When private groups attempt to get movies, TV shows, video games, etc., removed from the market, this is as bad as gov’t censorship.
Example: A few years ago that group tried to get “Married With Children” off the air by boycotting its advertisers.
More recent example: The “Dads & Daughters” group tried to get Simon & Schuster to stop publication of a tasteless PC game called “Panty Raider”. (I don’t know if they tried any pressure tactics, they may have limited their efforts to simply asking the publisher not to put out the game).
Whether these actions are performed by the gov’t or by a private group, their goal is the same; to prevent the public from having access to media that they deem innapropriate. These groups actually have LESS of a right to this (in the moral, not legal, sense); they are not even elected by the public to speak for the public, in most cases.
I should have the right to decide whether something is too tasteless for me to view or listen to; nobody should be able to take that choice away from me, whether they are private or from the gov’t.
I disagree – it isn’t nearly as bad as the government.
Individual people – even individuals joined together in grouops – have the right to speak out against something they don’t like. They have the right to state that they will not support anybody who supports this thing that they don’t like.
You have the right to tell 'em to screw off, and to similarly make your feelings known to the people they are trying to boycott.
You do not have the right to take away their rights of free speech by saying they cannot speak out.
I agree they should have the right to speak out; it’s when they try to get the media removed from the marketplace that they go over the line.
If they limit their actions to having people be aware of whatever they have a problem with, that’s fine with me.
In the “Married With Children Example”, I feel they had the perfect right to protest the show, to make it known how they felt about it and what their problems with the show were.
But when they tried to get it off the air by boycotting advertisers, that goes too far, because they then prevent people from seeing the show and making up their own minds. I should be the only person who decides if something is too tasteless for me, and not some pressure group.
Boycotting is a time-honored way of protesting things and situations that are offensive, and at times dangerous, to a person or group. Just because you have an institution or corporation, it does not mean that you are entitled to automatic sources of cash revenue supporting everything that you do, or supporting events and shows that you sponsor.
Boycotts can backfire if the show or place was previously unknown. It may attract more people to that place or TV show. I happened to like “Married with Children”, but I understood Wilder’s point that the irony inherent in the show may be lost on some people. The boycott he initiated though, hurt “MWC” so much that it lasted only ten years on air.
Boycotts can also backfire if the subject the boycott was against also happened delve into carnal desire of people. It may cause people to flock to the forbidden fruit. Witness the effectiveness of the pre-air boycott against ‘NYPD Blue’, and the way C. Dolores Tucker extended the career of rapper Luther Campbell by six years.
You don’t believe that people have the right to boycott corporations whose social positions they disagree with?
I don’t think that’s the case. I think you’re concerned with people boycotting stuff you like. I also don’t like people boycotting stuff I like. Of course, what you like and I like may not match.
Couldn’t have said it better myself, I would like to state a fictional situation though.
Let’s say, oh the 700 club’s (Nothing personal, but it’s just kinda the other end of the spectrum) advertisers were being boycotted because people thought what they do was tasteless. Do you agree with that?
The thing is that if you really want to see the show, then you advertise on it to keep it on the air. You don’t have the money then tuff. If I may quote my Social Studies I teacher “Money makes the world go 'round.” (Side note/comic relief: Don’t confuse this with “You spin me right 'round (Like a record Baby)”.)
But there is no bright line in the sand between these things. They speak out against it and try to convince the media outlet (a private institution) that the outlet is wrong to air it. They are one and the same thing in my eyes.
But that is putting a restriction on their freedom of speech. As such, it’s not fine with me. And I’ll boycott anybody who says it’s ok!
No, it only prevents them if the media outlet decides to give in. As somebody else has pointed out, it’s more likely to backfire and make more people watch the show to see what all the hubbub is about. If they want to boycott the advertisers, they have a right to do so. If they want to tell the world that they are boycotting the advertisers, they have a right to do so. If the advertisers want to cave in, they have a right to do so.
So then we should get rid of Nielsen ratings as well. Because those measure how many people watch a show. And then the media outlet may pull the show because too many people aren’t watching it (for example, if too many people think it’s too tasteless), and then you wouldn’t have a chance to make your choice.
No, sorry. You don’t have a right to force a media outlet to continue to broadcast something if they choose not to. They may choose not to based on the free speech of people who are pissed at them. Everything here comes down to basic freedom of speech.
They haven't gone to far by a longshot. If they found it so offensive that they're telling the advertisers of that show they'll boycott they are perfectly within their rights. You're still free to decide for yourself whether or not you want to watch the show. They're free to tell the advertisers they will no longer do business with them because they support something they find repugnant.
And, of course, anybody else is free to tell the same advertisers that they WILL make sure to buy their brand because they support something controversial.
No, and to be honest, most of the stuff that has been boycotted I also didn’t like. I thought Married With Children was dumb as shit amd wouldn’t have missed it at all, and that Panty Raider game also looks pretty stupid.
But I want to make the decision to watch it or not, and not have that decision taken from me.
No, not at all. What’s the difference? I want to make the choice to watch or not to watch the show, and not have that choice taken from me.
If someone has a problem with the 700 Club, protest by pointing out the problems one has with it. Taking it off the air by scaring off advertisers is the cowardly easy way out. You are saying, “I’m smarter than the general populace, my view is more important. I can’t trust the public to make the proper choice whether to view or not view this program, so I will make that choice for them.”
I think you missed my point. The situations I tried to describe are when a show (or whatever) is making money, and the people who make it want to continue to make it, and it gets killed by some loud minority. If people aren’t watching a show because it’s tasteless (or whatever reason), then the public has made their choice like they should be able to. I’m not saying they have to keep every show on the air just cause one bozo out there likes it.
A product (whether it is a show or game or movie or whatever) should be available to the public as long as it marketable.
My problem is when people try to kill a show that people want to watch (sometimes before it’s even on the air) with these pressure tactics.
Take that Dr. Laura show for instance. They are trying to prevent even episode one from coming out, obviously that has nothing to do with ratings. I won’t watch the show because I hate that bitch, but I don’t feel superior enough to make that choice for the rest of the country.
Markets in action, my friend. People express their desires with their money. Money flows–or doesn’t flow–depending on the values of the population members.
But do you see that one will never have the opportunity to vote with their dollars if something is taken off the market because of pressure tactics?
In the example of a TV show, if enough people are watching it it remains on the air. It wouldn’t be on the air otherwise, and the people offended by it would have nothing to protest.
Since it is on the air, it has proven that enough people in the population are watching it and clearly don’t have values offended. Why should the loud pressure group have the right to have their values be considered more important or more correct than the viewers?
But they can vote with their dollars. For example, they can boycott products that cave to fundamentalist pressure.
With all due respect, you’re making my point for me.
They don’t have a “right” to have their values considered more important. They have a right to be loud if they choose to. Then, the advertisers have a right to decide whether they will continue supporting programming that offends this loud group. Finally, consumers have a right to purchase–or not purchase–products from these advertisers based on whether or not they agree with what they have done.
From David B:
Which means that people who don’t want shows pulled have the right to be just as loud as the ones who do.
Are private groups “as bad” as the government? Definitely not. They are often just as or even more misguided in their efforts, but they also lack the power that the government has. Thankfully.
Private groups do have a right to try and suppress certain products, but thankfully a few cranks don’t usually have much of an impact. The more unreasonable a demand or a position is the fewer people will share it, and the less weight their views will be given. If Uncle Sam gets involved, a company has to face government oversight or court battles or even one of those extremely productive :rolleyes: congressional committees.
I don’t care for censorship at all, whether it is a special interest group or the government. The unjustly maligned Huckleberry Finn has been banned by more schools than any other book in this country, which is an utter travesty. I don’t support efforts to suppress things even if I don’t like them personally, although I can understand the desire to. (When I heard my ten year old daughter singing the “Discovery Channel Song” it really set my teeth on edge!)
Be that as it may, I have to say that people have the right to make those protests, even if I disagree with their aims in principle.
If the show is still marketable after protest then it'll stay on the air. Of course it is possible that protesting will make the show unmarketable. That's life.
Esprix, I shouldn’t have to adjust my shopping habits to fight a political agenda. I only want to buy a product because it serves it’s purpose for a proper price.
**
Why can’t people simply not watch shows they don’t like, and let people who like the shows watch them?
**
