"What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band," Pearl Jam said on its Web site.This is such a great publicity opportunity for the old band that they must be secretly thanking AT&T. Otherwise, who'd notice this:
"AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media," the band said.
But, of course, they're right that the censorship is terrible. It's hard to understand how AT&T could be stupid enough to engage in it though. Could Pearl Jam have engineered it for the publicity? If you analyze things according to who benefits, the answer should be yes, but maybe the evil "corporations" are out to oppress us for no reason at all.
Posts
73 comments:
Actually, evil corporations are out to censor us for their own protection from lawsuits. In the process of doing that, evil corporations do some incredibly stupid things. On one side is a group of corporate lawyers worried about "shoot first, ask questions later" plaintiffs lawyers, and of course equally or more agressive plaintiffs lawyers on the other side. Frequently, evil corporate managers, acting on what they believed are the instructions othe evil corporate lawyers, take action without thinking what the public reaction will be.
One has to spend all of a week in a present day, publicly traded American corporation to understand just how "snake bitten" managers at these institutions have become. You get your "diversity" and "harassment" brainwashing they day you start work.
So is AT&T malicious? Probably not. Thoughtless and have a tin ear for public perception? definitely. After all, the big wigs over there are heirs to "THE" phone company.
You really think the most logical explanation is that Pearl Jam manipulated AT&T into censoring them? How would they do that? If they wanted to be censored wouldn't they have done something more aggressive that sing those tame lyrics?
I guess Pearl Jam feels OK about themselves since they're a corporation, just not publicly traded.
I thought those guys were dead.
It's not like Eddie Vedder has anything meaningful to say about politics or public policy, anyway. Sure, AT&T shouldn't have censored him (it was blamed on an overzealous content monitor), but really, unless he was singing a protest song, he shouldn't have said anything to begin with.
Ooh, and now I have a question for your next vlog, because you were around for enough of the sixties to have an opinion: what do you think makes a good protest song, which is your favorite, and/or why is "eve of destruction" a lame cash-in.
Wait a sec, the article appears to say a vendor hired by AT&T did the censoring, and that AT&T is trying to correct their mistake?
I'm so happy that Pearl Jam is Speaking Truth To Power. Can't wait for you guys to confront radical Islam.... [chirp chirp]
But either way, please stop spoiling my Pink Floyd tunes.
Kids,
Governments censor, private entities just decide to to publish.
Someone should have censored their name.
Pearl Jam.
It means jitt.
"Haw haw haw. We named ourselves after jitt, man. Haw haw haw. Take that mister establishment-square-dude. Haw haw haw. We're like, you know, jitt. Haw haw haw."
On second thought, that's a pretty cool name. It's perfectly accurate, after all.
Kids,
Governments censor, private entities just decide not to publish.
So, AT&T censored Pearl Jam's call to censor George Bush?
Multi-million dollar industries both of them. I'm not sure why AT&T is wrong. "Pearl Jam, leave this world alone" seems a perfectly fine message to say.
Very artistic of the corporation really. Oh, wait.
Aging rock bands need a lot more artistic responses of this type.
Pearl Jam, find yourself another home. We don't want you on stage when you're 60.
"AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media," the band said
Is he kidding? Don't newspaper editors do that all the time? Or is that different?
Yachira said:Governments censor, private entities just decide to to publish.
Well said. Class over. Thus endeth the lesson.
Missing tag: Conspiracy Theory!
I like Paddy O's better:
So, AT&T censored Pearl Jam's call to censor George Bush?
[The Red Hot Chili Peppers are performing on Krusty's show]
KRUSTY THE CLOWN: Now, boys, the network has a problem with some of your lyrics. Do you mind changing them for the show?
ANTHONY KIEDIS: Forget you, clown.
CHAD SMITH: Yeah, our lyrics are like our children, man. No way.
KRUSTY THE CLOWN: Well, okay, but here where it says, "What I got you gotta get and put it in ya," how about just, "What I'd like is I'd like to hug and kiss ya."
FLEA: Wow! That's much better!
ARIK MARSHALL: Everyone can enjoy that!
Cite.
Governments censor, private entities just decide not to publish.
I guess I live in the United States of Euphemisms. Deciding not to publish isn't censoring, and aggressive interrogation methods aren't torture.
I would be interested to see the agreement between Lollapalooza and its distributors. I'd be amazed if the cybercaster didn't break some aspect of the contract by their actions.
Maybe Pearl Jam oughta move to Britain and start singing songs that protest Saudi Arabian involvement in terrorism. Truth to power!
Yachira said: "Governments censor, private entities just decide to to publish."
No, you are confusing censorship and constitutional violations. It's true that private entities don't violate the First Amendment, but the word "censor" doesn't have that limitation. A censor is "A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable." The person operating the machinery for AT&T was a censor and the material he cut out was censored.
The concept of governmental action being required for there to be censorship isn't a euphemism. It's one of the differences between freedom and totalitarianism.
I'm not saying I believe the conspiracy theory. Just noting the potential for one.
Like all Eddie Vedder vocalizations, I thought he was singing gibberish, something like Joebah spring a hurla aloooooooohuuuuuh, which I have a hard time objecting to, really.
Zeb Quinn: "The concept of governmental action being required for there to be censorship isn't a euphemism. It's one of the differences between freedom and totalitarianism."
No. Government censorship is much worse, but the word censorship still encompasses things that private entities do.
I dream of the day when all citizens, including extremely wealthy rock musicians, can have a forum to publish what they want to whoever they want. A day in which a cybercast can go to all who care. For then the artists won't be restricted. They can offer their heartfelt words without need of multimillion dollar tie-in deals and dependence on corporate access to the pipelines of knowledge and expression. I dream of the day when words of Truth can be delivered to all without tolls, an information "superhighway" where any band or artist or less 1st amendment worthy person can say what they want, publishing and singing, and delivering potent words of political change to all and sundry.
Oh, what a day that will be.
AT&T is a Texas company run by Texas-style Republican assholes like GWB.
Plus, thanks largely to the Bush administration's sick joke of a Justice Department, which never saw a deal it found anti-competitive, AT&T (well really SBC) has been able to reconsolidate into a $200b juggernaut. If they can return the favor by censoring some dirty hippies on their network it's not surprising that they'd oblige.
Could Pearl Jam have engineered it for the publicity? If you analyze things according to who benefits, the answer should be yes
But if you analyze things like a sane person, the answer should be no.
the word censorship still encompasses things that private entities do
Maybe in some broad brush definition of the word censorship, but if the topic is the forceful suppression of the expression of political thoughts and ideas, when private parties exercise their right to keep their own counsel and/or to not have words put into their mouths that they don't want there, it just isn't censorship in my book. It's a freedom thing.
Meanwhile, if government has a hand in ordering it suppressed (or ordering it said when the private party doesn't want to say it), then it's the restriction of freedom.
Doyle: AT&T is a Texas company run by Texas-style Republican assholes like GWB. If they can return the favor by censoring some dirty hippies on their network it's not surprising that they'd oblige.
[Yawn] Try reading the article again.
AT&T didn't "censor", their contractor did. What AT&T actually did was apologize, complain that it never should have happened, restore the "censored" portion, and offer PJ a chance to re-shoot.
Pearl Jam is a Washington company run by Seattle-style Democratic a**holes like Eddie Vedder.
What's the difference?
It's all about money. Why should I care if one corporation gets in the way of another? I don't care if Apple restricts what software companies can do for their products. I don't really care if AT&T restricts what other corporation plays on its networks.
I was going to leave a note telling Pearl Jam to get over themselves, but they've been so tired and pretentious for so long it would be a waste of electrons.
Next up: Pearl Jam releases an entire album of songs decrying the censorship that prevents them from speaking out.
Fen, I am sure Doyle is correct about this. In fact I imagine deep down in Texas all the AT&T upper management gathered in a conference room deep underground (heavy oak furniture, conference table etc.) probably poorly lit, with the only illumination coming from below. Oh, and everyone in the room pasty white and fat. Well, except for the poorly paid minorities serving the food and drinks. During this gathering they came to the conclusion that since they were in Texas AND were really really big corporation they owed GWB and what better way to repay him was to have a trusted person sit on a mute button on the off chance pearl jam might say something mean about the president.
Or, the contractor played it better safe than sorry and overreacted.
One or the other.
Oh, and everyone in the room pasty white and fat.
This is wrong. Ed Whitacre (who I realize stepped down in June to let Stephenson take over) has a John Boehner tan.
I only submit that the political leanings of AT&T brass are a more likely explanation for the muting than a devious plot by Pearl Jam.
At least we can all agree it should not have been censored, right?
"This is wrong. Ed Whitacre (who I realize stepped down in June to let Stephenson take over) has a John Boehner tan."
Dude, your stepping on my stereotyped visual of directors of all major corporations. All that TV viewing time, now wasted.
"I only submit that the political leanings of AT&T brass are a more likely explanation for the muting than a devious plot by Pearl Jam."
Oh, absolutely. Anyone who thinks that is remotely possible is just nuts. However the AT&T brass theory is only slightly more likely than the Pearl Jam one.
"At least we can all agree it should not have been censored, right?"
Of course. It was a silly thing to do.
I think it was a fine thing to do. I won't be happy until Pearl Jam leaves this world alone.
"I only submit that the political leanings of AT&T brass are a more likely explanation for the muting than a devious plot by Pearl Jam."
A zero percent chance is equal to, not greater than, a zero percent chance.
"At least we can all agree it should not have been censored, right?"
God, I would hope so. If left, right, and center cannot agree on this, then there is little hope we'll ever agree on anything.
"I think it was a fine thing to do."
It's Pearl Jam. Who cares what they say.
Scenario one: they play their little set, change to their stupid lyrics and the true believers high five themselves in the audience and tell each other, MAN, that was the best song EVER, until distracted by a shiny object.
Total elapsed time between song and it being forgotten....3 minutes.
Scenario two: they play their little set, change to their stupid lyrics and someone blanks those words out on the telecast. Pearl Jam immediately jumps on how THE MAN is keeping them down, and CENSORSHIP is SCARY and TRUTH to POWER and blah blah blah.
Total elapsed time between song and it being forgotten....for-freaking -ever.
"A zero percent chance is equal to, not greater than, a zero percent chance."
I should have been more clear on this. A number that is infinitesimally small can be described as approaching zero and can be treated as zero. I would put both possibilities in that region. So yeah.
You really think the most logical explanation is that Pearl Jam manipulated AT&T into censoring them?
The explanation that makes the most sense, to me, is that it was done by an employee of the company who didn't like what Pearl Jam was saying, and who is now dejectedly browsing Monster.com looking for a new employer who won't want to call his old one for a reference.
There's no business reason for either AT&T or the streaming company to want to censor the remarks. Criticism of Bush is both ubiquitous and popular.
"Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship."
Scenario 1: We live in a society where we have the freedom of speech.
Scenario 2: We live in a society where we do not have the freedom of speech.
You people sit on here and argue about whether it was AT&T or a contractor hired by AT&T.Who cares? AT&T is responsible for their contractors just like they are responsible for their employees.
Why was a censor even in the room?
And why should a rock group who was supposedly there to entertain choose instead to turn it into a political event for their own purposes and then complain when the company sponsoring the event or one of the contractors chose to censor them. I don't understand why anyone is complaining. Pearl Jam went off the tracks and the company took action. End of story. The blame IMNSHO is completely on Pearl Jam.
Theoretically if I sponsor an event I have something to say about what happens at that event. That event is representing me. If I do not feel that what is going on there represents me correctly then I should have the right to step in. If you do not want to be censored, sponsor yourself.
Doyle: I only submit that the political leanings of AT&T brass are a more likely explanation for the muting than a devious plot by Pearl Jam.
Scenario One: AT&T brass, watching everything everywhere, coicidentily zoom into the PJ concert just as PJ is making a naive political statement. With the press of a button their diabolical bias is sent screaming through satellite uplinks in San Antonio, crashing down into Chicago to silence Pearl Jam.
Scenario Two: The vendor AT&T hired to produce the Webcast made a mistake.
than a devious plot by Pearl Jam.
Pearl Jam appears to be milking this out of proportion. AT&T has offered to correct the problem, even host the song online. But Pearl Jam wants to play the victim... for the cash, I think. See, msot artists don't really believe in the things they pronounce/denounce onstage, its mere merchandising to their fan base. Exploit the moonbats in the audience for a few more album sales.
I only submit that the political leanings of AT&T brass -
"According to the Center for Responsive Politics, AT&T is the United States' second largest donor to political campaigns, having contributed more than US$ 36 million since 1990, 56% and 44% of which went to Republican and Democratic recipients, respectively" [via Wiki]
Why was a censor even in the room?
To protect AT&T from FEC fines and lawsuits. Remember Janet Jackson esposing her breasts to millions of kiddies at the half-time show?
But I think you'll feel better if you show your support of Pearl Jam's struggle against fascism. Go out and buy a few more albums. Speak truth to power for only $9.95. Act now and we'll throw in a Che Guevara t-shirt at no cost.
dick: And why should a rock group who was supposedly there to entertain choose instead to turn it into a political event
Something similar recently happened on "So You Think You Can Dance". Sachi of BigLizards made a key point that resonates with conservatives:
"we're used being ambushed by the Left in the most inappropriate venues: my junior-high math teacher’s retirement party, my best friend's wedding -- and even a dance contest show. It's amazing how often we're forced to endure asinine, leftist political commentary shoehorned into some venue where arguing back -- or even hinting at disagreement -- would create such a scene, that we just keep our mouths shut. I think everybody reading this post knows exactly what we mean."
[....]
I like Pearl Jam's music, but have lost respect for them as artists for pandering. I wish entertainers could understand that political commentary alienates half your customer base. Great artists always seem to come off as idiots when they engage outside their expertise.
For other Pearl Jam fans, a question: Sure, I know its so brave and edgy [yawn] to bash Bush these days, but as Pearl Jam wants to make political statements, have they mentioned Islam at all? Something along the lines of Sting's "I Hope the Russians Love Their Children Too". Just wondering if the hip cool crowd has the balls to speak truth to radical Islam... otherwise, they don't know censorship.
fen said: "To protect AT&T from FEC fines and lawsuits.
This was broadcast via attblueroom.com.
U think websites are regulated by the FCC in the same way broadcast television is?
AT&T contributions since 2000(lets stay in this century shall we):
$13190726 to Cons
$9487315 to Dems
I am sure you knew this and that is why you wanted to go back to 1990.
fen said: "political commentary alienates half your customer base"
"65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance"
Sorry, they are only alienating 35% of their customer base when they criticize bush.
I am sure you knew this and that is why you wanted to go back to 1990.
Uh no, the data is from Wiki. Ask them why they want to go back to 1990. Its likely the data set was chosen to reflect that AT&T hedges their bets and donates to whoever is in power. If you start it at 2000, you oversample the GOP.
"65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance"
Sorry, they are only alienating 35% of their customer base when they criticize bush.
No, I'm one of the 65% who disapprove. You've misunderstood what the poll means and have drawn the wrong conclusion.
Full disclosure please: are you also an "artist"?
This was broadcast via attblueroom.com.
U think websites are regulated by the FCC in the same way broadcast television is?
But thats actually a fair point. I don't know who, if any, regulate content of webcasts. But At&T obviously does, as does the vendor they hired - AT&Ts name is attached and associated with the cast.
Are you really trying to claim that AT&T has no interest in protecting itself legally from obscenity, pornographic or violence complaints? They seem to feel otherwise, as they already had the cast on 2-sec delay.
Am I to assume that, if a deranged fan-stalker rushed the stage and gunned down Eddie Vedder, you'd complain when AT&T cut away?
At least we can all agree it should not have been censored, right?
AT&T agrees is should not have been censored. They said it was a mistake that should not have happened. They've restored the "censored" clip, and probrably given their vender an earful. They've made an offer to PJ to host the entire song again. What else would you have them do?
I really think the artistic crowd is over-reacting to this, perhaps the hip cool cats are too sensitive. As I said earlier, if you feel the need to make your bones by Speaking Truth to Power, radical Islam is standing by. Until then, you don't know censorship.
Fen said:"No, I'm one of the 65% who disapprove."
So you disapprove of bush's job performance, but you approve of the censoring of people that say what you believe? Nice.
No,I am no artist.I could not play a note/paint a picture to save my life.
Fen said: "Am I to assume that, if a deranged fan-stalker rushed the stage and gunned down Eddie Vedder, you'd complain when AT&T cut away?"
I thought we were talking about speech, not murder. But no, I certainly would not complain if they cut away from that. But we are talking about someone saying something. Do you think they would have cut him off if he had yelled "T-Mobile rocks" or "AOL Time Warner rules"?
I have never even liked Pearl Jam's music,but I think he should be able to say whatever he wants when he is on stage. I cannot believe anyone would like the idea of someone sitting there with the lyrics to a song and when the lyrics are not followed - cut the microphone.
Fen: "56% and 44% of which went to Republican and Democratic recipients, respectively"
Willy: AT&T contributions since 2000(lets stay in this century shall we): $13190726 to Cons, $9487315 to Dems. I am sure you knew this and that is why you wanted to go back to 1990.
I ran your numbers [because I'm obviously bored], they come out to:
58% GOP [vs my 56%]
42% DEM [vs my 44%]
So why haggle over 2%? My point still stands: AT&T is not a partisan organization. Using your own numbers, 42% of their contributions have gone to Democrats.
wilywonder: So you disapprove of bush's job performance, but you approve of the censoring of people that say what you believe? Nice.
Nice strawman. I don't approve of censorship, even in this instance. Neither does AT&T. So who are you guys arguing with?
I thought we were talking about speech, not murder. But no, I certainly would not complain if they cut away from that.
We were talking about whether AT&T has any legal interest in regulating the content of its webcasts. And I'm glad you agree there are limits to what they should allow on the air. Thats [wait for it] WHY they hired a guy to monitor the cast.
I cannot believe anyone would like the idea of someone sitting there with the lyrics to a song and when the lyrics are not followed - cut the microphone.
Can you believe that the vendor made a mistake? Either through inexperience, or technical error, or just plain bias. It happens. Again, AT&T has addressed the problem - what else would you have them do?
Fen said: "Thats [wait for it] WHY they hired a guy to monitor the cast."
You think that is why they hired him? Why did he have the ability to cut just the audio without affecting the video feed? This tells me he was not there for the reason you stated.
I think this 'contract censor' was hired because they suspected Eddie Vedder was going to say something political, he always does. I also think this is why they hired a contractor for this job instead of using AT&T staff. They were trying to cover their ass.
Don't you think that any producer in the production truck would have cut the feed if someone had jumped up on stage and attacked someone? What good would cutting the audio do if someone jumped up on stage and attacked someone?
Bear in mind that McCain-Feingold and other political "reforms" made it a lot more dangerous for content providers to allow political speech online. They could get nailed for "advertising" or making a political donation. The FEC is a much bigger threat to free online speech than the FCC is.
But the most obvious reason to have a content filter is (duh) that you want the content filtered -- i.e., if some chick in the front row flashes her tits, or someone cuts loose with a string of profanity, the kids watching at home don't get their horizons suddenly broadened.
If it wasn't a grouchy employee (like I suggested above), my next guess would be that the filtering agreement included a standard clause to eliminate "offensive political content" (e.g., Klan and skinhead stuff, which content filters usually screen out), and some numbskull jumped from "well, some people will be offended by this" to "we're supposed to filter it out".
I think this 'contract censor' was hired because they suspected Eddie Vedder was going to say something political, he always does.
Why would they care? Because the Democratic Party *only* gets 42% of their political donations?, and they want to make sure the party they give 58% of the donations to isn't force to endure the indignity of having a has-been rock star insult a guy that most of America insults on a regular basis?
Got a backup theory that isn't completely insane?
Well, technically, it was to the tune of "Another Brick in the Wall Part II," but fweh.
Moron is moron is Eddie Vetter.
Pearl Jam hasn't done anything worth listening to since 'Ten.'
Good freaking lord- are people actually arguing about the political leanings of AT&T (be it execs or workers)?
Ladies and gentlemen, their political leanings are meaningless to the story. Superfluous. Not important.
Someone thought that it would be smart to beep something out because they thought others might get mad and might think it was a political statement by the company paying their bills. On the fly. Without any direction from above. They were afraid of controversy-- and being low level idiots they created controversy.
If AT&T was thinking "Pearl Jam is gonna say something bad about the President", they would have either not agreed to be involved with Pearl Jam or would have had it in the contract. Duh.
Pearl Jam should be both pissed and thrilled at this point. Pissed because it really was really fucking uncool to get censored in that way. Thrilled because many, many more people will hear their message now, and it gets their names back in the news which might sell more tickets and records.
AT&T look like schmucks. They should be pissed.
And the morons, the absolute brain dead partisan zombies who seem to think that it is reasonable to think AT&T planned this, or what the political leanings of employees of AT&T are is relevant, just look like the same sorts of dipshits as those who actually pressed the 'mute' button.
And yet another right wing nutcase, rears er ugly head:
"Could Pearl Jam have engineered it for the publicity? If you analyze things according to who benefits, the answer should be yes, but maybe the evil "corporations" are out to oppress us for no reason at all."
So much for freedom of speech, huh...ANN??
Every time somebody says or intimates that Bush is an idiot...the oh, they're just "biased" and motivated by publicity card is played.
As if 65% of America is wrong...and those who continue to support the man..are right.
I call that "delusion."
"So much for freedom of speech, huh...ANN??"
As Ann's point flies way over LOS's head, spectators wonder if he has any idea why people chuckle at him whenever he calls other commenters stupid.
revenant said: "They could get nailed for "advertising" or making a political donation. The FEC is a much bigger threat to free online speech than the FCC is."
Please tell me you were attempting to be sarcastic with this statement. According to that logic foxnews.com and every other corporate-owned website that covers political topics needs to be shut down. Good thing that is not the case.
revenant said: "But the most obvious reason to have a content filter is (duh) that you want the content filtered -- i.e., if some chick in the front row flashes her tits, or someone cuts loose with a string of profanity, the kids watching at home don't get their horizons suddenly broadened."
So, in your world, someone should shut Ann's website down for not filtering fucking profanity? And youtube.com will be closing it's doors soon due to all of those evil boobies on there, right?
Do you know that this censor had the power to cut the video feed? No, we only KNOW that he had the power to cut the audio, because that is what he did. So your "most obvious" reason seems to be relying on facts that do not exist. Do you understand that bad words and boobies are not restricted by anything online?(Other than do-gooders like you and AT&T)
revenant said: "Why would they care? Because the Democratic Party *only* gets 42% of their political donations?, and they want to make sure the party they give 58% of the donations to isn't force to endure the indignity of having a has-been rock star insult a guy that most of America insults on a regular basis?"
I don't know why they censored him, you would have to ask AT&T. We DO know that AT&T did censor his speech and is now trying to cover their collective ass from their own stupid actions by saying:
1. It was a mistake, please forgive us.
2. The employee that did it was not an AT&T employee.
So, in your world, someone should shut Ann's website down for not filtering fucking profanity? And youtube.com will be closing it's doors soon due to all of those evil boobies on there, right
Yes right - if AT&T was sponsoring Ann's site, they would have every right to monitor content, as their name would be associated with the site. Why do you refuse to understand that?
We DO know that AT&T did censor his speech and is now trying to cover their collective ass from their own stupid actions by saying:
Wrong. We DO NOT know that AT&T deliberately censored him. We DO know that AT&T agrees with you - they agree it was wrong to censor PJ, they claim it was their vendor who did it, they've apologized and restored the clip, they've offered to host the entire song for PJ. Again, what else would you have them do?
If AT&T had a history of this, I might understand your hysteria, but you're really making a mountain out of a molehill here.
Once more: If you need to make your bones Speaking Truth To Power, radical Islam is standing by. Until them, you don't know censorship.
for a band that has assidiously avoided publicity throughout its long career, this comment:
Could Pearl Jam have engineered it for the publicity?
is about as dumb as it gets.
fen,
why do you think pearl jam should devote material to islam?
what purpose would it serve?
fen said: "Yes right - if AT&T was sponsoring Ann's site, they would have every right to monitor content, as their name would be associated with the site. Why do you refuse to understand that?"
Is that why AT&T's press releases concerning this issue attempt to push the blame off on a "contractor"? Did Eddie Vedder drop the F bomb?
fen said: "Wrong. We DO NOT know that AT&T deliberately censored him."
Wow. Are you a philosophy graduate by chance? How do we really know anything, huh? Do you think somone just happened to trip over the audio feed at those exact moments?
1. The audio was cut as can be heard using your auditory senses.
2. AT&T was responsible for the webcast.
fen said: "If AT&T had a history of this, I might understand your hysteria, but you're really making a mountain out of a molehill here."
Thank you for saying that.
08-11-07- A day after AT&T apologized to Pearl Jam, Lollapalooza organizers and music fans for deleting a snippet of the band's performance last weekend in Chicago during which Eddie Vedder criticized President Bush, the company offered up another mea culpa Friday for tinkering with other performers' webcasts.
In response to fans who claimed that the audio silencing of Vedder's sung remarks about Bush at Lollapalooza were not unique in the history of AT&T's Blue Room live webcasts, an AT&T spokeswoman said: "It's not our intent to edit political comments in webcasts on the attblueroom.com. Unfortunately, it has happened in the past in a handful of cases. We have taken steps to ensure that it won't happen again."
ROFLMAO
I am taking the stand I am because I love the First Amendment.
Why do you seek to limit Free Speech?
The Exalted: fen, why do you think pearl jam should devote material to islam?
Since PJ has decided to make political statements, its fair to ask why they haven't said anything about radical Islam.
what purpose would it serve?
The same purpose and artist seeks with anti-Bush remarks, or aid to Africa, or AIDs - use their artistic ability to influence their fan base [re the threat of radical Islam, in this case]. Considering how reluctant governments and media are to educate the public on the true nature of Islam, its an untapped topic begging to be exposed.
I don't expect them to, I just find their complaints [and that of their fans] to be overly dramatic and hypocritical- they're picking the low fruit, getting all self-righteous about defending free speech, but they lack the balls to speak truth to Islam. They'll embrace a cause only to feel good about themselves, but are really frauds - if they want to defend free speech, radical Islam a more lethal threat to it.
/edit
The same purpose any artist seeks with anti-Bush remarks, or aid to Africa, or AIDs benefits - use their artistic ability to influence their fan base [re the threat of radical Islam, in this case].
Wily: I am taking the stand I am because I love the First Amendment.
No you're not. You're taking a "stand" over a trivial instance so you can feel good about yourself, along the lines of "sure I molested the babysitter, but I Believe! in World Peace, so I must not be a total loser..."
Why do you seek to limit Free Speech?
Not only are you embracing a trivial instance to bask in self-righteousness, you're exploiting it as a partisan weapon: "I'm championing free speech, anyone who disagrees with me must want to limit free speech"
fen said: No you're not. You're taking a "stand" over a trivial instance so you can feel good about yourself,
Now you are going to tell me why I am here defending free speech? Wow, you really do think you know how the world works and everyone else is just wrong. Right?
fen said: along the lines of "sure I molested the babysitter, but I Believe! in World Peace, so I must not be a total loser..."
or maybe that is the real reason you are here taking a stand on AT&T being able to censor...even after AT&T has repeatedly appologized for doing so and saying they should not have done it.
fen said: Not only are you embracing a trivial instance to bask in self-righteousness, you're exploiting it as a partisan weapon: "I'm championing free speech, anyone who disagrees with me must want to limit free speech"
It was a trivial instance, but Ann posted an article on it so I guess it wasn't that trivial. I also believe you were here posting first so anything about me exploiting this issue only means that you were exploiting it first. Right o-rightious-one?
The partisan issue is almost funny. Of course it is a partisan issue, but you thinking that I made this a partisan issue is almost as laughable as Ann's idea that PJ planned this whole thing for publicity.
WTF did AT&T censor?
Wow, dude you need to come out of your islamo-fascist-defendo 2000 more often.
Now you are going to tell me why I am here defending free speech? Wow, you really do think you know how the world works and everyone else is just wrong.
Nope, just you and liberals like you. Seen it too many times before not to recognize it. Your reaction is way out of proportion to the triviality of the incident, your self-righteousness is evident throughout this thread, as is your lame attempt to exploit it as a partisan issue.
For you, this is not about AT&T or censorship or free speech - its about your need to embrace a righteous cause to compensate for your lame life. Good luck with that.
fen said: Nope, just you and liberals like you.
Ouch, please stop!
Seen it too many times before not to recognize it.
Are you a secret homeland security junior deputy?
Your reaction is way out of proportion to the triviality of the incident, your self-righteousness is evident throughout this thread, as is your lame attempt to exploit it as a partisan issue.
Is that why you were here posting your support for AT&T's stupid moves @ 8:18 AM? You knew that some liberals would show up here and try to defend Eddie Vedder's right to say what he wants while on stage and you needed to come in here and let us all know(whenever we showed up) that you were not going to stand for it. AT&T thanks you.
For you, this is not about AT&T or censorship or free speech - its about your need to embrace a righteous cause to compensate for your lame life.
Once again, speak for yourself. And what is the 'righteous cause' you speak of in this statement of my thoughts?
I know I am not going to change your mind and I hope you know that you are not going to change my mind about this issue. I do not think AT&T was correct in censoring this and I think they deserve whatever bad press they get from it.
I know I am not going to change your mind and I hope you know that you are not going to change my mind about this issue.
I'm not trying to change your mind. You're the foil - all outraged that someone muted Eddie Veder's "courageous" attempt to speak truth to power.
I do not think AT&T was correct in censoring this
And AT&T agrees with you... sheesh.
fen said: And AT&T agrees with you... sheesh.
and yet there you are defending the actions they are appologizing for, the same actions I think were wrong.
You think that makes you right?
Thank you for allowing me to sharpen my 'foil' with your neck, you have been shown to truely be the idiot that you apear to be.
Thank you for allowing me to sharpen my 'foil' with your neck, you have been shown to truely be the idiot that you apear to be.
Too funny. You misundertand my usage of "foil" and then call me the idiot.
Too funny. You misundertand my usage of "foil" and then call me the idiot.
OMG. You really are an idiot...or are you just playing one?
Thank you for allowing me to sharpen my 'foil' with your neck
You cannot tell that I was referring to a sword in that sentence? Maybe this has been the problem for you all along. You don't understand the english language.
Post a Comment