As deplorable and heinous as MTV's actions are, go back and read the 1st Ammendment. MTV is not a government run channel. The 1st doesn't apply to it.
Now - if say Fox News - who claims to be "Fair and Balanced" refused it, while accepting - say US Army/Navy/Marines ads, etc. that might be an interesting development. But it still wouldn't fall under the 1st. ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :NSA got $20Bil/year |Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :and didn't stop 9-11|share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:Instead of rewarding|monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :their failures, we |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :should get refunds! |site, and you must change them very often. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Fri, 14 Mar 2003, Major Variola (ret) wrote: > What are the issues when media doesn't take ads? > > Private media (e.g., a newspaper, a web site) can't be compelled to say, > or not say, anything by the state, > and so can freely exercise arbitrary editorial control over adverts. > > What about when the medium is a State-granted monopoly of a resource > like RF spectrum? > Or cable infrastructure? Should *these* media channels be *compelled* > to accept any privately-funded ads, first come first served, *because* > of this State-granted monopoly? > > > MTV refuses antiwar commercial > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/13/business/media/13ADCO.html?ex=1048573024&ei=1&en=292aa6fe6f1edbc8
