http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/08/att-censored-antibush_n_59722.html "This was not intended and was an unfortunate mistake made by a webcast editor." Ya right,tell me another one.......
The most ironic thing is that one of their best songs is called "Alive." Something which many people are not, including thousands of US servicemen and women thanks to that terrorist fool Bush.
Censorship, when it comes from the Govt. is a terrible thing, although I do believe a company has the right to disallow whatever content they, as a company, deem inappropriate. For example, most hosting companies do not allow hate websites, etc.
You think they done nothing wrong by not broadcasting someones political opinion because it differs from thier own?
Att sponsored the event and paid for the bandwidth. That pretty much gives them the right to broadcast (or not broadcast) anything they want in relation to this event. No one's freedom of speech has been hindered here, unless you believe freedom of speech demands the right to be heard as well.
Sad to be sensored. But from my understanding that certain TV music stations even wont play Marilyn Manson. But I guess he doesnt debase the presidency either. Yet.......... I have to agree as well. My website...I approve anything that goes up there. I take down anything I dont like or agree with.
Of course they have the "right" to do it. But that doesn't make it right. DP has the right to delete your posts and ban you if they disagree with your above statment, It doesn't make that right though. You are mixing up what they have the right to do and what a media broadcaster should do. They are broadcasters, Nothing more, They should broadcast.
Sure it does. DP owns the board; takes the risk and potential downside to anything inflammatory; so it has the right to remove posts and/or posters. You don't take any of that risk; you are anonymous. I'm also assuming you are equally miffed when DP bans members, aren't you? No matter what, a poster deserves to be here, doesn't he? Much like comments on your blog. By your reasoning you must post every piece of spam that gets put there; every comment that is just a string of profanities, etal. It doesn't make it right to delete it now, does it? So curious, do you all every comment on your blog/site to be published; or do you filter them out?
They didn't censor pearl jam because of inflammatory remarks, Profanities or any of the other reasons you are using as a comparison. They censored them because they didn't like their political opinions. I would certainly be miffed if someone was banned because they criticized their government. Wouldn't you? You are entirely missing the point. If someone posts a comment that is nothing but profanities or spam of course i would delete it. But i wouldn't, And shouldn't, Delete something someone says simply because i happen to disagree with it. This is the entire point. They didn't have a valid reason to censor what vedder was saying other than that they politically disagreed with it.
They did? How do you know this. ATT certainly doesn't say that's why it happened. A more reasonable reason it was censored is the guy who monitors the broadcast and uses the 6 second delay quickly realized the lyrics were changed, then bleeped em out or whatever. Erring on the side of caution. You assume it was done because the government was criticized, arent you? Why? The owner of the site has the right to ban someone for any reason. As a user; you just have to play within the rules. If you wanna say your piece, there are tons of venues for it. Complaining about how a site owner runs his site is a waste of your time. There is no right to be heard. I think 4 times in this post; you assume why it was done, then assign blame based upon your assumption. Maybe if the censor comes out and says "yep did it cuz of st0xs reason" then you have a case; until then you only have a supposition with nothing to back it up. And that's a poor basis for a conclusion, now, isn't it?
Why would you delete someones spam? Let's see, could it be because, oh, I don't know, maybe you disagree with someone spamming your blog? The height of hypocrisy
I believe that they censored them because of their opinions, But really that is irrelevant now, You are still defending their right to censor someone based on their opinions, Whether that is what they done or not. I think you are just being pedantic now, Arguing for the sake of arguing. Again, Yes they have the right to do it and yes they have the ability to do it. But that doesn't mean it's ok to do it and it doesn't mean it's fair to do it. Like i already said. It's irrelevant if that's why they were censored or not. I'm arguing against your opinion that it's ok to censor someone because you disagree with what they have to say.
Can't you see the difference between deleting someones comment because of spam and deleting it because i just happen to disagree with the persons opinions? Really, You can't see the difference?
Who is to say the comment is spam? As the blog owner, you make the decision on what is allowed and what isn't. Does that make you a censor? Absolutly. You're disagreeing with the content of the comment, but it is still your right as the blog owner to remove it. Take my example above with the webhost. You're paying for the bandwidth and diskspace, but you're not allowed to post up certain content. Is this censorship? Doesn't the owner of the servers (hosting co.) have the right to determine what is allowed on their network?
Of course its relevant. Your whole argument is that it was censored because it was a criticism against the government. If it were censored for any other reason; I don't think you'd be nearly as upset about this. The delay is 6 to 7 seconds on a live broadcast; so the decision needs to be made almost instantly. An argument that says "they did this because it was anti bush" doesn't really wash, because there isn't enough time to make the decision. As I said, the most likely reason this was blocked was because the lyrics were changed and ATT was playing it safe. That's fine. But again, you do not know this is the case. So until you do; you really don't have an argument, do you? I'm arguing that if ATT (or anyone) is paying for the bandwidth, they can choose to show whatever they want or choose not to show whatever they want. If ATT doesn't want Pearl Jam to air "verizon rocks, att sucks!" that's within their right as well.
Even if we agree that we don't know if this is the case you are still arguing that censoring someone simply because they say something you politically disagree with is ok. As long as you claim it's ok to censor someone because you disagree with their politics i very much have an argument. Would you explain to me why not knowing the exact reason the sound died should prevent me having an opinion on censorship but apparently doesn't prevent you having an opinion on the exact same topic? Neither of us can know for sure why the sound died. But apparently it's only the people who are against political censorship who should be prevented from having an opinion on it. Apparently, And ironically, It's the person in favour of censorship who wants to carry on having an opinion and mouthing off about it.
Again; there is no censorship. ATT owns the bandwidth, it sponsored the lines the webcast was broadcast on. it chooses what is broadcast and what is not. There is no censorship. Is that difficult to grasp? Your opinion is based on a supposition. You assign a reason to the issue (att didn't want anti bush sentiments broadcast) and then assign blame based upon in this reason; which you acknowledge that you can't even prove is based upon reality. I'm simply saying, who cares why they edited it, ATT owns the bandwidth its their broadcast to edit/show as they wish, they say what goes out on it. My opinion is based on reality; yours is based upon a supposition. Get me?
Censorship is defined as the removal and/or withholding of information from the public by a controlling group or body. That's the definition, Is that difficult to grasp? How is your opinion based on reality when it's an opinion on the same subject as mine, Which according to you is not based on reality. If you can say they should be able to censor lyrics because of political reasons then i must also be able to say they shouldn't. Regardless if they are or not. Get me?
You cannot censor content which you own. Is it that difficult? You can choose to broadcast some parts or other parts. But you own it. Your definition of censorship doesn't even apply here. Do you get it yet? Censorship implies government involvement. unless you show me otherwise, ATT was not requested to not show the content at the behest of the federalis was it? Don't call it; what it clearly is not. Again; your opinion is based on something which you don't even know happened. ATT owns the broadcast. Therefore, there is no censorship. It can choose to show or not show any part of the event it wants. It's really not that difficult.