NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently AT&T Censored Pearl Jam's anti bush song lyrics
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/derogatis/505989,10att.article

(A video contrast)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJPEAeI82-g

Pearl Jams response
http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195

So what do you all think? and would this effect your choice to use AT&T's products and or services?

Man, I'm already trying to get rid of all of my AT&T/BellSouth services because they basically suck and want to charge me for things I don't use. This type of thing makes me like them even less.

Meh. Huge suprise? Not so much. People don't like musicians who actually say something. It happens, and Pearl Jam was right to raise a fuss, but it's not like this is something brand new. Luckily, I already don't use AT&T, since they suck as a carier.

So what do you all think? and would this effect your choice to use AT&T's products and or services?

I already knew that AT&T was the scum of the Earth.

No one, not even Pearl Jam, with its hideous buttrock, deserves to be censored.

Fortunately we use Qwest, so we're fine.

I'm not surprised at the censoring though...music distribution companies always try to control their artists, because the artists are just their money making machines to them.

Really, artists need to stop publishing the way they do and distribute through the internet...and there's a perfect way to do just that already in existence.

Whats also concerning is the absolute lack of originality in those lyrics.

Apparently AT&T Censored Pearl Jam's anti bush song lyrics
http://www.suntimes.com/entertainment/derogatis/505989,10att.article

(A video contrast)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJPEAeI82-g

Pearl Jams response
http://pearljam.com/news/index.php?what=News#195

So what do you all think? and would this effect your choice to use AT&T's products and or services?

Fuck them.

Whats also concerning is the absolute lack of originality in those lyrics.

That's not the point. The quality of the lyrics is entirely irrelevant. It's the censoring that is the problem.

Whats also concerning is the absolute lack of originality in those lyrics.
I'm not sure what they're supposed to mean, exactly.
"Leave this world alone, find another home;" are they trying to convince him to take up permanent residence on an orbiting space station of some sort?

Fuck them.
Try taking some lessons in making a reasoned argument.

"OMG BASTARDS" or some variation thereof seems to be about as far as you stretch most of the time.

Oh, incidentally, why the hell should anyone care?

Oh no, clapped out metal band that's practically faded into obscurity had lyrics censored on AT&T, which is probably trying to sound neutral in its politics lest its brand be associated with one viewpoint or anoother - OH MY GOD, 1984 HAS TRULY ARRIVED, PUT YOUR TIN HELMETS ON, LADS AND LASSES OR THE PATRIOT ACT WILL MAKE YOU INTO A BUSHEVIK AND/OR SIMILAR!

clapped out metal band

Metal band?

AT&T has been the government's bitch for quite some time now.

Try taking some lessons in making a reasoned argument.
Hilarious irony ensues.



Oh, incidentally, why the hell should anyone care?

Oh no, clapped out metal band that's practically faded into obscurity had lyrics censored on AT&T, which is probably trying to sound neutral in its politics lest its brand be associated with one viewpoint or anoother - OH MY GOD, 1984 HAS TRULY ARRIVED, PUT YOUR TIN HELMETS ON, LADS AND LASSES OR THE PATRIOT ACT WILL MAKE YOU INTO A BUSHEVIK AND/OR SIMILAR!

Censoring is not a good thing, and while you're right in that it's hardly 1984, we have to keep a close eye on these things. An oppressive, cracking down government doesn't make itself easily known and acts like a one-dimensional cartoon character. It's much more insidious, slipping in quietly and swiftly, with little measures here and there until you're left wondering how the hell you suddenly lost all of your freedoms.

Now, this is probably not a first step, especially since it's being taken by a telecommunications company, but it's still not something we should approve of.

Fortunately we use Qwest, so we're fine.

Yeah, cause Qwest is the epitome of kindness and customer service. :rolleyes: (There's a reason I call it the endless, futile Qwest for customer service. And don't even get me started on the Big Blue Eyesore. We would get on the highway in fuckin Northglenn and see that damn thing.)

AT&T censored it. Not the government. Learn the difference. I could barely care if a corporation censored the works of an artists trying to publish themselves through it. I really don't.

Now if the US government stepped in and censored it, then we'd have a problem.

Hilarious irony ensues.
Hey, at least it was more that "bastards" or "assholes", eh?
Censoring is not a good thing, and while you're right in that it's hardly 1984, we have to keep a close eye on these things. An oppressive, cracking down government doesn't make itself easily known and acts like a one-dimensional cartoon character. It's much more insidious, slipping in quietly and swiftly, with little measures here and there until you're left wondering how the hell you suddenly lost all of your freedoms.
Oh, no wai!

I totally thought that various senators dressed in black suits came and robbed you openly of your freedoms openly, before cackling and driving off in supremely fuel-inefficient cars, after putting some flagpoles up in your garden and suchlike!

Jesus Christ, this is an act by a telecommunications company and it's fairly obvious why they did it, which is to stop their brand being associated with one viewpoint or another.

I don't think that this is a particularly malicious act, nor that the whole thing's meant to try and crack down upon freedom of expression - it's more that they made the choice, for better or for worse, to keep the opinions of a music group quiet on their own webcast, which isn't particularly surprising, seeing as the people who are likely paying for the services of AT&T aren't teenagers who'll nod in appreciation of what are doubtless anti-government statements, it'll be the parents who can't really be arsed with all of that.

AT&T censored it. Not the government. Learn the difference. I could barely care if a corporation censored the works of an artists trying to publish themselves through it. I really don't.


You would if it was the service you were using.

Yeah, cause Qwest is the epitome of kindness and customer service. :rolleyes: (There's a reason I call it the endless, futile Qwest for customer service. And don't even get me started on the Big Blue Eyesore. We would get on the highway in fuckin Northglenn and see that damn thing.)

I know, I know, it's not perfect. But it's better than anything else we can get for internet service up here.

Splintered Yootopia: Bwehehe.

Don't get me wrong...you're probably correct on the reasoning.

But it's still censorship, and censorship is wrong for just about any purpose. (Except for particular instances where revealing of certain information would jeopardize somebody's life or, say, a sting operation or what have you.)

Splintered Yootopia: Bwehehe.

Don't get me wrong...you're probably correct on the reasoning.

But it's still censorship, and censorship is wrong for just about any purpose. (Except for particular instances where revealing of certain information would jeopardize somebody's life or, say, a sting operation or what have you.)
Aye, well in a purely moral sense, censorship is indeed wrong and all of that.

But AT&T are venture capitalists, their morals on the matter are completely displaced in favour of "how do we make money and all that?", the answer to which is not "possibly ruffle the feathers of the paying customers".

You would if it was the service you were using.

And then he would take his business elsewhere. Isn't America great?

Aha. On a related note, is it true that Pink's "Dear Mr President" is being boycott-ed by many a US radio/TV station to the extent that interviewers aren't even 'allowed' to talk about that song with her when she's on a show? That is, after all, what I heard when they started playing the track on German radio stations a while ago.

And why is censorship such a bad thing? It's not in my opinion. If people are for example racist or talking about sex while kids can watch, or if people are too rough with saying what they think about someone and the person gets offended, if people treathen other people in a song, it should be censored.

You would if it was the service you were using.

No, I use At&T, once was BellSouth, but no, I still don't care. Why? Because AT&T can't do anything to me. Like any other consumer, I can change services if I pleased...

Now if it were the government censoring this, then woe betide us Americans, because then we really would live in a 1984 style country.

AT&T censored it. Not the government. Learn the difference. I could barely care if a corporation censored the works of an artists trying to publish themselves through it. I really don't.

Now if the US government stepped in and censored it, then we'd have a problem.

Problem is that big corporations have a lot of influence on the governments of capitalist countries and vice versa. Especially since AT&T is dealing in the information business you actually should care.

Aye, well in a purely moral sense, censorship is indeed wrong and all of that.

But AT&T are venture capitalists, their morals on the matter are completely displaced in favour of "how do we make money and all that?", the answer to which is not "possibly ruffle the feathers of the paying customers".

Point and match.

You might want to cut the sarcasm a bit though. It doesn't help your argument and it makes you look like an angry fool.

McCh1ck3n: NO!

Free speech is free speech. It's not about protecting speech you like. It's about protecting speech that you don't like.

Sure, I disagree with racists. I think their speech is ridiculous and hateful. But I'll be damned if I'm going to let someone censor them! They have as much a right as anyone else to speak their mind on anything!

Censoring speech is one huge step on the way to a dictatorial government, and I won't put up with it.

And then he would take his business elsewhere. Isn't America great?

I dont know where you live but in a lot of areas up here you have one and only one choice for things like highspeed ISP.

Its not ALWAYS an option

AT&T censored it. Not the government. Learn the difference. snip
What? who are you yelling at to "learn the difference" and how have they demonstrated that they do not know the difference?

Point and match.
Huzzah!
You might want to cut the sarcasm a bit though. It doesn't help your argument and it makes you look like an angry fool.
Oh, but I am an angry fool at this point in time.

@ We Don't Care

Not nesecerily, big corps are usually taken down when they become too big, monopolization, which would have killed the USA many times before, a la Standard Oil...

@Upwardthrust

Not yelling, just adding my two cent's to a person's post, which I am too lazy and do not feel obligued to see which. And in my area, there are plenty of choices so that is not of my concern.

Oh, but I am an angry fool at this point in time.

Fair enough, then.

And why is censorship such a bad thing? It's not in my opinion. If people are for example racist or talking about sex while kids can watch, or if people are too rough with saying what they think about someone and the person gets offended, if people treathen other people in a song, it should be censored.

Because where do you draw the line? First you're censoring "dangerous material" like racism or discussions on sex, and next you're censoring political opinions that don't agree with your own because they might hurt some whiney shit's feelings. Guess what? If that's the case, as a musician with political opinions in my music, your opinion offends me. The only reason I tolerate your freedom of speech is because you tolerate mine.

As for offending said whiney shits... Watch me totally not give a fuck.

Technically, AT&T is allowed to censor content provided on its network. If you don't like it, use a different provider. My main concern will be what may happen if companies like AT&T gain the kind of power to differentiate content on their network as will be the case if net neutrality provisions are not implemented on the US network. They would be able to censor what they want and in a lot of cases people would be unable to do anything about it because they would be trapped with a single provider in their area.

Now, mind you, if this doesn't show the importance of net neutrality, I don't know what will. All I can hope is that companies like Google gain the ability to provide their own wireless service as an alternative to the telecoms.

AT&T is one of those companies out there that are operated by filthy Capitalist pigs. Filthy Capitalist pigs support Bush. End of story.

Censoring speech is one huge step on the way to a dictatorial government, and I won't put up with it.
Except the government has jack shit to do with this.

Except the government has jack shit to do with this.

That's actually worse, since private companies aren't bound to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in the same way as the government. They can censor things, and if they are given total control over their network, they will effectively have control over freedom of speech across their infrastructure.

Try taking some lessons in making a reasoned argument.

"OMG BASTARDS" or some variation thereof seems to be about as far as you stretch most of the time.

Oh, incidentally, why the hell should anyone care?

Oh no, clapped out metal band that's practically faded into obscurity had lyrics censored on AT&T, which is probably trying to sound neutral in its politics lest its brand be associated with one viewpoint or anoother - OH MY GOD, 1984 HAS TRULY ARRIVED, PUT YOUR TIN HELMETS ON, LADS AND LASSES OR THE PATRIOT ACT WILL MAKE YOU INTO A BUSHEVIK AND/OR SIMILAR!

I know I can't make reasoned arguments, because I've tried. ;) So I don't try. You're one to talk, BTW.

Except the government has jack shit to do with this.

With this particular instance, yes. I was speaking in general.

I know I can't make reasoned arguments, because I've tried. ;) So I don't try.
Sorry, I was just pissed off because of your constant hard-man facade which does my head in.

And yes, I am one to talk, really, because I can hold down an argument as well as being able to swear at the same time, so ner ner ner ner ner.

Sorry, I was just pissed off because of your constant hard-man facade which does my head in.

And yes, I am one to talk, really, because I can hold down an argument as well as being able to swear at the same time, so ner ner ner ner ner.

Yeah, but you have this odd predilection for insulting everyone and everything. (And way to intelligently end an argument. :p) Whatdaya mean about my hard-man facade?

All I can hope is that companies like Google gain the ability to provide their own wireless service as an alternative to the telecoms.
Because Google would neeever be involved in censorship or anything else underhanded.
Nope. Never. Not even a little bit.
*begins to whistle nonchalantly*

That's actually worse, since private companies aren't bound to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights in the same way as the government. They can censor things, and if they are given total control over their network, they will effectively have control over freedom of speech across their infrastructure.

No, they are bound by the laws of the market. If you don't like your ISP censoring the internet, get a new ISP. If all available choices censor the internet, complain like hell to them. If enough people want the internet to be uncensored, there will be companies that see this need, and provide for it.

And why shouldn't they have control over their network? They paid for it, they own it, why should anyone else control it? Freedom is a two-way street. If they own their network, they are free to censor it, otherwise, the state might as well own instead. Likewise, if they were required to censor it, the state might as well own it instead.

Instead of choosing one way or the other for EVERYONE, choose a service you want, and let others have their trimmed-down, bullshit, censored access to the internet, while you can freely access anything available.

From this, we can work out who AT&T sent money to last election.

Aye, well in a purely moral sense, censorship is indeed wrong and all of that.

But AT&T are venture capitalists, their morals on the matter are completely displaced in favour of "how do we make money and all that?", the answer to which is not "possibly ruffle the feathers of the paying customers".
Except, how is censoring someone's political opinions during a live musical performance not 'ruffling' their customers?

1. Do you really have that little faith in Americans that you think they can't see that a singer making a political comment during a live concert does not immediately mean that the company broadcasting said concert agrees with said comment?

2. Considering that less than 1 in 3 Americans think positively about GWB, an anti-GWB comment is more likely to be supported by their customers than not. Censoring it is likely to ruffle more feathers than non-censoring.

3. That figure of support for GWB is overall. I daresay that the ppl watching Lollapalooza who support GWB is a fraction much smaller than 1 in 3. So again, we have a company making a decision that is against the wishes/beliefs of the overwhelming majority of it's customers.

4. Has AT&T ever censored any other artist who has made pro-GWB statements? If so, then censoring all political comments is apparently an AT&T policy. If not, then just censoring anti-GOP comments is, which again hardly falls into the realm of just not wanting to 'ruffle' their customers.

No, they are bound by the laws of the market. If you don't like your ISP censoring the internet, get a new ISP. If all available choices censor the internet, complain like hell to them. If enough people want the internet to be uncensored, there will be companies that see this need, and provide for it.

If all the companies censor the internet, there's nothing you can do; they've obviously got a vested interest in doing it, and it's highly unlikely their customers will be able to do anything to change that.

I mean, honestly, what other reason is there for them to censor anything besides the possibility of huge payouts from interest groups and the government? They'd only censor it if the gain from censorship was greater than the potential losses.

And why shouldn't they have control over their network? They paid for it, they own it, why should anyone else control it? Freedom is a two-way street. If they own their network, they are free to censor it, otherwise, the state might as well own instead. Likewise, if they were required to censor it, the state might as well own it instead.

It's because that infrastructure is a natural monopoly, just like transmission lines. Since there are still few real alternatives to these companies' phone and internet infrastructure, granting them total control over their network would grant them an effective monopoly over the areas their network services.

If the situation changes, things will be different. When cell phones and the internet emerged, the natural monopoly that phone lines offered was broken and it became possible to allow telecom companies to merge to become today's providers. AT&T was able to reform itself because the market changed and the kind of control over phone services they have today is no longer a monopoly like it was in the 1960's or 1970's.

Once there are significant, viable alternatives to these companies' networks, we can abandon net neutrality. We're not there yet, however.

Instead of choosing one way or the other for EVERYONE, choose a service you want, and let others have their trimmed-down, bullshit, censored access to the internet, while you can freely access anything available.

That's exactly what the current system does. People pay more for better access.

If all the companies censor the internet, there's nothing you can do; they've obviously got a vested interest in doing it, and it's highly unlikely their customers will be able to do anything to change that.


So, find a new company. In a free market, someone will see this need and start a company that doesn't censor. It would likely gain almost every customer there is if it was the only non-censoring company.


It's because that infrastructure is a natural monopoly, just like transmission lines. Since there are still few real alternatives to these companies' phone and internet infrastructure, granting them total control over their network would grant them an effective monopoly over the areas their network services.


And if the state has any restriction over it, then a state monopoly is essentially in effect. And besides, it doesn't matter if they do have a monopoly, they are free to control their assets however they wish. Any state control is a brutal violation of an owner's rights to control their property.

I despise censorship in all forms. Although AT&T reports that it was commited by some rougue censors and was completely unintentional, I think they should take responsibility and aplologize. And if they don't, then I'm never using AT&T again.

Censorship can only be done by a gov't actor. Any private citizen or corporation can quite legitimately decide what to and what not to broadcast, publish, etc. Now, if enough people get mad about it and boycott AT&T, then it was a bad business decision. But that's the worst it can be.

Censorship can only be done by a gov't actor. Any private citizen or corporation can quite legitimately decide what to and what not to broadcast, publish, etc. Now, if enough people get mad about it and boycott AT&T, then it was a bad business decision. But that's the worst it can be.

False

Censorship does not have to only be done by a government

I'm not sure what they're supposed to mean, exactly.
"Leave this world alone, find another home;" are they trying to convince him to take up permanent residence on an orbiting space station of some sort?

Clearly they are trying to make Bush someone elses problem. Pretty nasty really, sure we would benefit but then some other unlucky people would have to deal with his bullshit.


And censorship is always a disgusting practice, when you see instances like this you can see why.

Yeah, but you have this odd predilection for insulting everyone and everything.
Wow, I really hadn't noticed that, cheers for pointing that out to me.
(And way to intelligently end an argument. :p)
That's what yer mam said.
Whatdaya mean about my hard-man facade?
You usually say stuff like "assholes" or "bastards" and then wonder off from a thread.
Except, how is censoring someone's political opinions during a live musical performance not 'ruffling' their customers?

1. Do you really have that little faith in Americans that you think they can't see that a singer making a political comment during a live concert does not immediately mean that the company broadcasting said concert agrees with said comment?
I'm not talking about my point of view here, I'm talking about where the marketing department of a large-scale company stands on such matters.

They don't want anything over-political which could be construed as their own view. It's not about 'faith in Americans', it's about 'not tarring your business with the slightly left-wing stick'.
2. Considering that less than 1 in 3 Americans think positively about GWB, an anti-GWB comment is more likely to be supported by their customers than not. Censoring it is likely to ruffle more feathers than non-censoring.
Their main customers are going to be parents who couldn't give a rat's arse about whether Pearl Jam were censored or not, and indeed probably couldn't be arsed with another round of inane Bush-baiting, instead of the teenagers who might complain to any great extent.

This is why it was done, or so I reckon.
3. That figure of support for GWB is overall. I daresay that the ppl watching Lollapalooza who support GWB is a fraction much smaller than 1 in 3. So again, we have a company making a decision that is against the wishes/beliefs of the overwhelming majority of it's customers.
Viewes of Lollapalooza =/= in the main the people who're paying.
4. Has AT&T ever censored any other artist who has made pro-GWB statements? If so, then censoring all political comments is apparently an AT&T policy. If not, then just censoring anti-GOP comments is, which again hardly falls into the realm of just not wanting to 'ruffle' their customers.
Try and find me a popular band that has made pro-GWB statements first ;)

Censorship can only be done by a gov't actor. Any private citizen or corporation can quite legitimately decide what to and what not to broadcast, publish, etc. Now, if enough people get mad about it and boycott AT&T, then it was a bad business decision. But that's the worst it can be.

Just because it's "legal" censorship doesn't make any less of censorship. Private entities should support freedom of speech because it is the moral thing to do.

AT&T is legally free to do so.

However, such an action on their part is still cowardly bullshit.

Wow, I really hadn't noticed that, cheers for pointing that out to me.

That's what yer mam said.

You usually say stuff like "assholes" or "bastards" and then wonder off from a thread.

Hmph. I've always had a talent for stating the obvious. And whatever I say, it always applies.

AT&T is legally free to do so.

However, such an action on their part is still cowardly bullshit.

I've noticed that anything involving Bush or his fucked up administration and followers is replete with cowardly bullshit.
Pretty much the foundation.