08-06-2005 23:55									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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/pro...stateaction.htm

	08-06-2005 23:56									#32
	Support Apolyton

quote: 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.

	09-06-2005 03:48									#33
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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)

	09-06-2005 03:51									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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.

	09-06-2005 04:26									#35
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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.

	09-06-2005 05:49									#36
	Increase Your PM Length

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.

	09-06-2005 05:51									#37
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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?

	09-06-2005 05:56									#38
	Tired of ads?

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!

	09-06-2005 06:03									#39
	Tired of ads?

quote: 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.

	09-06-2005 06:06									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!

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


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

	09-06-2005 06:26									#41
	Tired of ads?

Some of us do

	09-06-2005 08:13									#42
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	09-06-2005 08:38									#43
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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.

	09-06-2005 08:44									#44
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: 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.

	09-06-2005 08:51									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by JohnT quote: 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).

	09-06-2005 09:05									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Dracon II 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.

Let's say I already own my own, first house.


Let's say a homophobic bastard decides to take a megaphone, and blare out all kinds of obscene, twisted statements about faggots.

I will exercise my right to kick his ****ing ass off of my property.

	09-06-2005 09:33									#47
	Remove this text

Yeah, the "censorship" Dracon worries about already exists - you don't see ANY big networks agreeing to let neonazis proclaim their philosophies on national TV.

	09-06-2005 10:09									#48
	Tired of ads?

This is, honestly, a dumb topic, in the sense that it ignores everything we know about rights.

Yes, you have a right to free speech. What that means, is that the government can't punish you for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to speak your mind on other people's property, if they don't want you to.

Likewise, you have the right to own property. On your property, you have the right to set your own rules, provided you don't restrict the rights of other people.

Now, you might argue that free speech is a right, and you are correct, but it is a right that only applies against the government (and until 1920, by the way, the federal government). When I say that you can't violate my rights on your property, I mean that you can't kill me or rob me on your property. Now, if I invade your property against your will - for example, break into your house - you of course have the right to use whatever force is necessary to kick me out.

But the topic at hand has nothing to do with this. The question is simply one of whether or not corporation can restrict your speech on their property, and the answer is that of COURSE they can. The 1st Amendment simply states that CONGRESS shall make no law....it doesn't give you an unlimited protection of free speech on other people's property.

	09-06-2005 10:11									#49
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

David is starting to make coherent arguments that actually make sense, given that he is a libertarian.



I think this means that I should go to bed before more freakish phenomena occurs.

	09-06-2005 10:24									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd This is, honestly, a dumb topic, in the sense that it ignores everything we know about rights.

You mean we don't accept the libertarian POV

	09-06-2005 10:27									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

FCC is a load of **** - just another government agency to get rid of.

	09-06-2005 10:31									#52
	Support Apolyton

quote: You mean we don't accept the libertarian POV

No, it means that you don't accept a consistent definition of liberty. And you certainly do not.

	09-06-2005 10:50									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd No, it means that you don't accept a consistent definition of liberty. And you certainly do not.

And neither do you. You just said that the govt can't prevent you from speaking freely, but private citizens can. That's inconsistent.

	09-06-2005 11:29									#55
	Suffering from ads?

Justice is using reason to balance liberties, not using absolutes. It's consistent to context only, not universal.

	09-06-2005 12:05									#56
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Yes, you have a right to free speech. What that means, is that the government can't punish you for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to speak your mind on other people's property, if they don't want you to. Likewise, you have the right to own property. On your property, you have the right to set your own rules, provided you don't restrict the rights of other people.

Ah I see... so the distribution of freedom of speech & assembly is as unequal as the distribution of property.

quote: Now, you might argue that free speech is a right, and you are correct, but it is a right that only applies against the government.

If you are, as people say, a Libertarian... then you believe in the rollback of Government, and the privatization of as much of the nation's services and institutions as possible (my understanding of Libertarianism). And yet you say that the right to free speech is only applied to that which is of direct Government concern. Therefore, despite your recognition of the right to free speech as a "right", you are nevertheless arguing for its maximum limitation, its fragmentation, and its unequal distribution.

quote: But the topic at hand has nothing to do with this. The question is simply one of whether or not corporation can restrict your speech on their property, and the answer is that of COURSE they can. The 1st Amendment simply states that CONGRESS shall make no law....it doesn't give you an unlimited protection of free speech on other people's property.

In a Libertarian world, corporations would be the paramount and Congress would be making as few laws as it could, if it still existed. I'm beginning to suspect that Libertarian should be renamed "Limitarian"...

	09-06-2005 12:16									#57
	Remove this text

quote: If you are, as people say, a Libertarian... then you believe in the rollback of Government, and the privatization of as much of the nation's services and institutions as possible (my understanding of Libertarianism). And yet you say that the right to free speech is only applied to that which is of direct Government concern. Therefore, despite your recognition of the right to free speech as a "right", you are nevertheless arguing for its maximum limitation, its fragmentation, and its unequal distribution.

It's negative freedom vs positive freedom. His free speech means freedom from constraints in using your property for your speech; your free speech means freedom to use anything to spread your message, and can lead to conflict of rights (which is the problem with positive freedom in general).

	09-06-2005 12:42									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I'm an advocate of mixing both. If your free speech is limited by the property you own, then you have terrible inequality and a patrician domination of information. I will concede that bloggerism and such is a (perhaps modest) challenge to this, and an example of small private property challenging big private property without Government.

I'm going to take a dialectical spin on this argument and say that neither my thesis nor the anti-thesis presented (Floyd) present useful solutions in maximising the variables free speech & assembly. Communitarianism and Libertarianism both limit freedom in different ways. Communitarian values limit freedom by prescribing what one is free to do, and libertarian values ignore what one is free to do and simply focus on what one is free from.
A healthy society should equate freedom with a synthesis of private and public institutions by ameliorating inequality by providing public goods and public space, and by ameliorating excessive egalitarianism (the excessive stifling of private initiative).

I should probably abdicate my position in the CPA for saying something like.... I'm far too conciliatory to be a member, methinks.

	09-06-2005 12:46									#59
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kidicious Justice is using reason to balance liberties, not using absolutes. It's consistent to context only, not universal.

What he said.

	09-06-2005 17:43									#60
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: so the distribution of freedom of speech & assembly is as unequal as the distribution of property.

Look, the original statute is quite clear about this:

quote: Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

It doesn't say anything about the States. It doesn't say anything about individuals. It doesn't say anything about corporations. It just says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Repeat three times for imprinting purposes: Congress. Congress. Congress.

See, it's not the distribution of free speech that's the issue, it's the distribution of the power to censor. The Constitution says that Congress can't censor. It doesn't say squat about other entities, because it's their individual or collective right to censor what they want to hear (or speak: let's not forget that the lack of coercion is as much a feature of the 1st amendment as the freedom to choose) as they make their way through the Republic.

Your church doesn't want to teach or speak about Satanism? No problem. The state wants to vote against Satanism? Again, no problem according to the US Constitution (However, many States have adopted the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions, fyi.) Congress wants to ban Satanism? Big problem.