censorship on mtv?

[Q Classic]

note az, self biased, i'm not apologizing. i'm just explaining that i do it with other things too. and frankly, i don't see why it's a bad thing--

especially since:

I like the content; I dislike the content provider, not because of the content, but because of the other consumers and supporters and in some cases, the content provider.

I like libertarian ideals. I dislike the libertarian party.
I like network tv shows. I dislike the network tv companies.

[Agathon]

I think that non-Americans are forgetting that free speech means that corporations can demand that artists refrain from speaking their mind and that people must automatically organize economic boycotts of anyone who says anything they don't like.

[Kuciwalker]

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

[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.

[Pekka]

What's wrong with offensive?

[Kuciwalker]

I didn't say without repercussions from said corporations.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon
I think that non-Americans are forgetting that free speech means that corporations can demand that artists refrain from speaking their mind and that people must automatically organize economic boycotts of anyone who says anything they don't like.

Man this so utterly idiotic.

Free speech does not mean everyone has the right to say whatever they want whenever they want wherever they want. Should you demand MTV play sadomasochist porn at 3pm and then say they are limiting freedom of speech because they refuse?

Moreso being a music channel, MTV has every right to demand that their invited arists behave in a non-partisan manner to avoid controversy (which if you remember the superbowl incident, has already cost them). Can you blame them for that?

You can say that the decision is stupid, I agree, that MTV caters to the establishment, I also agree. But saying that this is in some way a violation of free speech is utterly ridiculous.

-MZ

[Agathon]

Free speech does not mean everyone has the right to say whatever they want whenever they want wherever they want. Should you demand MTV play sadomasochist porn at 3pm and then say they are limiting freedom of speech because they refuse?

Nice straw man.

I suggest you think again...

[Master Zen]

I repeat, if NIN wanted to display sadomasochist porn in their show and MTV would have said no because of indecency, would that be a violation of free speech or artistic rights of expression? NIN can display whatever they want in their own concerts since they're the ones organizing it, but if they are being paid to perform on someone else's show, they have to respect their guilelines, period, just like you have to respect the rules when visiting someone else's house even if you don't like them or like you have to respect the laws of a foreign country.

MTV doesn't want partisan controversy in their shows. Period. They have every right to do so and if you don't like it DON'T WATCH THEIR FRIGGIN SHOW

[Agathon]

Not even the most strident proponent of free speech believes that you have a substantive right to display obscene material.

That has nothing to do with ordinary, mainstream political speech, which is what this was an example of.

Try again.....

[Kuciwalker]

Not even the most strident proponent of free speech believes that you have a substantive right to display obscene material.

Wrong

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Agathon
That has nothing to do with ordinary, mainstream political speech, which is what this was an example of.

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.

Tell me, if you were a lawyer, do you think you'd have a case against MTV because of this in terms of violation of the first amendment? I thought not.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon
Not even the most strident proponent of free speech believes that you have a substantive right to display obscene material.

That has nothing to do with ordinary, mainstream political speech, which is what this was an example of.

Try again.....

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.

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


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.

Look at it this way, according to Agathon you have every right to go to his house, climb up on his roof and start shouting pro-Bush propaganda with a loudspeaker. If he doesn't let you, he's violating your right to free speech

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Master Zen


Look at it this way, according to Agathon you have every right to go to his house, climb up on his roof and start shouting pro-Bush propaganda with a loudspeaker. If he doesn't let you, he's violating your right to free speech

First decent reason to be a free speech fanatic ever