Boycotting the Suppression of Free Speech
I have decided to boycott ClearChannel and Slim-Fast as suppressors of free speech.
The Slim-Fast one should be pretty easy, since I don't believe in artificial diets. Their axeing of Whoopi Goldberg as their spokesperson prompted my reaction. I mean, a Florida company with ties to Jeb Bush. Gimme a break. Well, we can all play at this game. If you propose economic sanctions against my causes, then I'm going to do the same to you.
ClearChannel, on the other hand, will prove more difficult. The reason is simple: they are so pervasive in modern society that it is downright impossible to go anywhere or participate in any social event without risking contributing to ClearChannel. That means, I won't listen to any of their radio stations, read any of their billboards (fat chance), go to any of their concerts, etc. I'm sure that they have their dirty hands in far more that I haven't considered.
You know, freedom of speech is probably the freedom that I value the most. From it springs all other freedoms. If you suppress this fundamental freedom, you suppress freedom of thought, and from there we might as well be a fascist society. That is why I react so vehemently to any action taken by anyone, corporations or Congress, to limit this important freedom. Cherish it. And don't support people who seek to destroy it.
Comments
Found this tidbit:
The company’s decision to drop Goldberg has more to do with consumer complaints than the politics of the executives. Slim-Fast is run by S. Daniel Abraham, who has donated large sums to the Democratic Party.
You can take that however you wish.
I'm not sure what your beef with CC is. Although I dislike corporate radio, I suspect that whatever you feel CC did to surpress rights has more to do with the bug that is up the government's ass and less to do with their stance on free speech. It's a losing business proposition to fight an entity that makes the rules, and has the ability to arbitrary dertermine what they consider to be offensive. The FCC fines for each instance of the remark - so, let's say you own 100 radio stations that air a piece of offensive material; you will then be fined 100 times the fine amount. For CC, one morning show deemed to be offensive by the government could be devastating. They are doing what they can in order to assure the listening public that they will not be offending them.
If it was some Bush bashing that was banned, I suspect that was supressed in order not to alienate listeners, and have advertisers pull out.
Posted by: haglund | July 19, 2004 3:00 PM
I believe in freedom of speech more than I believe in the Democratic Party, so regardless of the executives' party affiliation, I decry their actions. It was simply easier to do so under the impression that they were Republicans. Speaking of which, even though I contribute generously to the Democrats and generally identify with most of their causes, I do not consider myself a "Democrat" per se. I am me, an individual, who believes what he believes and forms his opinions based upon his own understanding of the world and vision of the future.
Right now, I've decided to compromise a great deal and support John Kerry for President. That doesn't mean I write him a blank check on the issues. I disagree with a lot of Kerry's positions, but I find them far more agreeable than the only other candidate in our two-party establishment dominated system that has any realistic chance of winning.
There are ideals and reality. I think of the basic freedoms and general place of America in the world as the ideal view, and my support of the Democrats in this election year as the reality that most closely matches those ideals.
As for the second part of the boycott, please read my next entry for my response.
Posted by: jet | July 23, 2004 7:26 PM