AT&T censors Pearl Jam's anti-Bush lyrics

[ChamberedRound]

Now I'm not exactly a fan of Pearl Jam or their politics, but I really don't like censorship. Bad enough that AT&T is essentially spying on people at the behest of the NSA, now this. All the more reason why we need a net neutrality law.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070809/...db4lubJj8E1vAI

There was once a time when AT&T, as a monopoly, would fiercely protect it's customer's privacy; it was routine for them to tell the government to "get a court order" before they would provide any information or calling records. Not anymore I guess.

More information on AT&T and the NSA:
http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/faq.php
http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2006/05/70947

[billamj]

I don't know. AT&T and PearlJam said that it was done in error by a third party vendor. What AT&T needs to do is to send a message to everyone by firing the vendor and swearing never to use them again.

[knight0334]

Its not censorship unless it is committed be government authority.

A company may pick and choose what it may air or display within its own course of business. Its like the difference between your boss telling you to shut the 'f up and some government agency saying you cant say or write something. One can negatively effect you if you dont comply, the other has no authority because your rights are protected from government infringement.

[deth502]

what the hell is pearl jam doing here anyway????

they made a big deal about coming forth to tell EVERYONE that if george w got electet, they would move to canada.

btw- this was for the 2000 election!!!!!!!

ptu your money where your mouth is and HIT THE ROAD PEARL JAM!!!!

dont forget your heavy coats, and remember, they loose insulation value when they get soaked with your tears

i hate hippies.

[NineseveN]

I don't like AT&T's aiding in government spying, but I agree with Bill and Knight, this wasn't really censorship...but I could be missing something?

[D-FENS]

Its not censorship unless it is committed be government authority.

Censorship is the restriction of information by a controlling entity. It's not even close to being limited to the Government. I'm not saying it's not most closely associated with the Gov't but it's certainly not limited to them.

Companies can censor their employee's.
Churches can censor their congregations.
The Media can censor their journalists.

etc.

I think you might have censor and censure mixed up.

[NineseveN]

Censorship is the restriction of information by a controlling entity. It's not even close to being limited to the Government. I'm not saying it's not most closely associated with the Gov't but it's certainly not limited to them.

Companies can censor their employee's.
Churches can censor their congregations.
The Media can censor their journalists.

etc.

I think you might have censor and censure mixed up.

I think he was making the distinction of where rights are violated... (i.e. private property and contractual consent VS government mandate and enforcement).

[deth502]

not at all that im for censorship, but ill have to disagree with this line of thought.

"Censorship is the restriction of information by a controlling entity. It's not even close to being limited to the Government. I'm not saying it's not most closely associated with the Gov't but it's certainly not limited to them."

correct, but...

IF att was STILL a monopoly, i would agree. as this goes, there ARE other options.

i dont beleive you can call att a "controlling entity" anymore.

i FIRMLY BELEIVE that any PRIVATELY OWNED company that dosent get any grants/contributions from the government should be free to do WHATEVE they want with THEIR business.

pearl jam was free to say what they wanted, att was free to do what they did.

i look at it this way: if I started a business (lets use "fridays as an example) on MY OWN, and built that business up to become a major chain with stores everywhere, i beleive it would be MY RIGHT to do with said company AS I SEE FIT.
if i wanted to fire a waitress 'cuz she's "too fat" ITS MY RIGHT.

i beleive in freedom from our government, but most people dont seen to remember that just because its a "free country" dosent mean their free to do WHATEVER they want NO MATTER WHAT.

if YOU kicked an "illegal" mexican out of YOUR house, do you think they should be allowed to get the ACLU behind them and sue YOU for descrimination?????

now, all of this DOES get a little shakey if your dealing with a publuic utility company, but like i said, today there are options that if you dont agree with att, you can go out and find another provider and not have to deal with them anymore.

[ChamberedRound]

AT&T and PearlJam said that it was done in error by a third party vendor.

Fair enough, but regardless of the vendor used AT&T is ultimately responsible. If the broadcast went off without a hitch, the vendor wouldn't have received a mention, it would've been AT&T's broadcast. IMHO, if want credit, they must be willing to take blame as well.

As for the censorship itself: below is the definition of censorship:

cen·sor·ship /ˈsɛnsərˌʃɪp/
Pronunciation[sen-ser-ship]
–noun
1. the act or practice of censoring.
2. the office or power of a censor.
3. the time during which a censor holds office.
4. the inhibiting and distorting activity of the Freudian censor.

and the definition of censor:

censor[2,transitive verb]

Main Entry:
censor
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
cen·sored; cen·sor·ing Listen to the pronunciation of censoring \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Date:
1882

: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

Note that the definition of censor does not state, imply, or infer the requirement of government involvement. So, AT&T did in fact, through their vendor, censor Pearl Jam's concert.

Regardless, the point of my post was that for a company that once was relatively protective of its customers, they seem awful willing to throw us all under the bus now.

[deth502]

to set the record straight, chamberedround, i DO beleive its censorship by att.

but what im getting at, like knight said, i DONT beleive its illegal under the constitution.