 ieolusSupport The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to Asmodeus
Re: Content Monitor???? Censorship is a word.. words have definitions. If people cannot agree on those definitions, discussion and debate is irrelevent.
If you can agree on what I just said above, then let us continue... otherwise don't bother reading further.
said by Asmodeus  :
censorship is unconstitutional to freedom of speech, particularly political speech, is it not...? only government can commit an act of constitutionality or unconstitutionality can it not...? therefore, if at&t, a corporate entity, not a government entity commits an act of 'censorhip' against pearl jam, have they committed an act of unconstitutionality or not...?
I have not argued anything about AT&T breaching Pearl Jam's First Amendment Rights. You wouldn't hear me argue that, since yes only the U.S. Government (any level actually) is prohibited from doing that.
said by Asmodeus :
so if pearl jam decides to sue at&t for said censorship, what prevailing precedent of censorship of political speech, which i believe pearl jam claimed they were making, would the be suing them under as a constitutional matter...? they could and wouldn't be allowed to... it would most likely be a civil matter, not a federal issue, which strikes directly at the heart of who and what censorship is and when government exercises to censor any speech, and most likely political speech, they can be sued under many prevailing federal statutes as being unconstitutional and they would most likely win... an empty win, but a win nonetheless...
Right, Pearl Jam couldn't sue AT&T for their act of censoring the broadcast. Well, unless it was in the contract somewhere stating that AT&T wasn't to do that.
said by Asmodeus :
censorship is about constitutionality, not corporate suppression of speech and only the government on a local, state, or the federal level can be accused of unconstitutional censorship or censorship of speech of any kind, not corporations or individuals...
That is completely incorrect. I am sorry we are debating terms, but it is your fault. 
Corporate suppression of speech, ANY suppression of speech, is by definition censorship. Worse, if you look at the motive of AT&T in doing the censorship, it looks like it is on behalf of the current Administration, which would be highly illegal.
said by Asmodeus :
again, debating via dictionary.com is a bad precedent to argue by... it gives the impression of intellectual laziness... use logical reasonig and critical thinking to establish your points of contention, not emotional sentimentality of what you think something is or isn't or should be...
Point one: As I said above, you cannot have a discussion unless you can agree on the terms and words used.
Point two: I have no emotional sentiment to the word censorship, but it seems you do. I don't think censorship "should mean" one thing or another... I actually use the definition!
said by Asmodeus :
edit: here is an article on a lawsuit between time warner and direc tv... time warner sued direct tv because the claim was made that in their commercials, direct tv claimed to have superior service to time warner... time warner won, now those ads are blocked... they can no longer use that speech to make their claims, true, false or otherwise... two private entities engaged in litigation to censor or suppress speech...? understand what i'm saying...?
pearl jam claims censorhip of their speech by at&t across their content portal... time warner sues direct tv to get them to stop saying that their service is superior to time warners and wins by court mandate... censorship or suppression of speech... before you say anything, just think about this for a little while and let it stew in your mind...
Actually it has nothing to do with censorship... Time Warner sued under "false advertising and deceptive business practices"... they asserted DirecTv was lying. I think you need a better example, no more stewing necessary.
--
"Speak for yourself "Chadmaster" - lesopp |
