Can’t networks censor their content independent of the government?
For example, if a comedian came out and said some very negative things about a major corporate sponsor (or, say, the network’s parent company), the station could censor those comments.
[quote=“markdash, post:41, topic:550788”]
The comedian has some sort of contract with the network. He or she understands that they are hired to do a specific job, either as a full time employee or a contractor depending on the gig, and thus they have a responsibility to (usually contract with) the network to perform that service. The networks gives them money, they give the network what they ask for, which is what every other company asks for: something that will make them more money. It’s a business arrangement.
If the network bleeped everything the comedian said, he can go down the street to the local comedy club or go film a vlog segment or go to another network and try to say it there. It’s totally up to the manager of the comedy club or other network if they want to pay for what the comedian is saying, though of course his own vlog is his business. Even then though, if he wants to make several jokes about 9-11 and then about kiddie porn and YouTube, a for-profit division of Google, which is also for-profit, decides it’s in their best interest not to host it, they don’t have to do so. So far everything has been decided at the corporate level, but the comedian hasn’t been told he doesn’t have the right to say this, just that nobody has any obligation to assist him in amplifying it to a larger audience.
If the government says “If you say that again, you will go to jail”, that’s censorship. I’d even say that if the government doesn’t outright jail a person but makes their life miserable or restricts their employment or whatever- such as the House UnAmerican Activities Committee, who to my knowledge never made it an actual crime to be a Communist but would so harass any college or movie studio or trucking company that hired one that it made it impossible for them to have quality of life as a reasonable person would understand the term- that’s censorship: the government using its power to restrict your freedom of expression or to punish you for a belief.
For a company making its own policies for its own reasons, it’s just like Tom Hagen tells Sonny: “It’s just business. The old man would be the first to say, it’s just business.”
Bravo, Sampiro. Brilliant OP.
I suppose I could be a bit flexible with the c-word itself, for those who raise the “but what if it’s a nongovernmental private party more powerful than you” scenario: I’d say that if YouTube or the ComedyShop or the network are uncomfortable with a content that I try to put forth through their venue, they can withdraw or redact it because it’s*** their ***proprietary venue; they would be striking that content from their own output: *SELF-*censoring. Call it abridging, or dumbing-down, it’s their signal/space/bandwidth, their call. It may be distasteful to some or many, but it is a legit choice as long as freely made.
“Bad” censorship is if when they act, as in Sampiro’s HUAC example, under direct compulsion, or pressure of an implicit threat of reprisal, from the State. Although I’d also expand the “Bad censorship” to if there existed a collusion among the different players to systematically take away from me every possible outlet.
To give an example, Margaret Cho complained in one of her books that she had been hired to appear at some corporate event and then was asked to not use some of the material from her regular routine. She was outraged and said she would say do her full routine. The corporation then cancelled her performance.
Cho claimed she had a “freedom of speech” right to say whatever she wanted. She was completely wrong. There is no constitutional right to speak at a private function. The organizers of the event can set whatever limits they want on the speeches given.
[quote=“Little_Nemo, post:44, topic:550788”]
It would be interesting to know if they paid her or if she was considered in breach of contract. Anyone know how specific speakers/comedian’s contracts are as far as material?
Andy Dick has had his act cancelled several times, especially back in his News Radio days when he was known as “the goofy guy on that show” and his insanity/drug use/general assholery/unfunniness weren’t as well known. Dick actually can be funny but sometimes he would “improvise” and start making extremely graphic gay sex references to guys in attendance (not ‘you got teh gay’ type jokes but what most people would consider sexual harassment AND unfunny) or start telling filthy and unfunny and pointless stories as part of some performance art type crap when hired to be a comic- extremely unpredictable and not in the wacky-zany Robin Williams/Jim Carrey sort of way but more ‘Andy Kaufman on acid and ecstacy and with a hard-on’ kind of way. I know from an article about him that in his particular contracts the terms of his performance began to be spelled out (x minutes, no material about y, z, or a, void if he humps a college boy in the audience or shows up cracked out of his mind, etc.) but I was wondering if it was handled with other comics.
They can, but that’s not a violation of anyone’s First Amendment rights. It’s the difference between telling your friend, “my boss is a fucking asshole. I bet he diddles kiddies,” and telling your boss, “you’re a fucking asshole. I bet you diddle kiddies.”
You know your boss will fire you if you were to say that, so you censor yourself. No one in their right mind would claim that’s a violation of your First Amendment right to free speech.
[quote=“Sampiro, post:45, topic:550788”]
I believe that some material is negotiable. Obviously, the name is a draw, as is familiar material. However, the venue has to consider community standards in the equation; a corporation isn’t going to want to be associated with someone like Andy Dick if he’s going to be, well, a dick. The performer/speaker may also be constrained by a non-disclosure or some other type of legal agreement (for example, an author may be prohibited from revealing material from his new book because of his contract with his publisher).
After reading the entire thread some things occur to me:
I agree completely with the premise of the OP.
Someone knows way too much about R. Lee Ermey’s grooming.
a. If Ermey got a bad haircut, how would he (or anyone else) know?
Someone beat me to the Miracle Whip remark. >.>
Someone knows how tall Rahm Emanuel is.
Media “personality” has a large following of listeners, mostly because of the controversial things she says. Advertisers buy access to those listeners until she says something “too” controversial. You can’t blame her for being confused.
I know I’m late to the game on this, but the Rosa Parks bit is the funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. Nice one.
I don’t know. I only heard Cho’s version of the incident and she didn’t get into those details.
“Freedom of the Press belongs to those who own one.” -A. J. Liebling
Sampiro is my hero.
Late to the party, I know, but I also want to give Sampiro props. The OP was brilliant.
Free speech does not give immunity from disagreement.
Speaking of radio hosts who are clueless when it comes to the First Amendment, there’s also Randi Rhodes.
This week Randi was going on about Amerika, “where we have (sneer) “freedom of religion” (sneer)” and where a recent poll supposedly found that 45% of respondents have negative views of Muslims*…well, that proves there really isn’t freedom of religion, doncha know.
Except that there’s nothing in the Constitution that says that Americans must like adherents of any given religion. It may be backward and wrong, but having a negative image of Muslims or any other religious group does not prevent them from exercising their freedom of religion, as your feelings alone have not compelled Congress to pass any law restricting said freedom.
Oh, and Dr. Laura is a clueless harpy who should have been on the shelf a long time ago. How nice that she can now reclaim her “First Amendment rights” and churn out more books for her self-flagellating followers.
*the next most negatively-viewed religion in the poll reportedly was Catholicism, coming in at 17%. Jews and Protestants were ranked not far behind. Where are the frickin’ Baha’i’s’, I’d like to know.
Her First Amendment Rights were found early this morning. They were in the back of a 2002 Escalade that gay black Muslims were trying to drive into Canada at the Whitlash, Montana border crossing. Strangely, once rescued they begged not to be returned to her, saying “she makes us do… bad things”.
Don’t mess with Randi Rhodes. He was rockin’ back when he played with Ozzy Osbourne.
Oh. That other Randi Rhodes. never mind 
“Freedom isn’t free”
A brilliant rant. Bravo.
[my favorite part] (yeah, first Galileo and then Anne Frank and now you, when will the persecution end?) [/my favorite part]