AT&T's Blue Room Censors Pearl Jam

said by CableConvert:

You've got to be joking, right...

said by CableConvert:

not to be picky...but thats not correct:
Websters is as follows:

censor

Main Entry: 2censor
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): cen·sored; cen·sor·ing /'sen(t)-s&-ri[ng], 'sen(t)s-ri[ng]/
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable

So AT&T did indead engage in censorship and it blows my mind. Say goodbye to the internet as we knew it

said by tHE mESSENGER :

can you say "FACISM"?

" The Smell of the Weimar
Republic is in the Air "

-Gore Vidal

said by Rob_Roy:

Yes, but when the line between government and corporations begins to blur, and capitalism turns to corporatism, how can we fail to recognize this for anything other than what it is? Censorship, suppression, these are just words that convey the same idea. I infer, and correct me if I'm wrong, from your emotionally detached tone that you believe there is nothing wrong what AT&T has done. If so I find your choice to mince words over such a serious topic a poor crutch against actually having to debate the morality AT&T's actions. You obviously have brains, don't waste them on frivolous nitpicking and take responsibility for your beliefs.

said by ieolus:



They would be incorrect... because you say so? I think I would take the definition provided by Webster's dictionary over you, thanks.

Anyway, you are confusing the supression of freedom of speech with censorship. Only the government is forbidden from inhibiting someone's freedom of speech, not a corporation, etc.

said by Maxo:

Your claim is baseless, his is based. According to whom censorship is only an act of government? Not according to Websters definition of the word, which is more widely respected than some guy on the internet's definition of the word. Site a respected source that dictates censorship is an act only performed by the government. If something is removed based on content that is by definition "being censored." By definition any time something is censored that is "censor"ship.

Edit: content, not contact.

said by Asmodeus:

if the federal government asked at&t to censor pearl jams speech, then they would be liable for committing an unconstitutional act as an agent of the government... however, the allegation is that pearl jam had their speech censored by a corporate entity working unto itself to control it's content... that is suppression of speech, not censorship of speech.

said by Maxo:

Not according to Websters definition of the word, which is more widely respected than some guy on the internet's definition of the word.

said by Asmodeus:

yeah, they still exist... however, for pearl jam to use the word 'censorship' with respect to a corporation is inaccurate... censorship is a government practice, not a corporate or individual action... for that to be the case, they should said that their speech was repressed, suppressed, or omitted, but not censored...

said by verizonenemy :

How unoriginal can you get? I'm going to go burn my collection of their albums now, good bye.

AT&T Inc (T.N) said on Thursday a company it hired to handle the cybercast of a live concert by U.S. rock band Pearl Jam erroneously omitted lyrics criticizing U.S. President George Bush that were in a song performed by the band.

"Those lyrics in no way, shape or form, are something that should have been edited," AT&T spokesman Michael Coe said.

Coe said, "We regret that this happened and we're upset. We're working with our vendors to ensure it doesn't happen again."

In a posting on that site( »attblueroom.com/home/index.php ), AT&T said "the editing of the Pearl Jam performance on Sunday night was a major mistake by a Webcast vendor " and that it was contrary to its policy.

Coe said AT&T was trying to work with the band to get its permission to post the song in its entirety on the "Blue Room" site.

said by Michieru2:

How does censorship fall into the net neutrality issue at all?

said by amungus:

Still, cutting off somebody's microphone is almost always done for reasons of censorship...

said by cairey:

Thankfully the founding fathers set up our government in such a way that the ideas of democracy and capitalism work, for had they not done so we'd still be living in the 1700s.

said by cairey:

LOL this is the most absurd discussion ever. Some of you hold such strong opinions on stupid issues like this, but when things really matter you take the easy way out in lieu of your best interests.

This reply isn't combative: I feel defending broadband is important, to avoid it's going the way of television or cable. The discussion, I think, is about who controls broadband, and whether those who do should wield the right of censure.

This long post will be my only one here. It addresses the content in other posts, and stresses the seriousness of protecting broadband communication from censure for reasons of 'National Security', that could instead prove political.

Local censure problems still need to be resolved. One can easily ruin the career & life of someone who cannot legally reply to libelous posts because of a client's privilege. One can, for example, join 'Yelp' through many aliases and post hateful, libelous accusations. When a colleague in France or India types the name into 'google', for example, the entire first page is then filled with hate. Career over. Reason unknown.

The topic of this thread, however, affects everyone, everywhere.

I could say 95% of the news media on television is one giant censor ... ignoring both sides of the story.

By 'news' here, I assume you mean PBS or BBC. I get news by international shortwave instead, because the control of cable is in the hands of few, 'private corporations', that do not appear unbiased.

At the beginning of the Iraq War, I browsed the mid-Eastern newspapers by way of Australia. I can't now remember why now: I hope the US (unlike China) does not have the ability to censure foreign sites. Yes, I have to go outside this country to find out what the US is doing. You're comfortable with this?

... I don't care because they have the right to do so.

You mean legal right to select what we are told, because they are 'private corporations'. This thread, I think, is about responsibility, not liability.

... I don't see how anyone could necessarily flame ATT here.

I can flame AT&T here for mistakenly assuming it can censor with impunity political opinions within music. (Songs had much more political content in the past.) Is the right to hear or sing (or, in opposition, just hum) such music on broadband, now like forms of political humour in Saturday Night Live, banned for reasons of National Security?

Should (not may) they censure it if it might reduce their ratings, as in the film 'Network' (as I believe you imply). Examine the implications. No.

What if ATT muted it every time someone used "music" or some other pointless word? Would we care then? It's still censorship in some form or another. The only reason anyone cares is because the issue at hand is political ...

Yes, now you get it. It is only political censorship I'm concerned about here. Censorship of what our country is doing abroad is adequately performed by cable news.

The same goes on for those of you who are upset over wiretapping. First and foremost the wiretapping is for suspected terrorists, so if you're not one of them you shouldn't care.

Oh, but I am. You're not a history buff, I see. We're all terrorist suspects. In the past I contributed to various World-wide charities. Some of this no doubt went to Arab charities of dubious purpose. In the past, I occasionally bought coffee for or guided to a shelter here, a refugee recently arrived from (our) Shah's Iran. By our President's definition (in the Crusade speech, the one after which Northern Ireland surrendered), I'm at least a terrorist suspect, if not a terrorist.

Secondly, even if the government was as maniacal as some of you claim, it's still made up of human beings, none of which really care about what girl you went out with last night.

Only J. Edgar Hoover. Maniacal leaders of the past have acquired, by taps, information to 'influence' people in power, and information to create huge black lists of the influential or potentially influential who might oppose the leaders' plans for the future.

For a government that is so incompetent it takes months to get a passport, years to execute a fairly basic war, and has yet to come up with a fix for social security, I don't see why any of you would second-guess issues as stupid as this.

Political censure takes many forms, some occurs over broadband.

In 2000, internet e-mail allowed me to immediately report a ballot confusion an elderly friend had just experienced as the polls opened, and was not allowed to correct. I alerted the Governor, Republican Party, Democratic Party, and requested they all send officials & observers to correct these problems, in West Palm Beach, Florida.

In an unrelated incident, I was forced to stop my scientific correspondence with colleagues starting 2002. Every election year since 2000, my e-mail box has been flooded daily with invitations to child pornography sites, perhaps 50 invitations a day, from January to October. Broadband can be abused for political purposes in many ways, which I assumed was the subject of this thread.

Yes, I second-guessed the motive behind AT&T's censure; but can one afford not to?

Thankfully the founding fathers set up our government in such a way that the ideas of democracy and capitalism work.

The American Bar Association might beg to differ with you. Broadband must be squeaky clean of political influence if 'democracy and capitalism' is to be protected. That was the concern I read expressed on this "most absurd discussion ever".

First and foremost the wiretapping is for suspected terrorists, so if you're not one of them you shouldn't care.

said by blackflag:

Does anyone still listen to these washups? Anyway, another 90's band jumping on the anti-war bandwagon.

said by ossito16:

... I am all for a business making money but not at the expense of the people. Are you willing to fight by any means necessary or are you just goin to keep crying and making up stupid excuses.

said by verizonenemy :

Most of us are either business owners and/or geeks, which means we're intelligent.