 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
So please explain to me, what rights would have to be violated before a backlash becomes persecution? And what legal mechanisms are in place to ensure that it doesn't become that? What protections are there for anyone faced with the prospect of being blacklisted? |
First: Blacklisting isn't violation of anyone's rights. You can still exercise speech, but not in someone's movie, or on someone's TV channel, etc.
Second: The courts are there to ensure that your rights do not get taken away. If you are jailed for speaking a political view (for example) then the court can say no.
quote:
As Korn has pointed out, media is becoming more and more concentrated, not just in the US but all over the world. We've had an ongoing debate about that issue here in Canada for awhile now as well. So what steps should be taken to ensure that these media conglomerates don't abuse their economic power to block someone's message? |
Nothing. As pointed out, as media becomes more and more concentrated, the harder it is to exercise total control by the center. Since the sizes are so big, to go into every part and enforce dictates (or even making dictates) will take too much time and money.
Most media conglomerates allow the media outlets to remain free, as long as they make money.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Willem
|
 |
Canada
Dec 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
First: Blacklisting isn't violation of anyone's rights. You can still exercise speech, but not in someone's movie, or on someone's TV channel, etc. |
So depriving someone of their career and livelihood doesn't violate their rights? What if there's no big money involved, that someone was just a bit actor trying to make it into the big time. Being denied the opportunity to pursue their chosen career is perfectly acceptable?
quote:
Second: The courts are there to ensure that your rights do not get taken away. If you are jailed for speaking a political view (for example) then the court can say no. |
We're not talking about a government intervention, this is about a corporate decision.
quote:
Nothing. As pointed out, as media becomes more and more concentrated, the harder it is to exercise total control by the center. Since the sizes are so big, to go into every part and enforce dictates (or even making dictates) will take too much time and money. |
So the media conglomerates are to have total control over what gets aired?
We had a situation here in Canada a short while ago. One of the leading editors of the newspaper in our capital was fired by the head of the conglomerate owner, who favours the current Prime Minister. The editor claims it was because he wrote an editorial unfavourable to the PM, the conglomerate simply said he wasn't doing his job. The incident raised a big stink, with many journalists and media people siding with the editor.
Should we just turn a blind eye and allow that sort of thing to occur? Give the media conglomerates carte blanche to mould the messages and information people receive as they see fit?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Willem
But how can it be free speech if only one side gets heard? What about the voices that don't happen to have access to a mutli-million dollar media conglomerate? Isn't that denying them their right to free speech? |
Nope-- people can exercise their free speech with the resources available to them. if you go further and say there is a right to be " heard effectively", you create a mess. Every wingnut, racist, false propet etc would be claiming their right to access to the airwaves using the resources of others.
Now, these folks have a right to speak but they will be heard only so far as their resources permit
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
and if you try to differentiate which opinions get the right to be heard you create a new mess. The right to speak cannot depend on the quality of the opinion.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999
time: 00:26
|
|
i think the main problem is that some how large media companies have the same rights as an individual, but they have resources that far outstrips all but the very wealthiest people
If a media company decides on a message they can reach millions, while an average person would never have the resources to even come close. Many of these large companies can if they choose engage in a media blitz that can rival the amount of propaganda a nation conducts in times of war. It would be one thing if there weren't significant barriers to entry in the media sphere. Even if a person had the money to buy radio equipment, without a license from the FCC they simply couldn't start broadcasting.
I guess this is more of a freedom of the press, than a freedom of speech issue. I think all individuals should have freedom of speech. I even think if a DJ doesn't want to play a song on their show that's one thing, but when all of the might of a corporation such as clear channel, or viacom is brought to bear on an individual, that seems like it crosses a line. It seems like if there are only a very small number of corporations that own the vast majority of media outlets, then they should have to play by a slightly different set of rules than an ordinary individual. I believe that media companies if they control enough marketshare could engage in cenorship, I'm not saying they do, or they are even at they point where they can right now, but it looks like it is a very real possibility if trends don't change.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-03-2003 21:52
|