even if the car is off? To avoid draining the car battery, I would imagine the car radio would have to have a rechargeable battery that recharges while the car is running.
Their programming is excellent and I love the content and I'm happy to pay for it.
But their customer service has turned from helpful (when I signed up two years ago) to downright scummy now. I recently bought a new XM radio for my car, so I called to replace the one that I already had. It was very easy to do.
When the conversation was almost over, the woman on the other end said "If you'd like, we can give you three months of free service on the radio you took out of service in case you'd like to give it to a friend or family member to see if they like XM."
This sounded good to me. "Sure," I said, "sounds good." Then I thought for a moment. "Wait, will I be charged at the end of three months." To which she responded, "You'll be able to cancel at any time." So I tried a different way of asking. And I got the same response. To which I finally said. "If I don't call to cancel, will I or won't I be automatically be charged for that new radio at the end of the three months." I didn't get a straight answer, so I asked again... slowly and loudly. To which she finally acquiesced and said "Yes, you will need to call and cancel the service before the three months is up." "Or what?" "Or that radio will be added to your service." "And I will be charged automatically?" "Yes."
At which point I said to forget it and make it perfectly clear in no uncertain terms that I wasn't happy with them trying to dupe me.
And you know what, if they'd given me the three months free and DID NOT auto-add the subscription at the end of the term, I'm nearly certain I would have given the radio to someone who would have become as addicted to satellite radio as I am and they probably would have gotten a new subscriber.
What they did, or at least tried to do, is to me, the antithesis of good customer service. They got nothing and ticked off one of their loyal customers all in one swoop.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I love this story, on so many levels. This is the first of its kind that I've seen. You always read about and expect stories like the Don Imus firing, (who, by the way, is suing CBS. Good luck to him.) or how someone is fined hundreds of thousands of US$ for saying the F-word, or "massive uproar" over split-second bairly-visible nip slips. But here we have the anti-censorship crowd doing exactly what the paranoid networks feared would come from the other side. I hope this is the start of a new revolution.
When did we get to the point where everything has to revolve around the opinions of a few overzealous religious-right middle-aged stay-at-home mothers who lived their whole lives inside a bubble and have too much time on their hands? [I have a sister who's just like that] For one, I don't think these people are going to change brands of toothpaste because their favorite brand sponsors a show that drops S-bombs and F-bombs on a regular basis. I also don't think these people will be buying any high-end cars or other luxury products, so those sponsors are safe. No sane person would boycott any sort of medication or medical treatment over this. The only potential advertisers affected might be those selling lower-end cars, SUVs(mainly), and perhaps any product that requires some amount of forethought. I'm sure there's a few obsessive individuals who will write down the names of every product that sponsors an offensive show and avoid them, but these are considerably rare.
Keeping this from becoming too off-topic, what Opie and Anthony fans can do is this: Take a brief look at the advertisers who pulled out in opposition of censorship. If they sell anything big that you plan on purchasing, remember to tell the salesperson (or probably better, write the company a letter with a photocopy of your receipt) that you went with them because they supported Opie and Anthony. (or free speech, but at least mention Opie and Anthony) I already plan to do the same because a (different) radio show that I love came under fire awhile back, and their main sponsor stood up for them. So my next mattress is coming from that sponsor. This is turning the tables on what networks and sponsors expect from consumers, and in doing so we may change their views on censorship.
Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
I blame te nappy headed ho's
He wasn't saying that. The property he referred to is the satellite, broadcast equipment, etc.
So, that leaves us with entities with the rights of real live humans,
Humans have rights, so a group of humans working together has the same rights.
with absolutely no morals,
The corporation is just a tool for the owning group to use. Tools don't have morals.
a single-minded obsession with profit,
Just like a hammer is obsessed with nails - that's what it's built for.
and no reason to fear serious punishment.
Tools can't fear anything. If you want to make a tool obey the law, you have to affect the person wielding it.
So yeah, I damned well do think we should have the right to tell these legal fictions what they can and can't do with "their" property - Starting with not allowing them to own property in the first place.
Nice rhetoric, too bad there's nothing but emotional appeal for anti-capitalists there.
I actually saw the movie, then went online and got some more information from the other point of view.. only to find there wasn't really any.
I think way too many people reacted to that whole thing, as well as to the movie, as being about 'freedom of speech'. Even Natalie herself did, to an extent, at one point (after which she calls Bush a "Dumb Fuck", for those who have seen the movie and needed the pointer). However, throughout the movie there was never once a strong "this is freedom of speech! why are people trampling on our freedom of speech!?" mantra. ( Aside from the old man stating that free speech is fine, but not on foreign soil and not in public. )
To me, it wasn't about freedom of speech. *obviously* you can say just about whatever you want, just don't get upset if somebody else makes a 'freedom of speech' statement back - and that includes no longer buying your product, or even going public with their opinion. ( Death threats are in a completely different league. )
I got a much stronger sense that the movie was about "this is what happens when a select group of powerful people focus their sheeple". From the political movement involved to the radio station 'federation' bosses right down to the woman who once loved the Dixie Chick's music (note: their music), then considered their music to be "trash" because of a personal (political or not, I say it was - even if it was meant in fun) statement from one of the band members.
Imagine if a similarly strong group of people existed in the software world. Perhaps they would convince 'blacks' that Open Source is "trash" because of ESR's past statements, even if currently perhaps only a few are offended by what he said, and fewer still may not touch anything to do with ESR.
So why do these things usually blow over (what of the huge public outcry against SONY's 'rootkit'?), and some times blow up (Dixie Chicks, Imus, etc.)?
As stated in the movie by one of the other band members (not a fan - don't recall the name, the other blonde anyway), the situation was just too perfect for those with an interest to let it blow over.
Even though I'm not a fan, I do admire their attitude, resolve -and- sense of when to just 'give up'. That's the other thing I think the movie demonstrated.. that sometimes, if the other side isn't going to budge, it may be better to just give up, and move on - even if the other side can't or won't. They moved on, with continued success.
---
Regardless of whether you're a fan or not, I do recommend watching this movie - it has some other bits of background information, and plenty of humor (the shot of Rick Rubin's dog is hilarious - brilliant editing! In fact, google for "Rick Rubin's dog" - currently only three hits, and all about this movie. )
So what did they actually say? Here's the transscript I've been able to dig up. Charlie is some character called "homeless charlie".
I've never listened to Opie and Anthony, nor do I subscribe to sat radio, but I have to say it's a lot less offensive than I imagined from the little "raping Condi Rice, Laura Bush, and the Queen" summary I've read. It's really not any worse talk than you'd hear a few guys in a bar saying.
I guess I have to agree with the comment that the suspension was really more about trying to appease any government contacts that Sirius/XM has to grease the wheels on the (IMO really bad for the public) merger between the two.
AccountKiller
Right, and why are they canceling? Because they were led to believe they were paying to listen to an uncensored channel.
Would you buy a car advertised with a turbo, if the dealer could later decide they can de-activate it without warning you?
They weren't fired because of their comments. They were fired because they suck. This was just a convenient excuse for XM to release them from their contracts. They had next to no ratings which is evident from the 20K - 40K subscribers canceling. For a nationwide broadcast, that is just pathetic. These guys couldn't pull any ratings on terrestrial radio, how did anyone expect them to get ratings on satellite radio?
>> "It's hardly a censorship issue. XM, as a private company can hire ad fire whoever they like, so long as they don't violate anyones rights."
>> Bingo! Thank you for being one of the few /. people who gets that.
No no no, the mistake made by the submitter is that it is a "free speech issue," it's just not a First Amendment issue.
What you (and most Americans) don't get is that the First Amendment doesnt grant you the right to free speech - it establishes government protection for a right you already have. Of course XM is censoring the jocks and violating their free speech rights. The catch is, it's legal for them to do so.
Sure there is a backlash against XM for the suspension, but what would the backlash be had they done nothing? O&A's comments were much worse IMHO than Imus's and he was fired. What would happen if NOW and other feminist groups got involved. From NOW.org (http://www.now.org/press/05-07/05-14.html"
NOW: Rape is Not Funny XM Satellite Shock Jocks Opie and Anthony Go Too Far Statement of NOW President Kim Gandy May 14, 2007 On a May 9 broadcast of the Opie & Anthony Show on XM Satellite Radio, the show's hosts (whose real names are Gregg Hughes and Anthony Cumia), welcomed a guest they called Homeless Charlie, who said he would like to rape U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, First Lady Laura Bush, and even Queen Elizabeth. In the broadcast, Hughes and Cumia clearly encouraged the guest's horrifying remarks -- they laughed and imagined "the horror" on Rice's face as she is held down and punched in the face. The language is too hostile to repeat, but any woman who hears the clip will be seething at the misogynistic diatribe. Both hosts knew what they were doing when they treated assault and rape as a joke. Didn't we just go through this -- with former CBS radio host Don Imus and his hateful words about the women's basketball team at Rutgers University? And JV and Elvis' cruel racism and sexism at the expense of Chinese restaurant employees on CBS radio station WFNY? At least CBS got the message that no one is entitled to a media platform for hate speech. On May 11, Hughes and Cumia apologized, saying: "We take very seriously the responsibility that comes with out creative freedom and regret any offense that this segment has caused." XM Satellite is clearly concerned, saying that they "deplore the comments" made on the show. CBS, which airs a different Opie & Anthony Show, should be concerned as well, because this kind of "joke" from CBS hosts also reflects on the network. I have one message for XM Radio bigwigs who rely heavily on pay-to-listen customers, and for shock jocks everywhere: "Profiting from hate will cost you the business of thinking consumers."
If I was an exec, I would be far more scared of NOW and their political base. Especially since XM has been courting women with their Take 5 and Oprah and Friends channel. And no exec is going to be fired for making a stand against rape. Personally, it saddens me to see so many people defending O&A for their sickening comments. What next, child molestation? Personally, I may have cancelled my XM had they NOT taken this action.
The answer is #3. XM advertises that O&A are offensive. XM marks their channel as an Extreme Language (XL) channel that can be blocked. XM did this to make money on O&A, then they suspend them for a reason that is contrary to XM's previous statement about O&A. Nobody has a right not to be offended, especially by words broadcast on a pay service (cf. HBO). Pay radio seems to be held to a higher standard than pay TV. Should complaints from Italians that The Sopranos offends them be reason for a cable channel to cancel or suspend the show? No. The same goes for pay radio.
Now, if any other media personality or producer has to fear his job when reporting a story, how honest and accurate can you expect your new/information to be. Basically, O&A were not suspended for the comments made on their show, but more by their reaction to them. So what does that mean for the nightly news. That's why you never hear about CNN news on CNN news, and why a story about Disney World being heard on any ABC station. The talent is afraid of saying anything about their boss. But what if their boss makes news...you'll never hear about it. Is that a good thing? Sure, it's their right to do it, but is it good? Do you support that behavior?
You'll have that sometimes...
Imagine what the outrage would be if, say, the rape "joke" was about Coretta Scott King.
Can't you just picture Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson going crazy over something like that?
It isn't automatic that there would be people as wealthy as Murdoch without the protection afforded by incorporation(and I would guess that there would not be a Gates). I don't think very many individuals would be both incredibly wealthy and willing to take on the risks(both capital and liability exposure) associated with something like satellite radio.
There will probably always be room for improvements to corporate behavior, but I don't think that the real world situation is currently one where it is even mostly bad. It might be 51/49, but I bet it is better than that.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Actually, it's #4 as "they", Opie and Anthony, didn't actual say any of the offensive material in question. The offensive material in question was said by a guest.
Wow! The 4 people that listen to Opie and Anthony are rebelling!
Racist? Racist?!?
Is there some part of this story that I'm missing? I read the article, at least the first link anyway. And I've been reading all the comments, and this is the first I've heard anything about racism.
PLEASE tell me you didn't simply jump on the fact that one out of the three public-figure women mentioned happened to be African-American and decide to pull out the race card.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
XM has the worst customer service I've ever dealth with. They will not cancel your subscription, the only way I could get them to stop was to cancel my card. Their IVRs suck, and you can't do anything without going through an operator. Their operators also lie, saying your service has been cancelled when it hasn't, they claim they can't find you account, etc. They'll say their computers are down, anything to waste your time, and call back later.
I bought my service and radio from them online, the radio was delivered 2 months later, and was not "pre-activated" like they promised. When I called them the operator activated it, and said there would be no additional charge, but they not only charged me an activation fee of around 15$, they charged me for the radio a 2nd time, like I had ordered a whole new radio! Fungus 53 was the only good channel, except for that I hope all those fuckers are fired when sirius buys them out.
Only if it's about raping a clown.
Humans have rights, so a group of humans working together has the same rights.
But when organized as a corporation, this "group of humans working together" doesn't have anything resembling the accountability that a real person would. Pray tell, when was the last time you saw a corporation get its charter yanked or its business licenses revoked for defrauding people out of billions of dollars, when it's common for an individual to go to jail for years for stealing a used car that might be worth $1000?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Looks like you don't know what censorship is, either that, or you are confusing that with a free speech issue. YES This is censorship.
If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
I'm wondering if the Iranian government realizes that yet.
Best Slashdot Co
The microphones are their property.
The microphones don't do the first bit of good without those FCC licenses they were given.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I'm no fan of censorship, but I am a big proponent of the rights of individuals and organizations to exclude whom ever they desire from their homes and organizations.
Which is why I ditched Sam's Club when they started allowing the Scientologists to recruit people on their property. They certainly have the right to let anyone they want to do whatever they want in their stores, and I have an equal right to refuse to patronize them, and also a right to let other people know of their apparent support for the organization.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Free speech can be seen as an idea whose restriction by government is banned by the first amendment, the first amendment's restriction doesn't necessarily embody the entirety of the concept. If someone says that the first amendment guarantees their right to air whatever they wish no matter what the owners of the medium say, they'd be wrong. If they say they should be able to say whatever they want because of freedom of speech, they have a point.
Look at the declaration of independence to see some of the thinkings of enlightened people at the time:
At the time of the writing of the constitution, many people didn't think we needed the Bill of Rights, that's why they are included as the first ten amendments instead of being embodied in the constitution. The thinking was that the constitution so narrowly defined the power of the government that it would be unable to abuse its power to start with. Many people thankfully disagreed and only voted for the constitution with the understanding that the Bill of Rights would be passed as well. Many people today see our rights flowing from the government, which I believe is backwards. Our rights are central to being human, the government merely exists to protect them, not define them.
Can you imagine the abuse of power that would be occurring now if we didn't have those ten amendments? The current administration has chosen to flout them enough as it is.
On November 1 1983, the secretary of state, George Shultz, was passed intelligence reports of "almost daily use of CW [chemical weapons]" by Iraq.
However, 25 days later, Ronald Reagan signed a secret order instructing the administration to do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent Iraq losing the war.
In December Mr Rumsfeld, hired by President Reagan to serve as a Middle East troubleshooter, met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad and passed on the US willingness to help his regime and restore full diplomatic relations.
You can't take the sky from me...
At the beginning Opie and Anthony were a premium channel (High Voltage 202) with $1.99 price tag -- right along with the Playboy Channel. Subscription was cheaper back then too. So, anybody who wanted to hear then had to pay.
Then XM moved them into "regular" block of channels (along with some sports stuff) and raised the subscription. I don't know why they did it -- I guess there weren't enough paying subscribers so they decided to force everyone to have OandA on the dial.
As a result XM has no idea how many people actually listen to them, and pretty much have to do "censoring" because there's a bigger chance that "some poor innocent child" will hear it (even though there is a way to block certain channels, which requires calling customer support and "manually" blocking them).
Hyperom.com
So what? It STILL doesn't prevent me, or you, from speaking; and it certainly doesn't do me any harm that I don't have access to mass communication. The reason that mass communication only publishes drivel for fools any more is that only fools listen to it. So far as I'm concerned, the AM radio transmitters have put millions into the government coffers without costing the taxpayer a cent, and nothing is lost because I wouldn't dream of listening to AM radio. The people who pay are those who purchase ads to try to sell trash to morons.
You're trying to turn issues about allocation of scarce public resources into some kind of "right" for everyone to have equal publishing power. That's ludicrous. It's like saying that because there's only one town reservoir, everybody should be allowed to set up and run their own water company. It's better that the water company should be regulated for the public good, and those who use the most water should pay the most for it.
I piss off bigots.
Right now, picture in your head Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. Maybe that's why they call him Porky!
Th-th-th-th-that's all folks!
Then "we" need to stop being idiots. Your beef is with the public. Do you really believe that if people didn't get up and have a cry about what was said that XM would feel like they have to suspend two of their hosts to placate them?
The reason it is acceptable as a business is because we know why they're doing it. It's to placate the public. It's to placate "us."
If people stop throwing fits about it, XM will roll their eyes and tell them to get a life. Until then, don't blame them for trying to make as much money as they can. That's what businesses exist to do.
Tenure is an institution put into place to prevent just such a situation. It still does in a public high school in the US.
SRSLY.
You can't take the sky from me...
they've bent over for the jesus/pc police far too many times. we shouldn't live in a society where the most extreme nanny type groups get to set the bar for everything. its time for the rest of thepeople to stand up to them.
United States
In North America, there are two satellite radio companies, XM Satellite Radio and Sirius Satellite Radio. These two former rivals have announced their intention to merge, which would create a single satellite radio entity in the United States with nearly 14 million subscribers.
You can't take the sky from me...
Shock jocks are useless; they're always uninformed, sometimes taking the whole show into a "snipe hunt" direction. Not to mention rudeness in all quarters.
I had my XM for about 2 years; I never head an O&A advertisement that made me laugh, smirk, or even smile. But blocking the channel doesn't mean I would stop hearing them- advertising on everything but the jazz channel.
If there's something you dislike enough to block the channel (assuming you can get them to actually do it) you shouldn't have to listen to 8-10 copies of the same advertisment of that channel each hour. It's just nuts.
I was a year and a half trying to get them to turn ON the Fox News Radio channel, they never did get it right.
And of course the website is/was tailored to IE almost exclusively, so that gave me grief, too. I'm not sure what the management is doing, but it doesn't seem to have a long-term usefulness.
I mean, you rarely hear an ad that isn't for XM; that doesn't STOP them from playing 8-10 ads back to back, but they also haven't inspired large firms to at least *test* advertisements on the new medium, either. Dorky ads for Bob Dylan, all these "let's listen to what aging rockstars like to listen to" shows, when what I'd really like to hear from them is their on the road experiences, and THEIR music.
But I'm sure I'm just missing something. In about an hour someone will mark this as off-topic, trollbait, or something...
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
I wont pay for stations like XM radio unless the whole satellite deal comes with paperwork stating they don't censor, if you don't like a particular station then find another, and the broadcast radio is called something similar too "free speech radio". That way when someone complains to the satellite radio station they can tell them to go kiss off, and if I like the broadcasters, then I don't have to worry about them loosing their job because someone has it in for them. The idea of pay radio is that it is not censored like free broadcast. I guess somewhere along the line XM missed the boat. But, pay should be based on the audience it generates, not based on just a few that still live in the 50's. Or don't care about our Free Speech Rights.
This is not just for radio though, I saw a certain cable station bleeping words on a cable station, and they was a pay station. It looks as though behind our backs the whole industry is going to the dogs. Why put the ratings up at the beginning of pay tv if your going to censor the program? Soon none of it will be worth the effort to watch because in case you have not realized it or not yet. There will always be someone out there that doesn't like the content. So censor that!
Why is radio held to a higher standard than other forms of entertainment? All sort of sick crap is discussed and displayed on TV and movies, yet no one comes out demanding the actors, writers or directors involved be fired.
Someone gets offended at something (they probably didn't hear) on the radio and they wont be satisfied until the DJs and all their support staff are fired.
Why the double standard? I dont get it.
They can join Sirius and say in no uncertain terms that they shall use their service AS LONG AS they do NOT merge with XM. Remember it DOES take two for a merger. If you want to boycott XM, that's cool, but make sure Sirius knows that you won't accept ANYTHING from XM.
Yah, okay, but it CAN be said on a private airwave (or any other private forum) -- just not that particular one, because THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE FORUM CONTROLS THE FORUM. Sorry for the caps, it seems you didn't understand that salient and essential point from my original post.
If Opie and Anthony want to say whatever *they* want, then they need their own forum. For their own forum, they can use their living room, or they could build their own concert hall, or their own satellite radio service. There is no law stopping them, thus no government control of their speech, and that makes it not a free speech issue. But if they want to use someone else's forum, then they should get used to *sharing* control over their content.
The entire ideal of the "shock jock" show is to get ratings. XM likely had something along this line planned the entire time. Has anyone else noticed how many times shock jocks make a "comeback" on radio a couple of years after they have some big huge debacle? Being banished from a major media outlet is the ticket to fame and fortune! Stern did it...HG Wells did it before him...Opie and Anthony have made "comebacks" on various networks around the nation twice that I know of...the list will go on, because let's face it: people love shock jocks, and media loves the ratings.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=450 a clip of the incident that's all ?
When they went to satellite ... they went down hill very fast. When they were in NY, they were funny as hell. Once the freedom to curse was presented, they stopped being crafty about their comments and it got boring. Half the fun was seeing how they would find a way to describe what was going on, or a story, or what not.
It sucks that XM is now censoring their shows, I knew it was only a question of time. I think the only thing left for them is to create a podcast when XM cancels them. (I still won't listen to them again though)
until (succeed) try { again(); }
""Free speech" refers to a prohibition on censorship by the government;"
No. A corporation can censor. It just did. I can dig up a definition if you like. And a corporation is not a god-like being beholden to none. The owners might like to think so, but no.
To complete your analogy, what if the police hardly ever went after car thieves? While the criminals would bear responsibility for their own actions, the responsibility for the skyrocketing crime rates would fall on the police. Your suggestion would seem to be to disregard the rights of people with cars!
People that legally purchased cars and corporations that try to stay within the bounds of the law should keep their rights. Those that break the law should be prosecuted, and as long as there's only one group with the legal right to do so, the results of failing to prosecute them fall primarily on that group.
Dopie and NotFunny are widely considered to be middle-aged Stern-Clone hacks. The show is basically unlistenable, and this has been reflected in horrible ratings for the show. So-called "FreeFM" in NYC, where Dopie and NotFunny were hired to replace Stern when the King Of All Media went to satellite, was reported to have dropped from billing 65 million per year while Stern was on the air, to something like like 12 million last year.
I've read speculation that ad rates on the Dopie and Aintfunny show are around $50 or less per spot (contrasted to about $5000 per spot for an ad on Stern's Sirius program). I would guess the three sponsors that left are fans with tiny, small-time businesses, not companies with major ad budgets. I doubt that any experienced advertising buyer would spend a nickel to reach O&A's XM listeners. The industry insiders I've read estimate the XM audience for Dopie and AintFunny at somewhere between 30k and 50k. As I recal, it was widely reported about a year ago that O&A only had about 30k subscribers that opted-in for the Dopie and Ainfunny show.
I would agree with that in some ways. Limited liability should be balanced by greater scrutiny. Even better would be to have several different balances - like an option for inspections every month instead of every year that would lower fines for minor violations.
If it's a tool, why should it have any right?
The tool doesn't have any rights - the user does. There's a reason it's called a 'legal fiction' - it's just a legalism. Some important points from the article:
In the common law tradition, legal fictions are suppositions of fact taken to be true by the courts of law, but which are not necessarily true.In the common law tradition, only a person could sue or be sued. ... To resolve the issue, courts created an elegant solution--a corporation is a person, and could therefore sue and be sued, and thus held accountable for its debts.
Personally, I like the fact that I could sue a corporation, if necessary.Your post is that of a tool.
If you're referring to my last line, it might have been a little overzealous. On the other hand, you seemed quite taken with the strength of your own argument. I only meant to bring you down off your soapbox, and no farther.
I guess I can attest to XM not honoring cancellation requests. They've sent me several bills since I canceled the service about a year ago, and I've just kind of ignored them.
Recently, I got a letter informing me that my account was being suspended due to an outstanding balance. I found that kind of funny.
XaNk: now I remember why I hated the girls in high school
XaNk: because none of them would talk to me
PROTIP: The airwaves belong to the People, at least in the US. Any claims otherwise is an attempt to validate your sick anarcho-corporatist delusions.
*sigh*
When people cry censorship they are 9 times out of 10 meaning it from a constitutional stand point. They will say 'rigth to free speech' somewhere in what they say.
Now, Here's the deal. You do NOT have a right to speak on XM radio. Period. This is strictly a capitilism issue. IF what you say is wanted by enough people, XM will will carry you and pay you. If they decided you aren't worth it, they drop you. I SUPPOSE it's censorship, but it's assinine to call it that and the reality is it clouds the issue - the public is stupid and when you put censorship in there, they think it's time for a lawsuit.
Same as the Dixie bimbos. Saying they were censored is NO different that me saying I've been censored because XM won't let me speak my mind on their station. It's all a matter of economics.
If you are in public eye and run your mouth, your risk being forced out of the public eye. Imus is a dipshit, but he wasn't censored - he was forced from the air waves due to public pressure - just like the opie & dixie bimbos. This is how it works.
BTW, being on an uncensored station on XM simply means they are bleeping crap out - not that ANYONE gets to speak on it. Do you really think you get to sue everytime they change the station line up on the channel?
People you need to get your heads out of your arses. Free speech doesn't mean you get to say anything to anyone at anytime via any medium you want. Sorry.
Sure, he was born in Conneticut, but his family moved to Texas when he was two. He probably doesn't even have any memories of living in Conneticut as a child. Texas was where he grew up; Texas was what shaped him.
Besides, from his way to speech to his hobbies to his attitude on life, the man screams rich Texan stereotype almost as badly as Ross Perot. There's not a lick of Conneticut in him. Now his father's definitely got that New England elite touch to him, but Dubya is as dipped in Texas as you can get.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The real issue is that there are people who actually pay money for, and listen to this program. They want what they want, and right now XM isn't giving it to them.
The 'backlash' by the listeners of their show sickens me. It really almost makes me weep for the American culture. They are 'protesting' because they can't get this kind of entertainment. Now they have every right to their 'shock' radio. But I am saddened that there was no backlash about WHAT was said on this program. They were laughing about holding down a woman, raping her, and punching her in the face. I didn't hear it, I read the transcripts. No, they didn't say the original comment, but they chimed in and laughed about it. YES, I understand they have the right to say it - but that doesn't make it any less despicable. And the fact that people aren't upset about that really makes me wonder about our society. WHY aren't people upset about that? Do people really think that is funny?
And a big F U to those who will respond to this post and say "I paid for uncensored!" or "Free Speech!". That isn't my point. Do *YOU* think that was funny in any way? If you do, you have to question your value as a human being.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
This isn't a free speech issue but a popular speech issue. I see a ton of people coming out saying O&A should be allowed to say whatever they want. I didn't see this much support for Imus. I didn't see petitions to same him on slashdot at least.
This is not a government free speech issue like some are arguing. Yes XM has every right to suspend O&A for something they said...but that goes against everything they have ever advertised and said they would promote with O&A. If O&A now have to run their skits and jokes by the XM executives, does that really constitute O&A having complete unfettered artistic control over their show? That is what everyone is complaining about and I think XM was wrong for doing so.
I hope you too die a painful death for supporting a piece of shit simply because he sports a title. If we can't critique an awful president during a war he lied to start, we could be at war forever. Here's to hoping someone you care about dies because of the Iraq invasion! Cheers, douchebag!
Blar.
I'm sorry, but no. If something is wrong when the power is political, it is also wrong when the power is financial.
You can't take the sky from me...
You didn't think one through too hard, did you? This backlash is because fans of O&A were promised that the duo would appear uncensored on XM radio. Now, XM is reneging on that promise and effectively censoring the two. In reaction to this, folks are leaving in droves.
So what you're saying is, "I will continue to be a subscriber unless XM keeps its promises. If they provide what they said they would, I will then cancel my accounts."
Seems a little short-sighted to me. That's why I canceled my subscription a few days ago because of the O&A debacle, despite the fact that I don't like or listen to O&A.
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
With a few notable exceptions (John McCain, Rudy Giuliani), Imus's favorite interlocutors were a Who's Who of the Washington and New York liberal establishment: Evan Thomas, Doris Kearns Goodwin, Tim Russert, Chris Matthews, Tom Friedman, Frank Rich, Paul Begala, Howard Fineman, Tom Oliphant, Bob Schieffer, Jon Meacham, et al. Indeed, Oliphant--no one's idea of a man you'd take with you to a knife fight--had the misfortune, as Lowry put it, "to appear on Imus's show after the 'nappy-headed' comment and before it was clear that Imus was on his way to being expelled from polite company." So he made a great show of excusing Imus. But to be fair, Oliphant's parting remark might have been uttered by any of Imus's famous guests: "Solidarity forever, pal!" Or, until Al Sharpton says otherwise--whichever comes first.
Turning Imus into a conservative post-comment is the hight of Orwellian historical revisionism.
As a liberal, Imus wandered off the plantation, and in order to make his way back on, he abased himself before one of the modern-day Masters of race demagoguery, Al Sharpton.
Unfortunately for Imus--but predictably, especially those who follow the dynamics of identity politics--Sharpton balked at offering absolution, protecting the grievance narrative at the expense of following his own ostensible Christian teachings and forgiving the aging radio blowhard.
Which, from a "progressive" perspective was precisely the thing to do: no individual is above the goals of the collectivist movement, and so Imus--like Lieberman before him--was cast out into the wilderness, having surrendered his liberal bona fides for having desecrated the identity narrative of one of the key demographic voting groups for Democrats.
Interestingly--and as I pointed out recently--this same dynamic seems only to apply symbolically, and is applied to scapegoats like Lieberman or Imus. Because when it comes to the anti-homosexual stance of many blacks, their importance as a voting bloc makes it difficult for progressives to demonize the stance in terms that would risk alienating them. On the other hand, though, "Grey's Anatomy" actors are forced to apologize and enter rehab should they wish to continue to work in the liberal enclaves of Hollywood.
As I say, not surprising--unless, that is, you happened to be of the opinion that liberal Democrats were sticklers for consistency. In which case, you really need to get out more.
Ah, but there is a law stopping them. You can't just create your own satellite radio service, you have to licence the frequency band from your government first. Since XM and Sirius (soon to be merged) are basically the only entity controlling the satellite airwaves over your teritory, this control being granted by the government, it is most definitely a free speech issue, both in the abstract sense of the concept and in the particular sense of the USA Constitution.
It's sad that you are not the only one, there are many Americans like you who have been so conditioned by the corporations and media (e.g. you think something is OK just because your Constitution doesn't explicitly say it's wrong), that they don't even notice their rights being squandered from under their very nose. I'm talking basic inalienable human rights, not only those that someone bothered to write down in some document (Bill of Rights, was it?). It's high time the inhabitants of that Land of the Free got their asses into gear and actually make it, you know, free.
Well, if they are promising "uncensored talk radio" to their paying subscribers, and then suspending the hosts of said supposedly-uncensored talk radio shows based upon their on-air comments in the interests of facilitating their pending merger with their one-and-only competitor before censorship-happy governmental regulation commissions, then yeah, I'd consider that censorship. They are using the "we won't CENSOR you, but we will shut you down if what you say isn't in our best interests" argument. I don't blame their subscribers one bit for being pissed off. And the shadiest part of all -- that they are apparently "delaying" their upset customers' requests to cancel their service until 1 DAY after their merger hearing, or trying to offer them a 30-day credit so they might "change their mind", which would, coincidentally enough, keep them active until after the hearing as well. I cannot say how much of an impact keeping their subscriber numbers as high as possible would have on the hearings, but it sure sounds fishy to me.
So if someone is rich enough to silence any dissenting viewpoint from his, he's not infringing on their free speech because he's not the governement?
I can't conceive of a way even the richest of men could "silence any dissenting viewpoint from his" in a free country. What would the man do, buy my kitchen so I can't say what I want there? Own every piece of real estate on earth, so there is no free forum left? Even the public ones, like parks and the National Mall? And he would do all of this with no help from the government?
Okay, I have to say that your hypothetical situation is impossible, but if I grant it for the sake of argument, then yes, he is STILL not infringing on the freedom of speech, because the country is still a free country, he is not the government, and that makes it an issue of censorship, or stifling opposing opinions, or the conflicting rights of different individuals -- not an issue of free speech.
If something is wrong when the power is political, it is also wrong when the power is financial.
Oh, yeah dude, it's definitely wrong, it's just not free-speech wrongness. In the case at hand, it might or might not be wrong, but in your hypothetical, where a maniacal trillionaire monopolized all private speech, it would certainly be "wrong".
Still, not a free speech issue.
Firstly, don't call me sad unless you want me to call you a cockless putzwad. And don't accuse me of being conditioned by corporations unless you want -- uh, let's see what can I do about that -- want me to laugh at how ridiculously wrong you are. I'm a libertarian, and my favorite Constitutional amendment is the 9th, which I was waiting for you to reference in your post, but you never did, perhaps because you aren't familiar with it.
Now on to your points, which are valid on the surface but when you look beneath them, rest on nothing. Satellite radio is a private enterprise, licensed by the government. Anyone who wants to pay the fees for a license, and pay for a bunch of satellites launched into orbit, can have their own satellite radio station. Despite your saying so, there is in fact no law which grants the two, soon to be one, satellite radio companies a monopoly over satellite radio, much less over telecommunication in general. As I said, there is no law stopping someone, including Opie and Anthony themselves, from scrounging the gigantic resources necessary to start such a company. And if they do all that work, one of the benefits is that they get veto power over the communications broadcast over their own, private, nongovernmental radio service.
Let me put it shortly: anyone who works hard enough at it can have their own satellite radio service.
In fact I DO notice my rights eroding and being squandered -- by the government. If the government passes a law saying I can't enjoy a right I previously enjoyed, then if I try to enjoy it again, they will motherfucking put my skinny white ass in motherfucking prison. But a corporation can't do that, despite their best efforts -- at least not without help from the government. If a corporation doesn't like something I do, they can try to sue me, that's about it. Or, if I am using their company resources to do the thing they don't like, then they can exclude me from using those resources. That's exactly what happened to Opie and Anthony -- they did something their employer didn't like, so they got shitcanned. That sucks for them, but it's hardly an issue of lost free speech. Opie and Anthony can still go to your house (I mean, Ivan Todoroski, YOUR very own house) and say whatever they want, so long as you permit them to say it. If they say something you don't like, then you can do just like the corporation, and kick them the fuck out of your house.
Let me put it shortly: you have the right to control your own forum, and so does everyone else.
Maybe I'm not giving you enough credit. You flat out said there is a law against Opie and Anthony starting their own satellite radio service. Do you want to defend that point by providing a link to that law? Or would you rather concede that you are talking out of you ass?
...but talking about raping and beating women is not considered mundane or acceptable where I come from. I'm glad you posted the transcript. I'm no fan of Bush or Condi, but that's some sick shit.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
You are almost confirming what I said. Your point is basically that because what XM did is not explicitly prohibited by law, it must be right. That is the conditioning I was speaking of... I don't know, maybe it's easier to see from outside, rather then when you're in the thick of it.
legal != right
The airwaves are a public good, just like the air we breathe, and as such they must first and foremost serve the interests of the public. To ensure this, the government is entrusted with administrating this public good, and it does so by choosing which private companies to licence it to. If a company indulges in censorship over this public good, does this completely absolve of responsibility the government who gave them this licence in the first place?
Even worse when the company is effectively a (duopoly soon to become a) monopoly, so the onus is even stronger to ensure that free speech is being preserved (there are currently no competitors you can go to). You said above that Opie and Anthony "only" need to scrounge gigantic resources in order to have their voice heard. So, only oligarchs with huge financial resources are entitled to free speech over a public resource? Is this what freedom is like?
You say that if Opie and Anthony came to my house, I have the right to kick them out if I don't like what they say. You then extrapolate that XM has the same right to kick them off "their" airwaves. But corporations are not people, especially ones offering a public service over a public good, and their corporate assets are not people's private homes. If you have trouble seeing the difference, it's probably another example of conditioning. If your first reaction to this is along the lines of "corporations have the same legal rights as people", you have missed the point and it's again conditioning.
Before you burst a vein, I'm not saying that you are necessarily conditioned to think like this (I have no idea who you are after all), I'm just going by what you wrote above and listing possible signs.
At the end of the day, it doesn't matter if it's a government or a financially powerful corporation telling you what you can or cannot hear, your freedom is abridged just the same.
P.S. I never "flat out said there is a law against Opie and Anthony starting their own satellite radio service", I have no idea where you got that from. I was only referring to the necessity of getting a government licence before such an endeavour.
I was born and raised here. As an introverted theist nerd, I quickly realized that this country only cares about me because I can perform a valuable service that most cannot. If this whole places shits the bed, I'll be sad but not that sad. All the 'high points' of the USA have slipped down the drain over the last 10-20 years in the name of fear of terrorists and love of gods. *shrug* These days 'citizenship' is like 'employment'...you need it, you want it, but you probably don't have a strong bond to the company/country because your loyalty is rarely reciprocated.
Blar.
...yeah...
Blar.
You are trying to make a moral argument now, but the original point was about the legal concept of free speech. I agree, XM Radio sucks, and are bad people, or whatever; and they might have broken a private contract; and they might have done some false advertising. But none of that makes it an issue of free speech.
... their own satellite radio service. There is no law stopping them
Finally on this point:
I never "flat out said there is a law against Opie and Anthony starting their own satellite radio service", I have no idea where you got that from.
I got the idea from when I said
they could build
You responded and said
Ah, but there is a law stopping them.
So, you wrote a sentence saying that there is a law stopping Opie and Anthony from doing the hard work of building their own satellite radio service, and I read that sentence, so that's where I got the idea.
And in the US, the rights to use those airwaves are sold by "The People" to other people, who then have exclusive access to them.
PROTIP: telling half the story in an attempt to hide the portion that doesn't back up your position is no different than lying.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
When you hear the words "free speech", do you immediately think solely of the First Amendment (where only the government is prohibited from impinging on free speech)? The amendment is there because the government is the single most powerful entity in the country, but it doesn't mean that other lesser entities suddenly have free licence to trample your rights. Especially not ones that are operating over a limited public good. They can only do it if you as a people let them, and if you are conditioned to think that "free speech" is purely a legal construct in the Constitution pertaining to the government, and nothing more. OK, I can see how that sentence taken alone would imply that. It was meant together with the sentence following it.
Cheers
How dense are you? Broadcasters used to be required to dedicate portions of airtime to services useful to the public (unbiased news, etc). It's only been through the lobbying, lies, and general asshattery of your beloved corporations that such responsibilities have been eroded. Disregarding history does not make you right.
If you get blackballed from every media, then you are effectively silent.
You can't take the sky from me...
Are you calling me a 'quitter' or something? The country is what the people are. The people in this country hate gays and foreigners and non-Christians...they fear whatever the government tells them to fear and they oppress, insult, assault and ostracize their fellow citizens who exercise the freedoms that the army is supposedly dying for in Iraq.
I'm just a dirty, liberal socialist who wants to steal welfare dollars money from white trash families who get the Earned Income Credits and Child Credits for their un-wanted spawn.
Nah. I'm gonna get all the money I can and then let you authoritarian god-believing hateful religious low-wage-earners go down with the ship.
Blar.