The 1st Amendment and Private Property - contradictory?

[Kidlicious]

You can exercise free speech on public areas of private property if you don't obstruct business.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ming
Even though membership doesn't cost anything, you are agreeing to follow the rules in return for your membership.

Well, USUALLY that is the case.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dracon II
For the record, this question refers to major companies that own de facto public space.... not small websites like Apolyton. ACS did provide the inspiration for this question... but they're not the target.

There's a not-so-subtle difference between use of "public" property and use of private property as an invitee.

[Mr. Harley]

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Dracon II
So if the phone companies have the right to regulate what people say using their services, even if it would be a violation of the 1st amendment had the US Government tried to do the same thing?

No, they have no specific private right, except to the extent that you have to contract with them to use their service, and you may be subject to terms of that contract.

The regulation of content (for example, harassment, making threats over interstate phone lines, wire fraud, etc.) is governmental, and based on a public benefit (the right not to be harassed, stalked or defrauded, etc.) for which the communications medium is incidental.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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.

So? Does the economic coercion come from Clear Channel, or from a significant enough portion of Clear Channel's listener base which is the ultimate source of Clear Channel's revenues. Clear Channel has a right not to broadcast what it doesn't want to broadcast.

I'm really sure that Clear Channel was what caused Natalie Mains to back off - record burnings, rabid loudmouths making threats, etc., probably had more of an impact, and the Dixie Chicks probably got just as much of a benefit from the publicity as they lost, if not more in the long run.

[JohnT]

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.

C'mon, they made $22 million dollars in 2003 (the year of the controversy(which started in March, 2003)) - considering they made $25 million in 2001, you can hardly make a strong case that they were damaged.

Their penetration is 110,000,000 listeners, their audience is an order or two of magnitude smaller than 110mil.

[chequita guevara]

It certainly made me go out and by the most recent Dixie Chicks cd. Glad I did, too. It's actually decent country music, unlike so much of the crap on the radio these days.

[JohnT]

probably had more of an impact, and the Dixie Chicks probably got just as much of a benefit from the publicity as they lost, if not more in the long run.

"The only bad publicity is no publicity."

[Mr. Harley]

There was some good evidence that Clear Channel management, or at least the management of some of their stations, helped coordinate the CD burnings, etc. If my memory serves me, the Dixie Chicks' top 40 song took a pretty hefty hit (it dropped in the ratings) once Clear Channel stopped playing their single.

My problem is once corporatitions have that level of control of the media, at what point does their support of a specific political agenda, while they are using a public resources, i.e. radio frequencies, that they have duly paid fees for, start to put free speech at risk. Imagine instead a group with their first break-out album smaller than Dixie Chicks.

Of course the proper solution is to impose shareholder activism that says that the shareholders own and control the corporation. Then any political action that does not enhance the company will have repercussions for the CEO and Board. A true free market solution - which of course only works for publically held companies.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by shawnmmcc
There was some good evidence that Clear Channel management, or at least the management of some of their stations, helped coordinate the CD burnings, etc. If my memory serves me, the Dixie Chicks' top 40 song took a pretty hefty hit (it dropped in the ratings) once Clear Channel stopped playing their single.

My problem is once corporatitions have that level of control of the media, at what point does their support of a specific political agenda, while they are using a public resources, i.e. radio frequencies, that they have duly paid fees for, start to put free speech at risk. Imagine instead a group with their first break-out album smaller than Dixie Chicks.

Of course the proper solution is to impose shareholder activism that says that the shareholders own and control the corporation. Then any political action that does not enhance the company will have repercussions for the CEO and Board. A true free market solution - which of course only works for publically held companies.

They (Dixie Chicks) got their message out, and people are still talking about it, so how again were they censored?

If someone stated an opinion that pedophilia in general and sodomy of infants in particular ought to be legal and accepted in society, is Clear Channel or any other private party obligated to air that message and give it an audience?

It's a private communications company, and the FCC already imposes limits on how many stations in a given band can be owned in a given market area by the same party, such that there aren't monopolies. Nothing prevented Natalie Mains from running her mouth (and I pretty much agree with her), but making a point of stating controversial messages (of any nature) may not coincide with a multimillionaire performer's commercial interests. Oh well.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw there is one major exception to 1st Amendment rights not necessarily applying to private organizations and that is in the 'company town'. There, they cannot stifle free speech on the basis that they own an entire town.

[Mr. Harley]

MTG, Clear Channel had every right to ban their actual speech about Bush, what I am talking about is retaliatory banning of their music which had no anti-Bush message. At the point at which corporations can threaten individuals for their support of opposing positions on their own time, free speech and freedom itself are at risk. If the Dixie Chicks had been Clear Channels corporate representatives, then that is no longer free speech on their own time. That was clearly not the case here.

We had an individual who heckled George Bush during one of his campaign speeches. His company fired him. Since he was there through his company, i.e. they supplied the tickets, they were well within their rights. But what is he had scammed the GOP screeners and obtained the tickets on his own? That is why the entire interaction between Free Speech and Corporate rights makes me nervous. If you no longer have the right to demonstrate, or even talk about, your political beliefs outside your job, or they can terminate you, then free speech becomes an illusion.

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.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Shawn - my point is that Clear Channel has every right to play or not play anything it wants, and that's not censorship. If there's an actual conspiracy between multiple, independent parties to deny the Dixie Chicks any airplay anywhere, then you might be on to something, but a boycott or a financial decision based on expected audience response, or any other private decision, is not censorship. Not facilitating or sponsoring communication is different from preventing it.

Employees are a different situation, but the law on employee political activity and whether or not it is grounds for termination for cause is pretty well set.

When termination for cause is not needed, it comes down to issues of at will employment under various state laws, and the right of each party to enter into or leave the employment relationship for any reason.

[Mr. Harley]

MtG, Clear Channel was NOT making that decision based on any commercial decision, though there were window dressings to make it appear that way. It was based on the political affiliation of their management - who are major backers of the GOP - and may actually have been against the interests of the shareholders. If it had been a record store, it would have been clearcut. But if you read my earlier posts, there are using a public resource, and that is where I get extremely nervous. If you look at the abuse of various forms of communication, i.e. yellow journalism, you will understand why I am made very uncomfortable by this. I would be just as uncomfortable if it was being done in favor of the Democrats.

Your point about at will employment is correct, and makes my point for me. As very large corporations increase their reach, and various private databases can keep track of many things, we may not be very far from a possible "black-list" capability for those foolish individuals who do not keep their mouths shut and quiet, and only show their disapproval by voting. That would also be a major threat to democracy. That is my point, that neither situation is a healthy one for a country to find itself in.