 en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | AT&T and their lobbyists Want to stay on the good side with 'W'.
--
Canada = Hollywood North |
|
 Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA | said by en102:Want to stay on the good side with 'W'. And I honestly thought that one post wouldn't be made blaming 'W'. 
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it."  |
|
| They censored comments critical of Dear Leader, for no apparent reason than the fact they were critical of Dear Leader. Now, is that or is that not germane to the issue? If it is not germane to the issue, why not?
Would they have censored comments about pork belly futures in the same manner? |
|
|
|
 PaladinSage of the light
join:2001-08-17
Chester, IL | 1st Amendment doesn't cover this »caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons···dment01/
Honestly, I don't know why Pearl Jam or Perry Farrell would want AT&T to be the sponsor and bandwith provider of the concert in the first place. That being said, you don't like AT&T, either find a different one or start the groundwork for a muni network. I don't like this either, but why did they use AT&T in the first place. |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| good point, but it still kind of stinks...
As I posted above, I saw the same thing happen w/other bands during Bonaroo (and other shows actually...)
...Blueroom is actually a very neat idea, and it probably doesn't cost the bands a cent, or the promoters for that matter, as AT&T is doing it for their own advertising too...
They probably came to the organizers and said something like "hey, we've done this before with a pretty good track record, it's free for the audience, and we'll take care of all the details... oh, and give you money for letting us do this..."
Though Pearl Jam (and other huge acts) could probably afford to do it themselves, it'd be hugely expensive for all the bandwidth, camera crews, etc. |
|
Jovi
join:2000-02-24
Mount Joy, PA | reply to TScheisskopf
Re: AT&T and their lobbyists said by TScheisskopf:They censored comments critical of Dear Leader, for no apparent reason than the fact they were critical of Dear Leader. Now, is that or is that not germane to the issue? If it is not germane to the issue, why not? Would they have censored comments about pork belly futures in the same manner? Maybe they wanted people to listen to the actual music since the tour is about music, no? Who wants to listen to politics at a rock concert when you can get it everywhere else these days?
--
"Where's my coffee? Oh. I guess it's my turn to make it." |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America | From the band page:
"censored lyrics"
From yourself:
"listen to the actual music"
...I believe you just answered your own question... |
|
| reply to Paladin
Re: 1st Amendment doesn't cover this I would suspect that some music industry marketroid sold the rights. PJ and Perry Farrell had nothing to do with that part.
Especially PJ. |
|
1 edit | reply to Jovi
Re: AT&T and their lobbyists Then that is censorship most foul. Music has long had a tradition of addressing the issues of the day. well before pop music.
Now, would they have done the same thing to Toby Keith or Lee Greenwood? Would you be outraged if they had? Or is it simply OK that AT&T did that because it was criticism of Dear Leader?
"Actual Music" is a rightwing trope that means "stuff that I agree with. stuff I don't agree with is fair game". |
|
| reply to amungus
Re: 1st Amendment doesn't cover this I might add that if AT&T continues to censor on the basis of idealogical content unflattering to Dear Leader, a lot of artists will choose another, similar venue.
And I will be very surprised if PJ does not take AT&T on, in some manner. Perhaps not legally, but in some way. Those lads know how to mix it up and their manager, Kelly Curtis, is no shrinking violet either. |
|
