censorship on mtv?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
mtv

then again, and no offense to anybody, but i'm kinda irritated with NIN.

not because of their music, or anything that they did, but all those really annoying fans who'd carve NIN into every **** thing in the world.

and actually, the mtv thing isn't just for this, either.

I carved it into my arm once. .

[Provost Harrison]

Bush is now featuring in my avatar

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Agathon

I think Aggie is forgetting that these same people claim that free speech includes the ability to criticize actions such as this by corporations.

It doesn't if you are going to get fired or boycotted for simply expressing a political opinion.

Ironically, Americans go on about free speech more than any other nationality, yet they don't tolerate it or in fact really understand what it means.

wait, so a boycott isn't expression of free speech?

[Agathon]

Except MTV is not an ordinary mainstread political channel, it is a private music channel which has every right to choose what they show and what they don't show, just as you have every right not to watch it.

See.. I was right. You don't really understand free speech, since you are quite prepared to live in a society where no-one tolerates anyone else's political opinion. Your views are compatible with that, and are hence ridiculous.

[Dis]

has anyone mentioned MTV sucks, and always will suck?

[Fake Boris]

It's no more a violation of free speech than moderation of this site is a violation of free speech. No one's keeping you from talking; some people aren't letting you use their property to distribute your message.

And that's how stupid it gets. No one said that any law was being violated, the point is just to show how far away from free speech the current situation is.

There's more to free speech than using your own property to express yourself. When a country sucks so much that a) major mediatic interests won't air mainstream political messages for internal reasons or that b) the typical viewers won't accept display of such messages, thus encouraging indirect censorship, well, it sucks. The spirit of the principle of free speech is being violated, and it's pathetic to see it has become yet another case of being reduced to a concept of property.

[Agathon]

wait, so a boycott isn't expression of free speech?

It depends. A society where everyone attempts to economically disrupt someone's livelihood just because they publicly express opinions you disagree with is not a society that really values free expression, since people's actions are attempting to prevent it by any legal means possible.

If Bruce Willis says something I don't like, it is not particularly tolerant of me to try to organize a boycott of his movies, which have nothing to do with his political opinions.

[DerSchwarzfalke]

MTV certainly sucks, so I am not too disappointed. Either way, considering their "Rock the Vote" campaign essentially turned into a "Vote for Kerry" campaign, I do not see how this is anything but naked hypocrisy.

But then again, this is the channel that would not let Nirvana play "Rape Me" during the Music Awards, so it is not even the lowest their censorship has gone.

[DinoDoc]

What are mediatic interests?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
And that's how stupid it gets. No one said that any law was being violated, the point is just to show how far away from free speech the current situation is.

It's not at all far away from free speech.

There's more to free speech than using your own property to express yourself.

No there isn't.

When a country sucks so much that a) major mediatic interests won't air mainstream political messages for internal reasons or that b) the typical viewers won't accept display of such messages, thus encouraging indirect censorship, well, it sucks. The spirit of the principle of free speech is being violated, and it's pathetic to see it has become yet another case of being reduced to a concept of property.

The principle is not. It would be a gross violation of free speech for you to be able to force the network to air what YOU want to say - besides which such a situation is absurd. They can't display everyone's views. Moreover, it's not a political channel, for chrissakes. Next you'll complain that MarkG not letting us post political threads in the Civ3 forums is a violation of the spirit of free speech

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

wait, so a boycott isn't expression of free speech?

It depends. A society where everyone attempts to economically disrupt someone's livelihood just because they publicly express opinions you disagree with is not a society that really values free expression, since people's actions are attempting to prevent it by any legal means possible.

If Bruce Willis says something I don't like, it is not particularly tolerant of me to try to organize a boycott of his movies, which have nothing to do with his political opinions.

A society where everyone looks down on those who pursue legal means of expression to protest someone else's expression isn't really a society that values free expression.

Why do you care, anyway? You've stated many times you don't agree with anything remotely recognizeable as free expression.

[Agathon]

The principle is not. It would be a gross violation of free speech for you to be able to force the network to air what YOU want to say.

Not really. Broadcasters are required to air certain public service messages. But that's not the point. You keep treating this as a legal issue when it is in fact a social issue. In Britain independent broadcasters aren't required by law to refrain from this sort of censorship. As it happens, they generally do refrain from it because of the public outrage it would cause and because of their own sense of tolerance.

MTV is supposed to be a place where artists express themselves. Corporate censorship of artists is inimical to the function that MTV itself set out to serve.

We have elections to sort out our political differences. There's no good reason to illegitimately extend them into other areas of the economy and all sorts of reasons not to.

[Agathon]

A society where everyone looks down on those who pursue legal means of expression to protest someone else's expression isn't really a society that values free expression.

Boycotts like that are an attempt to stifle expression. Free expression which doesn't attempt to stifle that of others is always preferable to that which does because it respects the value of the other person's right.

As I said, Americans don't really understand that free speech is really a social and not a legal issue.

[Kuciwalker]

Not really. Broadcasters are required to air certain public service messages.

1) MTV isn't a broadcaster.

2) The rules are different for a scarce resource such as radio frequencies.

3) Public service messages aren't expression, they're OMG TEH HURRICANE RUN FOR YOUR LIVES.

But that's not the point. You keep treating this as a legal issue when it is in fact a social issue.

The government cannot and should not bend society to its pleasure. Society is the people. In a democratic state, it's simply not possible for there to be some legal recourse against society not being a certain way.

MTV is supposed to be a place where artists express themselves. Corporate censorship of artists is inimical to the function that MTV itself set out to serve.

You're truly deluded about the function of MTV, aren't you?

MTV is an entertainment channel. It happens to specialize in entertainment provided by musical artists. As such, it would be counterproductive from any point of view for MTV to show something that is not only not going to entertain its viewers, but actually offend half of them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

A society where everyone looks down on those who pursue legal means of expression to protest someone else's expression isn't really a society that values free expression.

Boycotts like that are an attempt to stifle expression. Free expression which doesn't attempt to stifle that of others is always preferable to that which does because it respects the value of the other person's right.

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

As I said, Americans don't really understand that free speech is really a social and not a legal issue.

Kiwis don't understand that social issues are irrelevent since politics' only sphere of action is legislation.