The 1st Amendment and Private Property - contradictory?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Imran, since I lived in Appalachia for many years, what was the precedent? I'm curious if is was a result of the company towns in the Coal Fields.

Actually... I forgot .

Though Google is my friend .

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/firstamstateaction.htm

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
MtG, Clear Channel was NOT making that decision based on any commercial decision, though there were window dressings to make it appear that way.

Oh please. People down here were VERY pissed at the Dixie Chicks. There was no staging of disapproval.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
Actually Clear Channel was able to damage the Dixie Chicks, because of the the nature of the extent of their penetration of the pop-music radio market in the US. Their own site puts their market penetration at 110 million listeners in the US, about 40% of the market. They are big enough to make the lead singer for the Dixie Chicks to back off. I'm not saying that is the same as direct censorship, but economic coercian can be almost as effective.

You can call it censorship but in a way is it not Clear Channel exercising their own free speech?

The Dixie chicks have every right to say what they said.

The people that run Clear Channel then have the right to say I don't likewhat you said and because of it my expression will be different than it otherwise might have been ( ie we will play different music)

[Mr. Harley]

And some Clear Channel stations staged CD burnings, etc. making the ability to determine what the actual level of genuine (i.e. are you mad at the Dixie Chicks? Yes. Why? 'Cause they're unpatriotic? Can you tell me why? I heard in on Rush.) versus manufactured rage, i.e. Remember the Maine! (my comment on yellow journalism). A true corporate decision would have carefully measured the exact cost of the action, both pro's and con's. Trust me, if Clear Channel had done that they would have trumpeted in to the media either way. By the way, I have to sleep my wife has grumbled at me that my cardiologist would be pissed if he saw how much I've been on line today.

[Flubber]

OH and on the original topic. I might have limited rights to restrict your free speech on my property. But I have a pretty clear right to exclude anyone I want from my own property.

So people can say what they want but I can ask them to leave.

[Ming]

Clear Channel can pick and choose what music they want to air... and they can do it for whatever reason they want. As long as they don't violate FCC rules... it's their right. Radio networks make that kind of call all the time... and sometimes for worse reason than not agreeing with somebodies political views

Take a look at the FOX TV network... public airwaves... and they are pro republican/conservative... Take a look at CBS... they have been trashing Bush every chance they can get... Hell, the Clear Channel decision not to air their music is no where near the political propaganda issued by either CBS or FOX...

TV and Radio stations have the right to make those kind of decisions... it's that simple. If you don't like it, you don't have to listen to Clear Channel stations... or watch FOX, or watch CBS... that's YOUR right.

[JohnT]

But, Miiiiiiiiiiiing! It's clear that CC cost the Dixie Chicks $3 million in revenue, which is why they only earned $22 million in 2003 after earning $25 million in 2001.

I feel so badly for them my heart bleeds and my knee jerks. Where can I send the check?

[Ming]

And they cost many other people even more money by not playing their music either.

Play lists are an important part of any music radio station, and program directors can do whatever they want.

And yeah... I feel SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SORRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY for them. Artists shouldn't piss off their fan base, and shouldn't whine when they lose money because of it... morons... Yeah... SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
SORRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Flubber
OH and on the original topic. I might have limited rights to restrict your free speech on my property. But I have a pretty clear right to exclude anyone I want from my own property.

So people can say what they want but I can ask them to leave.

So if someone exercizes their right to free speech and you don't like it you can kick them off the property? Doesn't sound like free speech to me. But I'm not talking about people's private housing anyway.

Didn't the Government recently try to de-regulate media ownership laws in the States? Shouldn't the ability to concentrate media ownership warrant the state requiring them to be "fair and balanced"? (not Fox fair and balanced, real fair and balanced).

Free speech and balanced information go hand in hand. Do you really have freedom of speech if you are misinformed?

If the state takes the 1st amendment seriously it should provide for public space and communication services where it can be exercized.

It is sad that in order to get a message to a large number of people you have to go through privately mediated sources and privately owned spaces, which have the right to censor you. The way the media is going it seems that you are increasingly only able to reach people who already agree with you. I suppose this is as much indicative of the tastes of consumers than the whims of private enterprise.

[Dracon II]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

Diabolical Laugh © Ming 2005. All Rights Reserved. *cough*civ wars*cough*


.... eh. No-one remembers I'm sure

[Ming]

Some of us do

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Dracon II
It is sad that in order to get a message to a large number of people you have to go through privately mediated sources and privately owned spaces, which have the right to censor you. The way the media is going it seems that you are increasingly only able to reach people who already agree with you. I suppose this is as much indicative of the tastes of consumers than the whims of private enterprise.

As opposed to government media, which has its own biases?

There are plenty of public spaces to demonstrate if you want. Such as in front of government buildings.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


As opposed to government media, which has its own biases?

There are plenty of public spaces to demonstrate if you want. Such as in front of government buildings.

The only example of Government owned media with which I'm personally familiar is the ABC... which is surprisingly unbiased, compared to the commercial media. The USA has no comparable institution (as far as I know), so I'd like to see where you've derived that comment from.

I agree with you that there is still plenty of public space... but the tide seems to be turning towards privatization of space. Should scope for free assembly diminish in proportion to the privatization of space?

Corporations and Governments are both service providors. Why should one be restrained by the 1st Amendment and the other be free to flaunt it. Bear in mind that many corporations are now officially larger than many lower and middle income nation-states.

[JohnT]

The USA has no comparable institution (as far as I know), so I'd like to see where you've derived that comment from.

I'm sure he derived it from his experiences of watching other countries government-approved news reports. You know, like Pravda.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by JohnT

The USA has no comparable institution (as far as I know), so I'd like to see where you've derived that comment from.

I'm sure he derived it from his experiences of watching other countries government-approved news reports. You know, like Pravda.

And the People's Daily. Understood. I suppose the ABC is only an example of best practice in public media, and is not necessarily representative of how it operates in other countries. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that Government owned doesn't necessarily mean Government biased. The Australian Government has often been quite irate at the portrayal it's received in the ABC. The allies in the media are definitely not the ABC, but the private radio "shock jockeys" (such as Allen Jones and John Laws), and the Murdoch Press (in particular columnists like Andrew Bolt and Piers Ackermann).