I thought there was a thread on this somewhere, but a search didn't bring it up, so...

The Senate Commerce Committee is looking into whether radio station consolidation would infringe on the Constitutional right of free speech.

More consolidation in radio business could hurt free expression, senators say

I wonder if our esteemed leaders in the Senate realize that only the government can infringe upon free speech? The Constitution sets limits upon government, not upon private individuals or companies.




It should send a "chilling message" that private corporations will not condone speech which is harmful to their business. In this case, not all radio stations stopped playing the Dixie Chicks' songs. There were alternative venues, as there will always be in a free society.

What the Senate is really suggesting here is that private companies have no right to make their own business decisions. By telling them, in effect, that NOT playing the Dixie Chicks is illegal (or unConstitutional), they are getting close to mandating that they be played. I know that they have not crossed that line, but it seems a logical outcome down the line.

The Senators' position is actually closer to limiting free expression, since they are inferring that the private company's decisions be subject to governmental oversight.

I wonder what John McCain and Barbara Boxer's positions are on the Michael Savage firing? He was fired, in effect, for saying something objectionable. I have no problem with either of these cases, since the private companies have the right (indeed, the duty) to only broadcast what is acceptable to their target audience.

Question for debate: Do you feel that private corporations are able to infringe upon the Constitutional right of free speech?

The 1st Amendment limits what government can do, not what individuals or corporations can do.

Of course, a monopoly by a private company on radio would lead to the freezing out of views not favoured by the political elites.

Your Founding Fathers warned of the threat from large companies and their dangerious effect on democracy. Wise Americans should take note.

I think the point is that if there is a consolidation of business in the entertainment and communications industry, then an owner or CEO could have a tremendous and detrimental impact on the type of information and entertainment that is mass produced (or played in the case of the Dixie Chicks.)

While in the long run in a free system a new network of companies or a new string of independent companies should rise up and challenge companies that censor popular entertainment away from the public, the costs would be real to censored entertainers in the short run.

These corporations make these decisions based on profitability. The Dixie Chicks were censored not because radio execs opposed their views, but because they believed their audience opposed the views of the Dixie Chicks and would react positively to a ban. Here, in Houston, they actually let the audience vote Yea or Nay on the Dixie Chicks. The majority voted nay.

But political views and politics don't mix very well. Businesses tend to stay away from political debates because they want people from both parties, or both pro-life and pro-choice or whatever to consider consuming their product. Limiting markets doesn't make sense.

Now companies can make good publicity stunts from time to time, such as having a vote over the Dixie Chicks' music, but with more competitors around then one such decision would have much less weight.

I think this is a non-issue.

Radio stations won't not let someone on the air because they disagree with what they're going to say. They'd be sued!

CAN business's infringe on 1st amd. rights? Sure. Will they get away with it? Highly unlikely.

--cheers

That suit would be shot down in flames. Listen to a talk radio program, they routinely screen callers. I was listening to one the other day that was practicing affirmative action that day and immediately moved all African-American callers to the front of the line.

If I am the owner of a Christian radio station and an atheist comes on assailing Jesus Christ, I have the right to silence him.

No one has a right to have his opinions expressed through the use of someone elses forum.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15281 Read it


Of course it is a threat to free speech when it's the only speech you can hear when you turn on the radio.

Senator McCain and others see the danger. Conglomerates aren't interested in upholding freedom of speech. Their motivation is profit, pure and simple.

(edited for additional comment)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's take a look at the question. Can anyone infringe on my freedom of speech....no. However, in the realm of the media outlets (television, radio, newsprint, etc..) the corporations have every right to screen, monitor, and decide what goes out to the public. I believe there should be both a right, and left slant to the information we receive, that's what allows people the opportunity to make informed decisions.....plus it's freedom of choice....Nonetheless, we shouldn't have a monopoly of the news sources (i.e. all left, or all right), which is where we seem to be headed with Clear Channel.



That is a valid statement.

However, this is MY fear -



or anyone else that doesn't subscribe to that particular political agenda.

I have observed there is a "freezing out of views not favored by the political elites" already. Locally, the newspaper do not pursue stories which would question the local political elite. Nationally, the media parrots the party line of either the Democrats or the Republicans and does not pursue stories which would question the collective practices of these two powerhouses.

The answer for the current problem and the potential problem with the radio stations is the same. As long as the public is willing to accept and reward the centrist pabulum that things are not so bad and let things stay the way they are, we will continue to have "freezing out of views not favored by the political elites". If these communities truly want real new/information, all is needed is for these communities to reward institutions which do a better job rather than doing business with media outlets which are doing poor jobs.

People are lazy and reluctant to put forth the effort to correct this problem. Jaime's current quote really hits the point on this:

We have the power in this country to change these problems by collective individual actions. What will it take for people to get fired up enough to act?

(The more I think about having kids recite the Declaration of Independence instead of the Pledge of allegiance the more I like the idea.)

The fact is, as everyone on this board knows, the information needed to make decisions and views of all ideologies can be found by those willing to do just a little work. I think the fear is that there are ignorant people who are unable or unwilling to educate themselves at all in the political realm, allied with the fear these ignorant people might vote in opposition to the "correct" political position.

I agree with you, it is IMO a valid fear.

So many of the people I used to work with would tell me they were "too busy" to follow the news or to vote or to contact their Congresspeople.

But they always seemed to have time to complain about the way things are.

You're right. If we do not take it upon ourselves to participate in the processes that were established for us, it's our own fault.

I'm just afraid that we're going to lose our rights bit by bit to neglect and apathy. And if we hear the same opinion over the radio and on the television and in the newspapers, then everybody must think the same way, right?

I think people are making it difficult to get at the real issues in this when they bring expressions such as "free speech" and "free expression" in to the discussion.

Should businesses be able to do whatever they want (within reason and legality, of course) to maximize their profits? Yes, I think so. But the media has tremendous power, and we need to look at that industry a little differently that we would any other one.

Admit it - most people are lazy. They want to plop down in front of the TV and/or turn on the radio to get their information. They don't want to make any special effort to find the most accurate, spin-free news or to get as many different points of view as possible. People want to get information that is concise in as little time as possible. This itself is a problem that needs to change but that's a whole different discussion.

Another problem is that the media's primary purpose is not to disseminate information. They are trying to make a profit. They are trying to build their influence in order to grow future profits. The broadcasting of information - or more accurately their own version of the information - is secondary.

Allowing for too much media consolidation is going to make all of these problems worse than they already are. Fewer choices, fewer opinions available, less information that needs to be given out to keep the consumers happy.

Indeed. As I screen posts. To keep them on topic, keep out the trolls, etc etc. Radio is no different. They want to make sure what the caller has to say is relevant to the discussion at hand.



Truely sad. They shouldn't have done that.

Dissenting opinions are heard on the radio all the time. Ever listen to Howard Stern? Ever hear him put someone on the air that just rips him a new one?

If radio censors people now, then it won't be any better or any worse if they consolidate them. Again, I still think this is a non-issue.

--cheers

The problem isn't just on the radio:






Here's the link: http://www.theemailactivist.org/Blackout.htm



This is "free enterprise" gone amok. I remember when AT&T was broken down into the "baby Bells," because the government figured it had too much power. Doesn't our government care about monopolies any more?



(edited to add list of underreported stories)

Nope, this is not a new issue.

I'm glad to see that the press is currently concentrating on George Bush's 16 words in the State of the Union. For a long while, the newspapers were carrying Natalie Maine's entire 15 word remark on a daily basis. I am certain that it became an issue because of George W. Bush's publicly stated reaction to her comment, and not because it was truly newsworthy. I have yet to see his remarks in print, however, and I only recall hearing them on the television once or twice.

On May 2, 2003, I noted in my journal that it was Day 54 of "The Dixie Chicks Crisis.” This story was covered that day on both CNN and MSNBC. On one of the networks it was remarked that probably no one would have attended a Dixie Chicks concert held in Texas. On the other it was remarked that they had been dubbed “The French Hens.” They gave no credit to the Reverend Jerry Falwell, who felt it necessary to rename them to defend the President. (I recall when Billy Graham advised Presidents of God’s opinion, instead of a President using a minister to help him redefine patriotism to the public.) I read her remark again that day in both The Detroit Free Press and my local newspaper.

Natalie Maines made a 15 word remark on March 10, for which she later publicly apologized. What the President’s scriptwriters, the Secret Service, and millions of militant supporters have apparently been unable to do, is protect President George W. Bush from the fact that a single citizen of the United States felt ashamed of him. What I would really like to see covered in the press, is why the de facto “Leader of the Free World,” has not been gracious enough to accept her apology and further, to apologize for his own, rarely published response.

I wish that George W. Bush, the “Compassionate Conservative,” would be willing to listen to what his predecessors had to say on the issue of Free Speech. It is amazingly easy to uncover quotations by past Presidents of the United States in favor of Free Speech. Those quotations cover a broad range from: to: The one contrasting opinion that stands out is:It took him only a few days following his anointing by the Supreme Court to publicly disclose his view of dissent.

In my youth, American and Russian citizens shared a common right. As an American citizen, I had the right to criticize the President of the United States any time that I chose. Russian citizens could also criticize the President of the United States any time they chose. The incredible, in my opinion, overreaction to a single remark; not by a group, but by one if its members, has to be intimidating to other public figures.

The country station I had listened to all the years since I had moved to this area was a "Clear Channel" station. I finally searched out another station and reset the country button on my car radio. I saw no reason why I should have to be reminded several times an hour why I was not being allowed to hear The Dixie Chicks.

Yes, I did have an alternative to Clear Channel, but it has brought to light how many stations that network owns. The Dixie Chicks "perceived threat to the President" by the owners of that network may indeed be what has caused Congress to look at how few choices we really have to listen to anymore.

The radio stations didn't just think that their target audience wouldn't want to listen to the dixie chicks. They received thousands of letters/email just in the Reno area alone from people saying they should not play the dixie chicks. The stations responded to the overwhelming majority of their listeners. Sure, some people that thought the dixie chicks did no wrong couldn't hear them on the radio, big deal. There are TONS of singers I'd love to listen to on the radio, but the singers I like are not the singers the majority likes, that's how it works. They play the songs of singers that they think will reach the most people within a certain market.

The michael savage thing is funny actually. The gay/lesbian group that was trying to prevent him from having his own show got him fired by having someone call and get his goat. I don't like him much anyway, he rants and raves about having all this "proof" of everything but he never offers any sources, nor does he even try to prove anything. It's just a couple hours of rants, sometimes I agree with the rants, but I don't like his approach at all. It's guys like him that make the liberals foam at the mouth when they talk about conservatives.