AT&T's Blue Room Censors Pearl Jam > So What?

So What?

If AT&T did not have something in the contract with the concert that they had editing rights on content, and they did it anyway, they are gonna have legal problems.

And yes, I DO know what I am talking about. Contracts for these things generally will cover obscenity, but you would not find anything regarding political idealogy. In fact, if someone tried to put that in there, the artist's lawyer and manager would cross that section out and initial it and usually, that is that.

Except for the phone call to their contact on the other side that would go kinda like this:

"Are you nucking futs, trying to slip that crap in on us? Just who in the hell do you think you are dealing with? Do you want to do this deal or not, because we would be more than happy to book another date and it will take us all of 5 minutes to do so."

Prediction: Some mid-level production twerp got very, very clever, well above his pay grade. I wouldn't be surprised if he is on the thin cusp of being a former mid-level twerp, too, because I am sure that Kelly Curtis and PJ's lawyers are making some ears at AT&T bleed.

When censorship takes place, especially on political speech, that's everyone's problem, no matter how much they are in denial of that fact.

EVERY Pearl Jam concert should be uncensored for political content, just as you, me and everyone on this board should enjoy that same protection of The Bill of Rights. Because it's right in there, in spite of the droolings of the kneejerk corporate apologists trying to astroturf this subject, here.

It is neither ethically, legally or contractually AT&T's call to edit for political content unless Pearl Jam specifically agreed, in their contract with AT&T, to such editing.

Knowing PJ, and I do, and knowing Kelly Curtis, and I do, there just is no way they would have finalized any contract with AT&T that agreed to such censorship. Or any band or manager I have ever known and I have known a merde load. If it was that much of an issue for AT&T, the deal would not have been made. Full stop.

reply to pnh102
Bush fan or what? You don't get the point.

The point is NOT whether or not Pearl Jam fans can read or listen to the exact same lyrics elsewhere. Everyone knows that. Do you think we are idiots? Okay, so on to the point.

The point here is that someone at AT&T was allowed to exert political selectivity on content, manipulating and modifying the original content of the performance in a manner that provides apparent evidence as to what political party they're trying to protect.

Perhaps they don't want to see politics in their offerings at all, so they are going to eliminate any reference to it? Maybe, but I can guarantee you the majority of any such type of lyrics in these types of concerts will surely be anti-Bush. So, any tampering with content deemed political is basically catering to the Bush administration, for all intents and purposes.

The bottom line is, unless its profane, nudity or violence, any modification of "live" content will be observed as censorship gone overboard. And this is exactly what happened.

Yes, I can read Pearl Jam's anti-Bush lyrics elsewhere but what I really want is for the actual performance to be presented as it is without political filtering. And yes, I want everyone else watching the same source to see the same thing. The same anti-Bush content this country needs to see and hear.

reply to TScheisskopf

reply to DSLTech5

reply to pnh102
AT&T censored political speech. That has a long and honorable history of being abhorrent to any American who has two braincells to rub together(A dwindling number, I will admit...).

It is also not within AT&T's laundry-list of rights, both contractually and ethically, to censor political speech.

I have carried around accounting cases of mucical concert contracts and have the umbilical hernia to prove it. I have read them, I have argued them with promoters and TV producers and tour managers, unto hoarseness. I know the boilerplate like a country preacher knows scripture and I also know when something is cleverly slipped in and what happens when that happens, which is usually me, the band manager and the band's lawyers team up and stomp some ass into a vaguely damp pink spot. And then piss on the remains. It's great good fun, too.

No band, no tour manager, no band manager, no music industry lawyer would ever knowingly allow this to happen. The comments are part of the band's content, the content is the band's artistry and the band demands the right to perform in the manner it sees fit, period. There is no mystery to what the buyer of the band's artistry is buying, and Pearl Jam's content is well-known.

Every other argument is sophistry.

reply to pnh102
It doesn't appear many are grasping the subtly of your argument. It is the typical clash of the objective and subjective. You correctly and objectively state that a corporation may limit anything they wish-- call it censorship or suppression or any other word you wish to describe it. There is no real argument about that; it's a fact, as your examples here illustrate. Censorship or suppression of information as outlined in the Bill of Rights only applies to the government. If it were not so, Walmart or Blockbuster would be forced to sell those items they deem objectionable; but they aren't. Why? Because there is no law that requires them to.

The failure to grasp and agree to that argument is solely subjective and based on the emotional response: should they be allowed to do it. One may be outraged that AT&T censored its offering and may take whatever steps deemed appropriate as a response e.g. taking their business somewhere else. But it is a mistake to claim they had no right to do it. That is simply not true; the caveat being, of course, any contractual obligations they had. But that is a different argument than whether they had a constitutional right to do so.

Edit: And personally I don't believe Pearl Jam is either inflammatory enough or powerful enough--except perhaps in the minds of the band and it's fans--that the Bush Administration would take the time to single them out of an AT&T webcast. They have bigger problems right now with people who do have that kind of power.
--
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness. . . Isa. 5:20

reply to pnh102
I never said anyone from the government was "directing" anything. From my understanding it was most likely one person, and it was a mistake. Still, that should never be allowed to happen and AT&T has to take responsibility for it.

I would venture to say that Blockbuster and Walmart dont avoid movies or content based on politics. If that were the case, then they would be reducing their potential for income, the aboslutely most important bottom line in America, right?