Comments on: Does Pulling Advertising Equal Censorship? http://usawatchdog.com/does-pulling-advertising-equal-censorship-2/ Connecting the Dots to Give You A Clear Picture of What’s Really Going On Wed, 16 May 2012 16:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Greg http://usawatchdog.com/does-pulling-advertising-equal-censorship-2/#comment-7 Greg Thu, 03 Sep 2009 00:52:36 +0000 http://usawatchdog.com/?p=266#comment-7 Thank you for taking the time to write. Even though we disagree I appreciate your point of view. Thank you for taking the time to write. Even though we disagree I appreciate your point of view.

]]> By: Ray Williamson http://usawatchdog.com/does-pulling-advertising-equal-censorship-2/#comment-6 Ray Williamson Wed, 02 Sep 2009 22:06:51 +0000 http://usawatchdog.com/?p=266#comment-6 Greg, I'll have to disagree at least in part with your conclusions. I'm against censorship. And by the way, I find it Orwellian for right-wing commentators to claim that the fairness doctrine - which would allow airing opposing opinions - constitutes censorship.) But we're not talking about censorship: We're talking about commercial advocacy. Mr. Beck has the right to say any crazy thing he cares to, whether he can back it up or not. And apparently he has the right to do so on a network that isn't constrained by that defunct fairness doctrine. Freedom of speech belongs to all, but freedom of the press now applies to those who own the press. And a network is beyond the reach of the majority of people. But since money has been declared by the Supreme Court to now be equivalent to protected speech, the "little people" can each cast their votes by threatening to boycott those who bankroll (and implicitly endorse) such unopposed broadcasts. People certainly did boycott West's records. They burned the Dixie Chicks' records and ruined their career for years. Until the fairness doctrine is re-established, the boycott is the only vote the common man has in the commercial media. Greg, I’ll have to disagree at least in part with your conclusions. I’m against censorship. And by the way, I find it Orwellian for right-wing commentators to claim that the fairness doctrine – which would allow airing opposing opinions – constitutes censorship.) But we’re not talking about censorship: We’re talking about commercial advocacy.

Mr. Beck has the right to say any crazy thing he cares to, whether he can back it up or not. And apparently he has the right to do so on a network that isn’t constrained by that defunct fairness doctrine.

Freedom of speech belongs to all, but freedom of the press now applies to those who own the press. And a network is beyond the reach of the majority of people. But since money has been declared by the Supreme Court to now be equivalent to protected speech, the “little people” can each cast their votes by threatening to boycott those who bankroll (and implicitly endorse) such unopposed broadcasts.

People certainly did boycott West’s records. They burned the Dixie Chicks’ records and ruined their career for years.

Until the fairness doctrine is re-established, the boycott is the only vote the common man has in the commercial media.

]]>