I’m just shocked that a Church thinks it’s OK and the networks don’t. 
You may argue that if you wish. (I would expect a merry donnybrook on the topic.) However, to claim that the denial of a single commercial from a single church group is a demonstration of that power is to stretch that claim past the point where it could be supported.
Have your freedoms been restricted or hijacked by CBS because CBS would refuse to advertise The Anarchist Cookbook? How about enrollment programs for NAMBLA?
I might support a claim that the networks “hijack” our freedoms by reporting presdential races as horse races and failing to provide air time for substantive reporting of issues (although the network that tried it would probably go belly up in an election year), but choosing to reject commercials does not seem to rise to that level of interference with our freedoms.
Sure, but it’s not “simply false”, which is what raised my hackles.
Perhaps. But these are organisations with considerable power over the public whose power is under pressure in the current political climate (clarified by the Jackson nipple bullying) that are supposedly rejecting an ad because it “implies acceptance”. I don’t think it’s unduly paranoid to suppose that a hold is being put on the media, even if it is self-imposed jumping at shadows.
I don’t know your country’s laws, but supposing that it were otherwise legal for such spots to run, yes, of course. There might be good justifications for restrictions, but they would still be restrictions. And were the restrictions made by powerful private entities for non-transparent reasons, yep, they’d be hijacks.
It truly saddens me that simple tolerance is considered to be so controversial.
What has happened to my country?
That so many people seem to be of the thinking that the refusal to air this ad constitutes some sort of violation of rights actually bothers me more than the refusal itself.
The network is a private corporation. Yes, they are using the publicly-owned frequencies of the EM spectrum. But the responsibility connected with using those doesn’t extend much beyond airing public service announcements, having an educational children’s block, and keeping a news show on the schedule, along with following FCC rules as currently interpreted.
I’m having incredible trouble seeing this the way that those crying “rights violation!” are seeing it. What rights are being violated here (he asked again)?
I was looking at the disinvestment campaign from UK banks at the time I was an undergraduate. It led to, at the very least, Barclays withdrawing (at least partially, hedge, hedge) from the RSA. Most corporations don’t have principles, they have pocket books. And hitting them there is something that can be done without relying on government censorship, regardless of whether the networks action is legal or not. It’s grass roots political action of the sort that used to be practiced be the left.
Oh, sweet Lord. I agree with Reeder. I expect that if I look outside, I’ll see the sun turning black and four men on horseback approaching.
First someone would have to claim “rights violation.” Nobody has.
C’mon, RT. Not in so many words, no, but what does this
mean?
Or hawthorn’s response to tomndebb earlier:
What are they saying except that they consider it to be a violation of rights (or freedoms, which are usually considered the same thing)?
No, a hijacking of freedoms is different. TV companies have freedom of speech like the rest of us because that is essential for a true democracy. You can argue the hijack is they have taken that freedom, and turned it instead into a charter to discriminate against homosexuals.
That’s a bad assumption. Just to give one example, I have the freedom to walk out this door, hop into my car, and drive it across the country.
But that freedom is not a right, since there is no ‘right’ to drive; it’s well established that having a driver’s license is a privilege, not a right.
RT, I’ll concede that the words aren’t exclusively synonymous. But exactly what freedoms (even in that sense) are being eroded by the networks refusing this ad?
I’m in total agreement that refusing this ad was a craven, stupid thing to do. I just fail to see how a TV network can possibly hijack, erode, or even make significantly effective funny faces at any freedoms (or rights) that I have.
As I attended CofC bible study regularly for a while, my head had already exploded. Thank you for pointing this out.
Building on that, we had assumed that we all had somewhat equal freedom to buy time on the airwaves to express our views. What NBC, CBS, and UPN have done calls that into question, since they apparently are ready to flee from the faintest hint of controversy in the ads they accept - as long as it goes counter to this Administration’s positions.
For instance, there is much controversy in our society about SUVs - as everyone on this board knows, a lot of people don’t like 'em. Do you see NBC or CBS pulling their SUV ads? Me either. The Iraq war - that’s hugely controversial. The U.S. armed forces are running ads on TV to recruit more men and women into the military, many of whom will likely find themselves in Iraq. Will CBS and NBC refuse to run those ads? Of course not. And so forth.
So with respect to the freedom to express dissenting opinions on our most popular medium of communication, I say this ad is the canary in the coal mine.
Damn that liberal media!
(And if this is the kind of “moral values” that Bush-voters support, count me out.)
They’ve ALWAYS had that right. This isn’t a new thing. The ban on liquor ads wasn’t a legal ban, like the cigarette ban was. It was an broadcast-industry-wide decision. And that was decades ago (recently reconsidered by some networks). There is nothing new here. If this gives the networks a way to hijack our freedoms, then they’ve ALWAYS had this way to hijack our freedoms. Why is there only a burst of outrage now?
Could not the same have been said of Ollie’s Barbeque and the Heart of Atlanta Motel? There is specific federal legislation that prohibits private entities engaged in interstate commerce from participating in certain types of discrimination. Whether or not that legislation would apply, specifically, to the networks and the decision to air or not air an advertisement, I don’t know. If it wouldn’t, I don’t see an obstacle to enacting such legislation. Whether or not such legislation would protect homosexuals, however, is a different question. To my knowledge, sexual orientation has not been determined by the SCoTUS to be an immutable charecteristic and therefore homosexuals cannot be a suspect class. Should they be? IMHO, yep, and if that were the case, then the refusal to air an ad because it contains implicit acceptance of homosexuality might possibilty violate said federal legislation. So to answer the question - how are freedoms being hijacked? - they are being hijacked in the same way that freedom was being hijacked when blacks were refused seats a Woolsworth soda counters, rooms at the Heart of Atlanta Motel and samiches at Ollie’s . . . at least if sexuality, or more specifically homosexuality, is an immutable charcteristic, which I think it is . . . for whatever that’s worth.
I don’t think I can buy that. The networks aren’t refusing service to gay folk. They’re not modifying their signal so that gay people’s televisions and cable boxes won’t receive it. And they never would…gay people buy stuff too.
The networks can refuse to sell ad time to the United Negro College Fund and it would be perfectly legal, just like this is perfectly legal. And the NAACP knows it, and wouldn’t bother with all the blather about the hijacking of freedoms. They’d just announce a general boycott of the network and its advertisers. And that’s what should be done here if you’re annoyed enough at this to want to do something.
But don’t talk about hijacking freedom. Leave that for the drama queens…it makes for fewer people to ignore.
Erm…in real life, that is. I would never, ever even consider possibly hinting in the least little way who is and is not on my ignore list here. Really, really, Lord and Lady Admins! Swear!
Networks are refusing service in the form of air time for advertisements (i.e. access to a public accomodation). Networks make money indirectly by being watched. They make money directly by being paid by advertisers. Ollie’s let people of any color smell the 'cue they were cooking . . why because they couldn’t control odor the same way the networks can’t control whether anyone person gets reception . . . after all the t.v. set is not gay (although they do have male and female parts . . .hmmm?).
I don’t know about that last part. To discriminate against an advertiser exclusively on the basis of race might well run afoul of entrenched civil rights legislation.
Still, I hear you . . . by your logic, freedoms weren’t hijacked at the Woolsworth soda counters, but the conduct was offensive nonetheless and became the subject of legislation prohibitting it. Freedom is a mushy word . . . as has been duely observed. However, it appears to me that a group is being refused access to a public accomodation based exclusively on its acceptance of homosexuality. Civil rights are being violated . . . is that better?