ATT don't own pearl jam songs, They were simply broadcasting them - The bits they liked anyway. This is the most pathetic attempt at creating a strawman argument i have ever seen. You assume incorrectly that censorship requires some kind of government intervention and then ask me if the government requested that they not air vedder criticising bush. the definition doesn't in any way suggest censorship is exclusively a government activity. The definition says a controlling group or body, i.e those controlling what gets aired, i.e ATT.. I know it would probably suit your fallacious argument if you could just make up definitions of words, but please, Lets stick to reality. Again, Your argument is equally based on something which you don't know happened. And again, I'm arguing against your opinion that TV stations should be able to edit and censor what people say based on political opinions. Please read this, I have said it 4 or 5 times now, How long before it makes it's way through your thick skull and in to that vacuous space between your ears? And we have been over what they can do and what they are allowed to do. The point is, Even though they can edit out things they disagree with politically they shouldn't. You would have been better of in Nazi Germany, You obviously fear being told things which you don't agree with. You obviously need media to pick and chose what you get to hear. Are you relieved that the TV people stopped the bad man saying nasty things about fuhrer bush? The fact that you defend this stuff is frightening. Tell me, What other opinions do you need to be protected against?
I CAN do it, but you CAN'T. Typical American way. I can have nukes, but you can't. I can't polute the air, but you can't. I can invade another country, but you can't. I can cencor pearl jam songs, but you can't. bla bla bla
Lorien is right, as a broadcaster you have a right to broadcast or not broadcast any content that you like. If i asked users of my site to send in emails about their thoughts on the war on terror etc & someone sent in a message of how great osama is i have the right to broadcast/publish that email or not for whatever reason.
If I own a site, its my right to webcast what I want, and block what I dont want. I do not HAVE TO air everything just because they are against someone, who you hate. I'm sure you would have been on the other side of argument if it was song praising Bush and his administration..
They own the broadcast. Pearl Jam got their speech in. They were not censored. It simply wasn't broadcast. Ergo, no censorship. Is it really this difficult for you? There is no right to be heard. This is what you are attempting to argue here. I could care less if pearl jam said it wanted to give bush a hummer cuz they loved him so much. I'm being honest here; you are just showing your true colors and why you cannot see the actual reality here. Fuhrer Bush Thanks for proving your dishonesty here for us all. I know, here comes the fascist calls. Because I'm defending a private organization exercising its legitimate right to broadcast what they want over bandwidth they are paying for. When the name callling begins, I assume you've run out of intelligent objections.
ATT is a public company, not government controlled or state run. That said, like any public or private business in the US, they have the right to edit anything they deem inappropriate... To be honest, I am surprised PJ is still around... Didn't they have like one good song? I figured they were on the one hit wonder list....