|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 4:44 pm
Did AT&T Censor Pearl Jam`s Lollapalooza Webcast?After hearing about this, I come to you all, to ask if this is a mere oversight on the part of one of AT&T's associates, or does this mark the sowing of corporate control over content and what comes in and out? Does Net Neutrality need to come into play, or does everyone simply need to chill?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Aug 13, 2007 5:53 pm
There's two ways I can answer this and both depend on what the truth actually is.
(1) If it's some disgruntled "content moderator" who got out of line, then that guy is just a dipshit, and nobody can blame AT&T because it wasn't done with their discretion.
(2) If AT&T knowingly and intentionally did this, then the band needs to be realize that they may have free speech, but they don't have a right to use another person's/company's/corporation's/whatever's resources for whatever they damn well please.
Take the Don Imus controversy, for example. The guy certainly has free speech, and no government agency is going to break down his front door and arrest him for anything he may have said or done, but if CBS doesn't approve of someone using their--not his own--private equipment to call black women "nappy-headed hos" over radio waves, then they have every right to reprimand that person.
Like Don Imus, Pearl Jam has nothing to complain about. If the band wanted to be ensured complete control over a webcast, then they shouldn't have decided to use someone else's resources in the first place. Hell, it's not like they're incapable of airing their performance on their own website . . . or even YouTube or MySpace which would certainly allow video creators more control over what they upload.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 23, 2007 10:45 am
People need to chill. You don't even have to go very far to know that "freedom of speech" doesn't let you speak freely using someone else's mediums and resources. Take Gaia, here. People think they can say anything they want here, and are surprised when they're reported or banned. True, in your house, you can say anything you want. On the streets, you can as well. But when you're on a company's radio station or TV channel, etc., you're bound by rules, like them or not. No matter which situation Wicked discribed turns out to be true, AT&T gets no s**t from me, as long as the rule broken was previously stated. I mean, you can't blame anyone for breaking a rule without knowing the rule itself, right? (I mean company policy-wise. Government wise is another story, to an extent.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
