MSNBC drop kicks Imus simulcast

Maybe, just maybe,

this could be the start of something actually positive for corporate broadcasters. Its hard for me as a former media guy, not to be cynical about this but 72 hours ago I wouldn't have even thought THIS possible. And good on Al Roker for coming up front and center on this. I'm sure he got a load of vile hate mail for his stand. It seems as though some if not many NBC employees actually moved the issue to the front burner with management which, if you ever worked in the media, is bravery.

The other big issue here was the Rutgers team press conference which put a human face on Imus' comments. For once America actually got to see the faces and hear the voices of the targets of hate speech. And I keep hearing the same refrain from people inside and out of NBC - 'that could have been my daughter.'

Click. A light finally goes on.

Now the ball is in CBS Radio's court. One would hope they would see the writing on the wall.

Olbermann is making the continuing point on his show tonight - OK, that's one. Now what about Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, et. al?

Indeed. Let's hope the conversation doesn't end with Imus.

---

by: kegbot1 @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 20:03:15 PM CDT

Randi Rhodes

made the same point on her show today.

---

by: Peg @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 20:32:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Great comments, kegbot1.

I share your hope.  I enormously appreciated Al Roker's column, including his observation that having a national radio or TV show is a privilege; it must be exercised responsibly.  I find the matter of "why the early stuff didn't raise a sufficient stink," which Roker addressed, fascinating. I am reminded of Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery":  The practices were evil and victimizing all along.  Imus's stuff has never been OK.  But people were somehow "not perceiving" until now.

I'm waiting for the ("mainstream") "not perceiving" of Michael Savage, in particular, to finally come to a long-overdue end.

I'm also waiting for LGBT-bashing to have parity on the not-OK scale with race-bashing and gender-bashing.

---

by: KC @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:24:46 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thanks

I love this site - so many intelligent people here. I AM sensitive to the censorship issue but in this case I believe it was the public dragging the corporate sponsors along rather than the sponsors pulling the plug on their own volition. If sponsors pull support because they fear a boycott is that not a form of democracy? I realize this can be a double edged sword for progressives as well. That is why we need to support progressive voices and movements whenever they are heard in the mainstream.

---

by: kegbot1 @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 20:11:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Shaking my head in Disbelief!

The thought police are alive and flexing thier muscle!

This in NO BETTER than the LUNATIC right! (AFA, etc.)

http://www.law.corne...

WE (the left) have been telling the right for years, "Turn if off/change the channel if you don't like what you see/hear!"

The hypocrisy that I'm so used to seeing from the right is now at home in the left!

      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes

---

by: Markpat @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 20:42:14 PM CDT

no one is stopping Imus

You cited: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Check yourself: no one is prohibiting Don Imus from exercising his First Amendment rights. As I said in a prior post, I-Man can go stand out on a street corner and talk about "nappy headed hos" and call Gwen Ifill a "cleaning lady" from sunrise to sunset. CBS and MSNBC doesn't have to give him a forum, or to promote or enable him to go on the public airwaves to exercise that right.

MSNBC decided it didn't want to associate itself with Imus once the advertisers didn't want to be associated with bigotry.

---

by: Pam Spaulding @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 21:34:03 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Thought police? Puhlease.

If I've told you once, I've told you a million times to never exaggerate.

No one has written a law stating that people can't freely speak their opinions.  There are no prison cells awaiting Don Imus.  There is no censorship going on here, no authority waiting to police your thoughts.

There is, however, an awakening.  A realization that, hey, hateful speech really shouldn't be tolerated.  People spoke up, advertisers listened, corporate media caved.  These businesses have the right to promote any programs they wish, knowing that those programs contribute to the company's image.

It's also not as if there aren't plenty of outlets for hateful speech these days.  I'm sure Imus could shuffle his gig over to Fox Radio; he'd fit in well there.

OK, now before you scream, "hypocrite", since I've posted many times about mobs of Evangelicals who picket and protest networks and get them to do things like cancel the Jesus sitcom NBC tried out... and I'm sure one could Google me and find me arguing a contrary position... wellll....

Subject matters.  It ain't "balance" to say, "Oh, look, the Left is as batty as the Right!"  What we're pressuring the media about does matter.  We're trying to get polite society to reject hateful speech toward innocent people, they're trying to get polite society to reject a naked chocolate Jesus artwork.

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: RadicalRuss @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 21:42:39 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Russ, well put.

I've been scooting through the Intertubes and finding plenty of folks who say, "But what about the rappers?  What about the rappers?"

I think Lev answered that in his lovely Lev way when he noted that the Masters of the Universe don't court rappers.  Imus is powerful and has been powerful for a long time, but Imus doesn't want to oblige decency.  He should know better.  Much better.  He's not 22.

---

by: Holly Capote @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:06:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

My Point---------------

of  noting the FIRST amendment was to STRESS that our founding fathers believed so strongly in freedom of "speech" that they started our constitution with it!

Chocolate Jesus, Puhlease! Finding the most insane example of the rights stupidity doesn't make your argument valid.

Maybe the right has a valid concern. How much longer will it be before a preacher in a small church won't be able to preach that the Bible say homosexuality is a sin?

Hypocrisy? If the shoe ??????.

I still say that anyone who participated in this feeding frenzy to fire Imus is as contemptible and dangerous as the AFA and it's ilk!

(Dear Pam: I really do love your site. And agree with you on tons of issues! SORRY, that I disagree with you on this one.)

      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes

---

by: Markpat @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:35:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

do you mean freedom of "speech"

do you really mean freedom of "speech",
or "freedom of speech"
or "freedom" of speech
or freedom of speech?

i just want to be clear, since it was the latter, not the former that is in the 1st Amendment.  So too bad for you that you founded your whole arguement on freedom of "speech", because there's no constitutional provision for "speech". 

And no, the founders didn't start the constitution with it, they added it later.  That is what an amendment is - something amended later onto the original document.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:43:41 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

ummm

I think it's in the first amendment and I think the founding fathers put it there and I think that's how it was ratified.

      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes

---

by: Markpat @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:54:05 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

are you a time traveler?

the constitution was ratified in 1787.  The 1st amendment wasn't added until 1791.  so tell me, how could the founding fathers have started the constitution (as you claimed) with something that wasn't added until 4 years later?  time travel?  further, it was congress, not the founding fathers, who introduced the bill of rights legislation.  pick up a book.  google wiki.  do something to educate yourself on the basics so that next time you want to make a point, it isn't blown out of the water for being so baseless.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 23:10:00 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Check Your History

When the constitution was presented for ratification, there were broad complaints that it lack specific guarantees of individual rights. Ratification was secured in 1787 in exchange for a promise that a bill of rights would be added. I'm surprised you didn't know that; it's something that used to be taught in elementary school history classes.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:07:27 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

i'm surprised you don't know that political promises mean jack.

fact is as i stated it.  the constitution was ratified 4 years prior to the amendment.  you can't have a constitutional amendment without first having a constitution. at the time of the ratification, there was no law on the matters covered by the bill of rights.  you can say there was, but there wasn't.  at that time, the bill of rights was a promise, not a reality. 

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 12:05:44 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You WIN--------------------------

Lurleen,

I'm impressed by your skill of retention. (Clearly not as much as you are!) Forgive me for being old and forgetful. It's been MANY years since I've been in school.

It's still the first one isn't it? Usually that means it's the most important.

Technicalities don't win arguments.


      "A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both, and deserve neither"

Thomas Jefferson

"The mob is the mother of tyrants"

Diogenes

---

by: Markpat @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 14:05:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Facts v Truth

It's obviously factual that the constitution itself preceded the amendments to it. However, it's true that the first 10 amendments are integral to the original.

The original would never have been ratified without a political promise that those amendments were coming, and they were delivered as a package within a few years. It's the only time in U.S. history that so many amendments came at once; the only similar action was with the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments after the Civil War.

Your claim that there was "no law on the matters covered in the Bill of Rights" is false. In fact, many of the items in the Bill of Rights arose from various state laws and constitutional provisions in effect at the time. Check your facts, and be aware that the purpose of facts is to illuminate the truth.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 14:13:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Freedom of speech vs. marketplace of ideas

The drafters of the Constitution believed strongly that the GOVERNMENT should not censor speech.  MSNBC  can do whatever the hell it wants and is responding quite clearly to the notion that Imus' comments have failed in the marketplace of ideas. 

---

by: kt @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:45:51 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting Responses

Can we bookmark all this wonderful libertarian sentiment for the next time people start ranting and raving over the next outrageous act of corporate censorship? Hmm. I'm a new member here. What did people on this board have to say when Sinclair Broadcasting censored Ted Koppel's Nightline show because it dared to name all the dead in Iraq?

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 23:02:42 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Logic Schmoglic

What did people on this board have to say when Sinclair Broadcasting censored Ted Koppel's Nightline show because it dared to name all the dead in Iraq?
The names of the people who died in Iraq is based on fact.  He was reporting the news.  Unless you agree with Imus and think that it is a fact that those young women are nappy headed hos, there really is no comparison here.  Try again.

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 04:54:39 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I Don't Approve of Censorship

It's remarkable to see how many people on the left are just as eager to censor as are people on the right.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:04:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Same argument again?

It's remarkable to see how many people on the left are just as eager to censor as are people on the right.
Leftists like Stalin were quite fond of censorship.  Most of the people here are liberals and progressives, not leftists.  Learn what words mean and then get back to us.  Besides, at this point in time when people go on and on endlessly about the left and right without backing their opinions up it usually means that they have no idea what they are talking about and are just repeating a talk radio or Fox News tidbit so they aren't really taken seriously. 
As many people here have pointed out, no one is censoring him.  He can say whatever he wants to.  Private companies can decided if they want to sponsor that or not.  It's not censorship it's more like community or company stardards violations, but again you seem to need to invest in a dictionary.  BTW, why do you think that intolerance needs to be tolerated?  Why should P&G et al be required to pay for comments that would have gotten a regular employee fired if it was something that was emailed out from their server? 

My America includes LGBT families.

---

by: Mena @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:20:24 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Response Below

Rather than post another response here, I direct you to my response below. Scroll down a bit and you'll find it. Thanks.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 13:05:17 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Imus

That pathetic senile old coot should have been put out to pasture a long time ago.  What's even more sickening than his disgusting rants are his claims to be such a noble humanitarian.  His "ranch" for sick children was exposed as a total money-grubbing scam some time ago.

---

by: nils @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:46:57 PM CDT

Imus's racism is ugly.

So is ageism.

---

by: Holly Capote @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:52:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Procter & Gamble to the Rescue?

Okay, but do you really want P&G to be the arbiter of what's acceptable speech in America?

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 22:55:55 PM CDT

they're not

they're the arbiter of who they will pay to promote their products.  end of story.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 23:03:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Just Wait ...

... until they drop their ads from someone that the wingnuts find outrageous. Let's see what you say then.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Wed Apr 11, 2007 at 23:36:16 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

okeydoke

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 00:00:08 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

We've Been There All Along

Mr. Wilson, we don't have to wait for the dire things you are warning us about to happen. Corporate censorship has been the continuous story since the beginnings of consolidated media in this country.

Most opinions I hold are never heard ANYWHERE on TV or network radio. Not even heard on small radio, nor printed in my metropolitan newspaper. And they never will be, because they are completely censored out by corporate ownership and the need for advertising dollars. They are simply not permitted.

So your warning is absurd.

Imagine: We are slaves. One of our overseers is punished for whipping us too harshly. And there you are, wrining your hands: "If we allow him to be punished like this, who knows what they might to do US!"

Would anyone be surprised if we ignored you?

---

by: Jim @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 01:54:16 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

The Difference ...

... between me and you is this: You approve of corporate censorship, and I do not. I feel sorry for you.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 05:59:41 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Okay...

So, Don Imus has the right to say whatever filth comes into his head.

But what you seem to be saying is that if I don't like that filth, my options are to 1) sit down and 2) shut up.

I can't use the power of the purse to boycott advertisers who do business with him, because that's corporate censorship.

I can't call for the removal of his platform, because that's censorship.

I suppose I could protest, but only if it doesn't involve actually pressuring anyone to do anything, because Don Imus' right to free speech trumps my right to freely express my contempt for his speech--at least, if it involves any actual consquences.

---

by: Darkrose @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 20:04:45 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Good Points

The thing about this is that there aren't any absolute answers. If there was ever something that's a series of sticky tradeoffs, this is one of them. At least that's how I see it.

I can really respect your hurt and anger, Darkrose. Your comments about the problems that many black women have always faced with their hair (and I believe skin as well) really made an impact on me yesterday. I can genuinely see where you're coming from, and why Imus is a real bastard from where you sit. He's a bastard from where I sit, too.

I feel similarly about Rush Limbaugh. Last fall, he mimicked the motions of Michael J. Fox, who has Parkinson's Disease who who testified on behalf of stem cell research. I have multiple sclerosis, which can have effects similar to Parkinson's. I don't have MS as bad as Fox has Parkinson's, but when I saw Limbaugh's stuff I hit the f---ing roof.

At the time and ever since, I've sat here and wondered why that bastard is still on the radio. You'd have thought that the organizations purporting to represent the handicapped and people with chronic diseases would have gone batshit crazy over it, but the silence was deafening.

I'm saying all of this to let you know that, while I've been arguing the case for free expression here, I'm not blind to the points you're making. To me, I think maybe the bottom line is that we're talking about sheer nastiness and coarseness, and maybe it's time that some liberals and some conservatives had a little conversation about standards of decency and decorum on advertiser-supported media.

I realize I'm all over the map on this stuff in my postings. I am genuinely puzzling it through here. Every time I think, "Off with their f'ing heads!" another voice inside goes, "Whoa! Do you really want to go there?"

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 20:18:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

This has been something of an interesting discussion.

A few points

Point one.  Imus has a constitutional right to freedom of speech*.  But he does not have the right to have someone else (MSNBC and his syndicators) give him an amplifier by which he can amplify his speech.  Therein lies the difference.

*Actually, as the Supreme Court has held numerous times, the constitutional right is really quite limited.  Do a search on the court opinions in "US vs. Schenck" and US vs. Frohwerk" and you'll see what I mean.

Point two, as I pointed out in a comment to a post below, Imus doesn't have the right to have advertisers be associated with him.  Therein lies his problem.  P&G doesn't want to be associated with him.  P&G pulled their advertising from "Dr" Laura's program after it was made know to them the shit that she was slinging.  That started "Dr" Laura on her downward spiral.  Is it right that P&G should do that?  It doesn't really matter.  In an advertising-driven media world, the advertisers are going to rule the day.  It really is as simple as that.

Getting down to the nitty-gritty

Point three the constitution was ratified in 1787.  The 1st amendment wasn't added until 1791.  so tell me, how could the founding fathers have started the constitution (as you claimed) with something that wasn't added until 4 years later?

It is the case that the ratification of the US Constitution was pretty much conditioned on the fact that there would be a Bill of Rights.  The founders knew that, and they acted on it.  Ratification of the US Constitution really cannot be divorced from the ratification of the BoR.

Point four, and probably the most important point

William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 00:36:16 AM EDT

Just Wait ...
... until they drop their ads from someone that the wingnuts find outrageous. Let's see what you say then.

Apparently you know nothing of history.  The wingnuts have been doing that for years.  Apparently you are unaware that the TV program 30Somthing in the 1980s had positive a gay character subtext.  The wingnuts implored the advertisers and got the positive gay character subtext excised.  Evil gay characters, OK by them.  Positive gay characters, no.  And gay characters who are clowns, like Billy Crystal (Soap, in the 1970s) and Willa and Graceless, OK.

The wingnuts have been doing their best to shove positive, non-clownish gay characters under the rug on broadcast TV in the US, and they have been largely successful at doing so.

---

by: raj @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 02:47:59 AM CDT

Censorship

I don't approve of censorship. You obviously do. I feel sorry for you.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:02:26 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not exactly sure where you got...

I don't approve of censorship. You obviously do.

...out of my comment, but it would really be nice if you were to address the substance of the comment instead of trying to read my mind from at least 4000 miles away.

The substance of the comment was a response to your earlier comment

Just Wait ...
... until they drop their ads from someone that the wingnuts find outrageous. Let's see what you say then.

And I gave you an example of the fact that they had already done so, and at least one instance involving a positively portrayed gay couple.  I'm not exactly sure why you lept to the conclusion that I approve of that: please inform me if you wish.  It is merely an example of the fact that the wingnuts have already gotten advertisers to control editorial content of the programs on which they advertise by threatening to withhold their business from the advertisers.  Do you understand?  The wingnuts have already done what you suggest that we'd rue if we "wait for" it.  We don't have to wait for it, because they've already done it.

---

by: raj @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:34:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

no worries, raj

willson was obviously payed to drop this one talking point, but not given any supporting verbage.

I don't approve of censorship. You obviously do. I feel sorry for you.

You can't argue with an automiton, except perhaps to say "I know you are, but what am I."  Yeah, that's the level of discussion WIllson brings.

Lurleen on Twitter

---

by: Lurleen @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:57:52 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

How about

a good, solid, operational definition of the term censorship?

If I refuse to do business with advertisers on the radio station that carries Michael Savage, (a) am I contributing to censorhip, and (b) am I not within my rights, legally, ethically, and morally?

Of 300,000,000 citizens in the U.S., no more than maybe about 100 have the privilege of a national radio show.  I am not one of them.  Am I being censored?

---

by: KC @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:34:45 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

What the commenter was describing is not censorship...

...but I didn't really want to get into the details.

---

by: raj @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:54:50 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Per Daimeon's excellent comment below

Mr. Wilson:  Is something still "censorship" if law or government is not involved?  Again, I think the term needs a clear, operational definition.

---

by: KC @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:44:02 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

(Sorry for the run-on)

I fear the lack of an operational definition of "censorship" interferes with dialogue (a la David Bohm).  I don't believe saying "you obviously approve of censorship" furthers dialogue.

---

by: KC @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 09:47:12 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Bumper Sticker Logic: Mea Culpa

One of my pet peeves about political discourse these days is how so many people use bumper sticker logic. I am guilty of it with the posts about censorship. I posted them during a bout of insomnia, and when I woke up this morning I told myself I'd need to go back and correct this.

First off, no one "paid" me to write anything here. Secondly, I think Don Imus is an asshole. Thirdly, I don't think he's funny, and I have have thought so. Ergo, I don't feel as I am defending him, but I'm speaking up about a principle. When the ACLU defended the Nazis who marched through Skokie, IL, I was on the ACLU's side, and believe me, I thought the Nazis were assholes and I had no sympathy for them.

Yeah, you folks have some excellent points to make, i.e., that it's more a matter of editorial judgment than censorship. I believe there's a difference between those two concepts. I also think the line can get really blurry, and in this case it's blurry given that the editorial judgment is being driven by outside forces. I don't like the idea of relying on the tender mercies of the Procter & Gamble Corp. to take care of Don Imus, but I guess you take your support where you can find it.

It's obvious to me that Imus is toast. Those who wanted his head on a platter got their prize. Maybe it's for the best. Time will tell. To me, the test will be if something broader can come from it, i.e., that we also tone down the gangsta rappers. If muzzling Imus is long overdue, then muzzling them is long overdue. I know that I've just contradicted myself on the censorship front, and I guess this illustrates the paradoxical nature of the whole discussion.

Censorship or editorial judgment? Tough one. Imus's errors are political errors. He slurred the wrong people. Now he's been silenced by a group of the largest corporations in America. Forgive me my lack of joy about this. To me, it could easily wind up being a classic "Pandora's Box" sort of thing. You shut down the guy who offends you, and one of these days you'll learn that two (or three, or four ...) can play that game.

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 13:01:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Correction

I meant to write: "... Thirdly, I don't think he's funny, and I have never thought so. ..."

BANNED for TOS violations.

---

by: William Wilson @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 13:02:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Here's a Shocker!

Ann Coulter said what he said was repulsive and un-called for.  Here's the rub...she only thinks he needs to apologize to the girls and no one else.  Her justification is that he went after these girls and not public figures.  She said it would be fine for him to go after public figures like herself to call her a "flaxen headed ho" but non public figures, in her opinion, not making political or public statements, are off limits.  How hypocritical is that?

Of course the fact that Faux News still gives her a forum and has many many apologists for Imus speaks volumes of the organization and of the right wing.

With regards to all of the censorship comments, here's the deal, in the free market, also the marketplace of ideas, it's perfectly acceptable for sponsors to pull there support of ideas they don't like, it's also perfectly acceptable for corporations to no longer provide a platform for those that they don't support or agree with.  That's also freedom of speech.  Censorship is when a government entity does something to either block the broadcast of speech they don't agree with.  The gov't didn't do this.  Free speech was not squelched by the gov't.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:46:19 AM CDT

typo

"...pull their..."

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." -- Thomas Jefferson

---

by: Daimeon @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 06:47:03 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Also

The comments from NGLTF and GLAAD are right-on -- superb.

---

by: KC @ Thu Apr 12, 2007 at 10:02:16 AM CDT