----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Arnett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 3:29 PM Subject: RE: how religious fanatics attack free speech
> > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > > Behalf Of The Fool > > ... > > > > Eh? How is this an attack on free speech? I don't agree with the > > tactics, > > > but I don't exactly see Fox as a great defender of free speech, either. > > > > It's an organization that is attacking forms of speech (in this example, > > among others, TV shows), that they do not agree with, by any and all > > means possible. > > It's *just* a boycott. That's hardly "any and all means possible." Your > hyperbole undermines the credibility of your argument. > > > These are the same kinds of people that, like the > > Taliban, would if they could, impose their religious views on everybody > > and eliminate the first amendment. > > Got any evidence of that? I think you're making an unjustified assumption. > And the comparison to the Taliban is ridiculous -- far less rational than > those you're trying to argue against. It's one heck of a leap from > boycotting to terrorism. > > > In this particular case they are > > trying to starve the show they are attacking of it's principal sponsors > > and access to funds. > > I don't find it any less disturbing that a small group of religious fanatics > can influence television programming than the fact that a small group of > advertisers can do the same. The tobacco companies, which have had far more > influence over media than any religious group, have killed more people than > the Taliban. Neither religion nor greed are going to be eliminated, so the > real solution is to reduce the cost of distributing media, to the point > where it's so cheap that nether the greed-heads nor other special interests > can wield so much power. > > > Here's a link showing the same kind of thing, in a different way: > > http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2002/09/21/ > > > > Instead of attacking the speech itself they are attacking the ability of > > those they are against to have that speech, they are attacking the medium > > itself. That is why it so much more despicable. > > Imagine if Boondocks reached the same audience via the Internet, perhaps > through a P2P distribution system (i.e., something with no central server), > with no advertising. That change in distribution would render small groups > powerless to bring it down. It would take away the influence of *any* kind > of power center. > > Banning such boycotts would return power to the handful of big media > companies and their advertisers, who currently control nearly 100 percent of > what a large percentage of our population knows about the world outside > their immediate experience. That situation is a far greater threat to > freedom than any religious group (unless you consider the worship of power > and wealth to be a religion, in which case the media *is* a religion). > > > > Seems to me that anything that breaks down the concentration of power > > in big > > > media is a move toward greater freedom of speech, not less. > > > > Yes. But I don't see how this relates to that article. > > Simply because a successful boycott against any advertising-based medium > diminishes big media power. > > > With Michael > > Powell in charge of the FCC, do you expect anything more than the > > complete deregulation that has let 1 company (clear channel) buy 1200 > > radio stations? It looks very much like the exact same thing is going to > > happen to TV. Already about a dozen or so media giants control 70-90% of > > the media you read, listen to and watch. > > A dozen? That would be nice. It's more like five. And you're preaching to > the choir with that sentiment. I've been speaking publicly about that issue > for about ten years now. Have you ever read "The Internet and the > Anti-net," which I wrote for the second World Wide Web Conference? (See > http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/SDG/IT94/Proceedings/Overviews/arnett/Antinet.h > tml.) It's the piece that led to my friendship with David Brin, among other > things. I still get e-mail about it, eight years after publication. It's > required or suggested reading for a number of college media classes, > translated into several languages. > > I think you'll see that we're pretty much on the same page on this issue. > We see boycotts differently, though. It seems to me to be a legitimate > response to the concentration of media power. I'm not of the religious > right and I don't think they'd be any less corrupt than the media companies > if they controlled the airwaves... but the fundamental problem is the > structure of media distribution, which needs to change so that *no one* can > seize so much power. Any Christian who imagines that the world would be > better off with a church-run government needs to put down the Bible for a > moment and read Santayana: "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat > it," and then a history of the Reformation. > > If you encounter Christians who seem to be aiming to run the country, feel > free to remind them that Christ taught otherwise. A few good verses might > be "My kingdom is not of this world," and "Render therefore unto Caesar > the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." Or > point out that pre-Reformation Europe under the domination of the Church of > Rome was one of the most corrupt societies the world has ever known. But > hey, I'm preaching to the choir on that one, am I not? > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
