Originally Posted by Rob Lister
The corporate distinction has no baring on the issue. The 'public airwaves' matters only inasmuch as the licensing requirements associated with that bandwidth. The FCC has a decidedly hands-off policy
regarding content. As well it should, because forcing a station to air that which they choose not to is no better than forcing them not to air something they want to; it is a form of censorship in and of itself.
As an aside, when a radio station plays the Dixie Chicks, then they become the consumer of the music
; they have to pay the Dixie Chicks
every time they play one of their songs.
Your retain the option to boycott Clear Channel, they retain the option to boycott Dixie Chicks.
if you're comfortable with somebody other than the free market/consumer deciding what you should listen to based solely on political preference, that's your right. I view it as censorship, plain and simple. I don't like other people deciding for me what I
should listen to, just because somebody said something politically controversial. Be it governments or corporations.
As for rights, I'm sure China and North Korea view it as their right, legally, to try and control what goes on the airwaves too. All for the sake of the "public good". I still see it as censorship.
As to the public airwaves, they belong to you, me, the Dixie Chicks, and Ted Nugent. I too, do not want the FCC to step in and decide what people should or should not hear. Clear Channel has a responsibility to um, well, act responsibly, with the public airwaves. When a Country Western channel decides not to play a Country Western band because they criticized the president, that bothers me (see explanation above). I don't want government intervention, I want the people to tell Clear Channel to cut that crap out, whether you like the Dixie Chicks or Ted Nugent (or whomever) or not. Not defend them.