Full Version: Congressional Democrats censoring Wal-Mart?
QUOTE
WASHINGTON -- An ABC morning news segment called "Only in America" should be sponsored by anyone but Wal-Mart, according to 21 Democrats in Congress who complained Tuesday about the company's relationship with it.
...
In their letter, lawmakers from 10 states urged ABC News to cancel immediately Wal-Mart's sponsorship of the "Only in America" series, which profiles Americans.
...
In their letter, lawmakers from 10 states urged ABC News to cancel immediately Wal-Mart's sponsorship of the "Only in America" series, which profiles Americans.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...2C3870205.story
Questions for Debate:
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
Since when does the federal government care who sponsors ads? Although it is probably a resolution (and not carrying the force of law), the spirit of censorship is certainly present.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
I doubt it. In fact, many will applaud the Congress for chastising one of the most successful companies in the country.
Since when does the federal government care who sponsors ads? Although it is probably a resolution (and not carrying the force of law), the spirit of censorship is certainly present.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
I doubt it. In fact, many will applaud the Congress for chastising one of the most successful companies in the country.
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
Nope, it's just some elected representatives voicing their opinion, or that of their constituents. It's an attempt at social reform through the actions of the free market.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Nope, it doesn't even begin to infringe on Free Speech.
I'm no fan of walmart, nor do I think it's a triumph of capitalism, as they've received $1BILLION in government subsidies.
Furthermore, the trend of 'big-box' stores is partially fueled by the nature of our tax system. The paid & taxed labor of the small storekeeper is replaced by the unpaid & untaxed labor of the aisle-walking, box-retrieving, distance-to-Wal-mart-driving consumer. I'm not even counting the unaccounted for externalities of most modes of travel, which allow artificially low travel costs to subsize a relatively large population to drive to the Wal-Mart, vs. smaller geographic populations travelling to their local stores.
I will give them respect for controlling costs, though.
Nope, it's just some elected representatives voicing their opinion, or that of their constituents. It's an attempt at social reform through the actions of the free market.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Nope, it doesn't even begin to infringe on Free Speech.
I'm no fan of walmart, nor do I think it's a triumph of capitalism, as they've received $1BILLION in government subsidies.
Furthermore, the trend of 'big-box' stores is partially fueled by the nature of our tax system. The paid & taxed labor of the small storekeeper is replaced by the unpaid & untaxed labor of the aisle-walking, box-retrieving, distance-to-Wal-mart-driving consumer. I'm not even counting the unaccounted for externalities of most modes of travel, which allow artificially low travel costs to subsize a relatively large population to drive to the Wal-Mart, vs. smaller geographic populations travelling to their local stores.
I will give them respect for controlling costs, though.
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
No, because censorship means pressuring for something not to be shown on the air. The Demos are asking that ABC use a little more thought when it comes to accepting money from WalMart for showing what might amount to infomercials about how great WalMart is for the American working class. Now that could be seen as a wrong way of doing things (pretty weak, actually), but it isn't censorship.
I'd call it making a public protest about the inappropriate connection of strong working-class folks in America with a "successful" (i.e., making money hands over greedy fists) company that has to keep buying itself out of court. I got a kick out of the statement that 90% of Americans are WalMart customers -- this is of course assuming that these customers had a choice. Maybe not if the ma/paw stores were bumped out. It could also point to monopolistic practices -- that is, driving competitors out of local markets.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Since I don't see this as a free speech issue and more of a protest from Demos, no. Had the Demos passed a bill restricting WalMart from sponsoring (producing?) infomercials, then yes, this would be a free speech issue. Actually, we've seen more of this kind of pressure from the Repub side -- not showing things, you know, like Reagan's biography? Like Moore's film?
I do understand WalMart's problem. The reputation is pretty bad among non-infiltrated communities. Right now a part of Denver is fighting the construction of two stores just a couple miles apart, and my own burg is resisting an in-town WalMart. Personally, I don't see any advantage to having WalMarts installed wall-to-wall, except that it will keep the company's fiscal success going by pushing out small businesses (competitors).
Which nobody cares about except WalMart officers and investors.
Oh, I know, were these little outfits really able to compete? Nope. They didn't have the same supplier leverage that the 800-lb gorilla has. This shows that WalMart has so much of the local markets that it can dictate terms to its suppliers. This limits the suppliers' ability to turn profits, and that's good for the American worker? I don't think so.
I also know the arguments about how WalMart is supposed to help communities through increased sales tax/property tax revenues. Oh yeah? And if we are wrong on this, then what? Kick WalMart out? Right.
Nope, the only way to stop WalMart from messing things up is to just say no on the getgo. Gee, that might hurt WalMart's bottom line. Oh well, too bad. And for the potential added tax income for the community? Hey, we're doing just fine as is.
No, because censorship means pressuring for something not to be shown on the air. The Demos are asking that ABC use a little more thought when it comes to accepting money from WalMart for showing what might amount to infomercials about how great WalMart is for the American working class. Now that could be seen as a wrong way of doing things (pretty weak, actually), but it isn't censorship.
I'd call it making a public protest about the inappropriate connection of strong working-class folks in America with a "successful" (i.e., making money hands over greedy fists) company that has to keep buying itself out of court. I got a kick out of the statement that 90% of Americans are WalMart customers -- this is of course assuming that these customers had a choice. Maybe not if the ma/paw stores were bumped out. It could also point to monopolistic practices -- that is, driving competitors out of local markets.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Since I don't see this as a free speech issue and more of a protest from Demos, no. Had the Demos passed a bill restricting WalMart from sponsoring (producing?) infomercials, then yes, this would be a free speech issue. Actually, we've seen more of this kind of pressure from the Repub side -- not showing things, you know, like Reagan's biography? Like Moore's film?
I do understand WalMart's problem. The reputation is pretty bad among non-infiltrated communities. Right now a part of Denver is fighting the construction of two stores just a couple miles apart, and my own burg is resisting an in-town WalMart. Personally, I don't see any advantage to having WalMarts installed wall-to-wall, except that it will keep the company's fiscal success going by pushing out small businesses (competitors).
Which nobody cares about except WalMart officers and investors.
Oh, I know, were these little outfits really able to compete? Nope. They didn't have the same supplier leverage that the 800-lb gorilla has. This shows that WalMart has so much of the local markets that it can dictate terms to its suppliers. This limits the suppliers' ability to turn profits, and that's good for the American worker? I don't think so.
I also know the arguments about how WalMart is supposed to help communities through increased sales tax/property tax revenues. Oh yeah? And if we are wrong on this, then what? Kick WalMart out? Right.
Nope, the only way to stop WalMart from messing things up is to just say no on the getgo. Gee, that might hurt WalMart's bottom line. Oh well, too bad. And for the potential added tax income for the community? Hey, we're doing just fine as is.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Mar 30 2005, 04:05 PM)
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
Since when does the federal government care who sponsors ads? Although it is probably a resolution (and not carrying the force of law), the spirit of censorship is certainly present.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
I doubt it. In fact, many will applaud the Congress for chastising one of the most successful companies in the country.
Since when does the federal government care who sponsors ads? Although it is probably a resolution (and not carrying the force of law), the spirit of censorship is certainly present.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
I doubt it. In fact, many will applaud the Congress for chastising one of the most successful companies in the country.
This isn't censorship of any sort. Its influence just like any other organization in the country can provide.
Tell me Amlord, is a company successful if it strongarms its suppliers so bad they have to ship American jobs overseas just to keep the prices artificially low? Success is relative in this case, imo. Wal-mart has a lot to be criticized for it would seem. I won't derail the thread with details but they are certainly fair game for scrutiny.
Doc
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit? Slightly towards censorship. More of a whiny protest.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Hell Goldcard, Doesn't really matter--they got no weight? Are you saying they should be restricted from protesting? They asked and were turned down. End of story except for maybe some coverage from the conservative echo chamber. Did they try to pass a law to prevent the segments? no? Just how is that censorship? Are they trying to amend the Constitution? Nope? Have they recalled any of the legislative branch to rewrite any laws?No?
Its a non event. Americans will continue to shop at wal mart. They would do so even if people could definitively prove it was destroying American communities, raising taxes and costs due to walmart employess ending up on public assistance.
We love cheap crap and wal mart has always got our fix.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Hell Goldcard, Doesn't really matter--they got no weight? Are you saying they should be restricted from protesting? They asked and were turned down. End of story except for maybe some coverage from the conservative echo chamber. Did they try to pass a law to prevent the segments? no? Just how is that censorship? Are they trying to amend the Constitution? Nope? Have they recalled any of the legislative branch to rewrite any laws?No?
Its a non event. Americans will continue to shop at wal mart. They would do so even if people could definitively prove it was destroying American communities, raising taxes and costs due to walmart employess ending up on public assistance.
We love cheap crap and wal mart has always got our fix.
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
No, the last time I checked the definition of censorship was as follows: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
From your news article:
These congressmen wrote a letter, that hardly even approaches censorship. Notice there was no vote in Congress, this wasn't a law or even a resolution - it was a letter. In fact it is no different than any one of us writing our local affiliate and telling them that we hate American Idol and to take it off the air.
Unless there is a new definition of censorship this is in no way censorship. In fact these congressmen are simply expressing their opinions in the same way that all of us are constitutionally protected to do.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Well this question assumes that what occurred here was censorship. It isn't, end of story. There is no reason for the "Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU" to do anything.
No, the last time I checked the definition of censorship was as follows: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
From your news article:
QUOTE
In their letter, lawmakers from 10 states urged ABC News to cancel immediately Wal-Mart's sponsorship of the "Only in America" series, which profiles Americans.
These congressmen wrote a letter, that hardly even approaches censorship. Notice there was no vote in Congress, this wasn't a law or even a resolution - it was a letter. In fact it is no different than any one of us writing our local affiliate and telling them that we hate American Idol and to take it off the air.
Unless there is a new definition of censorship this is in no way censorship. In fact these congressmen are simply expressing their opinions in the same way that all of us are constitutionally protected to do.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Well this question assumes that what occurred here was censorship. It isn't, end of story. There is no reason for the "Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU" to do anything.
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Mar 30 2005, 06:36 PM)
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
No, the last time I checked the definition of censorship was as follows: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
From your news article:
These congressmen wrote a letter, that hardly even approaches censorship. Notice there was no vote in Congress, this wasn't a law or even a resolution - it was a letter. In fact it is no different than any one of us writing our local affiliate and telling them that we hate American Idol and to take it off the air.
Unless there is a new definition of censorship this is in no way censorship. In fact these congressmen are simply expressing their opinions in the same way that all of us are constitutionally protected to do.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Well this question assumes that what occurred here was censorship. It isn't, end of story. There is no reason for the "Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU" to do anything.
No, the last time I checked the definition of censorship was as follows: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
From your news article:
QUOTE
In their letter, lawmakers from 10 states urged ABC News to cancel immediately Wal-Mart's sponsorship of the "Only in America" series, which profiles Americans.
These congressmen wrote a letter, that hardly even approaches censorship. Notice there was no vote in Congress, this wasn't a law or even a resolution - it was a letter. In fact it is no different than any one of us writing our local affiliate and telling them that we hate American Idol and to take it off the air.
Unless there is a new definition of censorship this is in no way censorship. In fact these congressmen are simply expressing their opinions in the same way that all of us are constitutionally protected to do.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Well this question assumes that what occurred here was censorship. It isn't, end of story. There is no reason for the "Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU" to do anything.
Cube Jockey's Own Words...
QUOTE
1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?
MAF has chosen their methods, and I think they have a right to seek a boycott if that is what they desire to do. However, I highly doubt they will be very successful because the increased controversy will entice more people to see the film just to see what the buzz is about. The theaters that are currently showing the movie probably won't discontinue showing it because they are in major cities and the movie will undoubtedly be a money maker.
2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Of course, but no different than efforts by some groups on the left to silence O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. In my opinion it is wrong no matter who is doing it.
3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
I would do everything that I could to fight it. Admittedly, as an individual that isn't much but you have to start somewhere. As far as this movie goes, I have taken the time to personally write letters to theaters NOT showing the movie, asking them to reconsider. I have also taken the time to write numerous letters to the FCC regarding their obscenity rally.
MAF has chosen their methods, and I think they have a right to seek a boycott if that is what they desire to do. However, I highly doubt they will be very successful because the increased controversy will entice more people to see the film just to see what the buzz is about. The theaters that are currently showing the movie probably won't discontinue showing it because they are in major cities and the movie will undoubtedly be a money maker.
2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Of course, but no different than efforts by some groups on the left to silence O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. In my opinion it is wrong no matter who is doing it.
3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
I would do everything that I could to fight it. Admittedly, as an individual that isn't much but you have to start somewhere. As far as this movie goes, I have taken the time to personally write letters to theaters NOT showing the movie, asking them to reconsider. I have also taken the time to write numerous letters to the FCC regarding their obscenity rally.
next fish in the barrel...
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Mar 30, 2005 5:05PM)
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
No, because censorship means pressuring for something not to be shown on the air. The Demos are asking that ABC use a little more thought when it comes to accepting money from WalMart for showing what might amount to infomercials about how great WalMart is for the American working class. Now that could be seen as a wrong way of doing things (pretty weak, actually), but it isn't censorship.
sooo, what you're saying is ABC can produce whatever they want, but they can't shop it to WalMart? (odd, given that you fault WalMart for reducing the shopping opportunities of Everyday Joe) Or its okay for Members of Congress to pressure ABC into denying WalMart an opportunity to advance its expression?No, because censorship means pressuring for something not to be shown on the air. The Demos are asking that ABC use a little more thought when it comes to accepting money from WalMart for showing what might amount to infomercials about how great WalMart is for the American working class. Now that could be seen as a wrong way of doing things (pretty weak, actually), but it isn't censorship.
QUOTE
I'd call it making a public protest about the inappropriate connection of strong working-class folks in America with a "successful" (i.e., making money hands over greedy fists) company that has to keep buying itself out of court. I got a kick out of the statement that 90% of Americans are WalMart customers -- this is of course assuming that these customers had a choice. Maybe not if the ma/paw stores were bumped out. It could also point to monopolistic practices -- that is, driving competitors out of local markets.
Of course they have a choice. 80% of the population lives within striking distance of a mall, which very rarely include WalMarts.QUOTE
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Since I don't see this as a free speech issue and more of a protest from Demos, no. Had the Demos passed a bill restricting WalMart from sponsoring (producing?) infomercials, then yes, this would be a free speech issue. Actually, we've seen more of this kind of pressure from the Repub side -- not showing things, you know, like Reagan's biography? Like Moore's film?
Since I don't see this as a free speech issue and more of a protest from Demos, no. Had the Demos passed a bill restricting WalMart from sponsoring (producing?) infomercials, then yes, this would be a free speech issue. Actually, we've seen more of this kind of pressure from the Repub side -- not showing things, you know, like Reagan's biography? Like Moore's film?
Funny you should mention Reagan's bio....
QUOTE
2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Nope. It's an effort to shut someone up. Oh wait, same thing. Okay, yep.
3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
No, I'd be ticked off no matter if the voice being stifled was someone with whom I agreed or not. Free speech is important, even if I might think the speech is of a very low quality and level.
Nope. It's an effort to shut someone up. Oh wait, same thing. Okay, yep.
3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
No, I'd be ticked off no matter if the voice being stifled was someone with whom I agreed or not. Free speech is important, even if I might think the speech is of a very low quality and level.
to review my original questions...
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit? Apparently, freedom of speech doesn't extend to WalMart being able to sponsor messages that it chooses. (nor does it extend to ABC being free to pick its sponsors...)
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers? Nope.
I must admit, it is refreshing to see yet again the leftist dedication to the ideals of free speech
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Apr 14 2005, 04:17 PM)
QUOTE(Cube Jockey @ Mar 30 2005, 06:36 PM)
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
No, the last time I checked the definition of censorship was as follows: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
From your news article:
These congressmen wrote a letter, that hardly even approaches censorship. Notice there was no vote in Congress, this wasn't a law or even a resolution - it was a letter. In fact it is no different than any one of us writing our local affiliate and telling them that we hate American Idol and to take it off the air.
Unless there is a new definition of censorship this is in no way censorship. In fact these congressmen are simply expressing their opinions in the same way that all of us are constitutionally protected to do.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Well this question assumes that what occurred here was censorship. It isn't, end of story. There is no reason for the "Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU" to do anything.
No, the last time I checked the definition of censorship was as follows: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable"
From your news article:
QUOTE
In their letter, lawmakers from 10 states urged ABC News to cancel immediately Wal-Mart's sponsorship of the "Only in America" series, which profiles Americans.
These congressmen wrote a letter, that hardly even approaches censorship. Notice there was no vote in Congress, this wasn't a law or even a resolution - it was a letter. In fact it is no different than any one of us writing our local affiliate and telling them that we hate American Idol and to take it off the air.
Unless there is a new definition of censorship this is in no way censorship. In fact these congressmen are simply expressing their opinions in the same way that all of us are constitutionally protected to do.
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
Well this question assumes that what occurred here was censorship. It isn't, end of story. There is no reason for the "Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU" to do anything.
Cube Jockey's Own Words...
QUOTE
1.)Should Move America Forward seek to have the movie boycotted by talking to movie-goers rather than try and force theaters to not carry Fahrenheit-911?
MAF has chosen their methods, and I think they have a right to seek a boycott if that is what they desire to do. However, I highly doubt they will be very successful because the increased controversy will entice more people to see the film just to see what the buzz is about. The theaters that are currently showing the movie probably won't discontinue showing it because they are in major cities and the movie will undoubtedly be a money maker.
2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Of course, but no different than efforts by some groups on the left to silence O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. In my opinion it is wrong no matter who is doing it.
3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
I would do everything that I could to fight it. Admittedly, as an individual that isn't much but you have to start somewhere. As far as this movie goes, I have taken the time to personally write letters to theaters NOT showing the movie, asking them to reconsider. I have also taken the time to write numerous letters to the FCC regarding their obscenity rally.
MAF has chosen their methods, and I think they have a right to seek a boycott if that is what they desire to do. However, I highly doubt they will be very successful because the increased controversy will entice more people to see the film just to see what the buzz is about. The theaters that are currently showing the movie probably won't discontinue showing it because they are in major cities and the movie will undoubtedly be a money maker.
2.)Is this an effort to stifle debate and dissension?
Of course, but no different than efforts by some groups on the left to silence O'Rielly, Limbaugh, etc. In my opinion it is wrong no matter who is doing it.
3.)How would you feel if some pressure group not of your political persuasion tried to stop your favorite political radio host or movie that was being released? Do you think it would be "for your own good" and let it happen?
I would do everything that I could to fight it. Admittedly, as an individual that isn't much but you have to start somewhere. As far as this movie goes, I have taken the time to personally write letters to theaters NOT showing the movie, asking them to reconsider. I have also taken the time to write numerous letters to the FCC regarding their obscenity rally.
next fish in the barrel...
Um, excuse me Bikerdad perhaps you are confused as to what the actual issue is here. Perhaps you ought to pay attention instead of trying to score points against me.
First of all, the situation this thread was started to cover is not a boycott, it isn't censorship or anything of the kind. The letter is merely stating that it is hypocrisy of the highest order for Wal-Mart to sponosr something called "Only in America" when 90% of the stuff they sell comes from China.
The quote you cherry picked from another thread was an actual act of censorship because the group was trying to force a movie theater not to show something. Big difference, again I'll refer you to the good ol' dictionary on Merriam-Webster.com
Regarding your last red highlighted statement - what exactly is your point? I pick my battles and you pick yours. What does that have to do with this topic? In the context of the actual question my response was perfectly valid. Too bad it has nothing to do with this topic.
If you plan to add something useful to the debate by rebutting my arguments then please do let me know.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Mar 30 2005, 12:54 PM)
QUOTE
WASHINGTON -- An ABC morning news segment called "Only in America" should be sponsored by anyone but Wal-Mart, according to 21 Democrats in Congress who complained Tuesday about the company's relationship with it.
...
In their letter, lawmakers from 10 states urged ABC News to cancel immediately Wal-Mart's sponsorship of the "Only in America" series, which profiles Americans.
...
In their letter, lawmakers from 10 states urged ABC News to cancel immediately Wal-Mart's sponsorship of the "Only in America" series, which profiles Americans.
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/wire/new...2C3870205.story
Questions for Debate:
1) Is this censorship in fact, or at least in spirit?
2) Will the Democrat, liberal, and Leftist defenders of free speech, including but not limited to the ACLU, chastise these Federal lawmakers?
No, this is not censorship. And your tactic of bringing up peoples' quotes from other threads, while I'm sure it seemed fiendishly clever at the time, is an apples/oranges case.
Let's start with Walmart. This is the company that got into trouble for buying life insurance policies for elderly employees. Gee, that sounds nice, why would that get them in trouble? Because Walmart was the beneficiary, and the employees weren't even told about it. This is the company who's "Bring it Home to the USA" and "Made in the USA" campaigns were forced to end when Dateline exposed them as fraudulent - unless "made in the USA" is interpreted as "made in Chinese factories." This is the company that has gotten in trouble for forcing employees to work unpaid overtime. This is the company that will shut down a store rather than give in to any unionized labor.
Sounds pretty American, does it? The letter was sent to show disapproval of what amounts to an advertisement disguised as "content." Of course Walmart isn't the only company guilty of this; but part of the price of being such a huge and "successful" company is being in the spotlight.
Your second question is either purely intended as a "ha ha ha" to the left, or you really don't understand the issue. I'm certainly not saying that Democrats are not now or have not in the past supported censorship; of course they have. The difference between the two big parties is precisely what should be censored, not whether things should be censored.
Lastly, I love it when people drag the ACLU into stuff like this. Oh, those lefty hypocrites!! Actually, When the issue is real, the ACLU will be on it. Whether or not it is originating from the left or the right. Indeed, the ACLU once represented Sean Hannity, when his conservative radio show was canceled by his university for political reasons! Oh those hippies and their crazy ways!
sooo, what you're saying is ABC can produce whatever they want, but they can't shop it to WalMart? (odd, given that you fault WalMart for reducing the shopping opportunities of Everyday Joe) Or its okay for Members of Congress to pressure ABC into denying WalMart an opportunity to advance its expression?
I think you meant *sell it* to wally world. No, ABC has the right to shop
anything to anyone. It's just that some Demos saw the irony in a series that attempts to elevate the American worker being sponsored by a corporation that doesn't do this elevation.
That wally market pushes small business out is a no-brainer. Small business simply can't compete, that's how things work. You seem to think this is just fine, and so be it. I disagree. I think wally world should not use monopolistic tactics to destroy American small businesses, thus increasing American workers' opportunities to become unemployed.
Demo members of Congress used pressure? How did that work? Do you think ABC sales execs give a rat's tush? I think they are laughing their rats' behinds off.
This was an ineffective attempt at appealing to the higher sensibilities of ABC
. I call this useless, not censorship.
I think you meant *sell it* to wally world. No, ABC has the right to shop
anything to anyone. It's just that some Demos saw the irony in a series that attempts to elevate the American worker being sponsored by a corporation that doesn't do this elevation.That wally market pushes small business out is a no-brainer. Small business simply can't compete, that's how things work. You seem to think this is just fine, and so be it. I disagree. I think wally world should not use monopolistic tactics to destroy American small businesses, thus increasing American workers' opportunities to become unemployed.
Demo members of Congress used pressure? How did that work? Do you think ABC sales execs give a rat's tush? I think they are laughing their rats' behinds off.
This was an ineffective attempt at appealing to the higher sensibilities of ABC
. I call this useless, not censorship.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.