The argument that this is not a free speech issue

[patbattlefield]

I have noticed that a lot of people are taking the time to emphasize that this is not a free speech issue. I would like to give my opinion why they are wrong. The first amendment exists because our forefathers knew the importance of not hindering speech. The purpose is to prevent the government from stepping in and telling you that you cannot say what you want. Now tell me what good is that amendment if another group outside the government can come along and express displeasure at something you say and then intimidate your employers and have you fired? I could see the argument if XM had not hired Opie and Anthony for the sole purpose of this kind of speech, but they did. The truth is they would not have been fired if no one had shown outrage at the comments. They were silenced because someone outside of XM and their audience didn't like what they had to say. XM didn't decide to censor out of thin air. Yes, the first amendment directly states that the government may make no law abridging the right to free speech but the spirit of that law implies that we should as citizens have the social responsibility to respect each others rights as well. How free is our speech if we do not allow each other the right to express it? That is why I do think the very heart of this issue is indeed a violation of this basic constitutional right.

[fandango86]

You're wrong on a few counts.

1) They were silenced because they talked about it after they were asked by their employer not to, not because they said it in the first place.
2) Special Interest groups are allowed to protest under the same amendment - it's called Freedom of assembly. They can also complain to the FCC, it's called Freedom of Petition. Nobody's forcing companies to buckle to these groups.
3) Opie and Anthony can go talk **** with homeless people anytime they want. Their free speech rights have not been infringed upon. As their employers, XM and CBS have every right to decide what they would like to air. Call it censorship, call it corporate responsibility, call it whatever you want, but it is not an infringement on their constitutional rights.
4) You may not have been around when O&A were first hired on XM, but one of the things they said many times is that while they are 'uncensored', there are limitations. I believe it was Anthony who said many times that their limits were that of 'human decency'. ****** the First Lady, the Queen, and the Secretary of State may sound hot, but maybe it crossed that line in XM's eyes.
5) This is not the first time XM has censored O&A, it is the third. The first two times, O&A obliged and have never discussed those incidents again. This time they did not.

Edit - Note the stars - Irony.

[styckx]

I have noticed that a lot of people are taking the time to emphasize that this is not a free speech issue. I would like to give my opinion why they are wrong. The first amendment exists because our forefathers knew the importance of not hindering speech. The purpose is to prevent the government from stepping in and telling you that you cannot say what you want. Now tell me what good is that amendment if another group outside the government can come along and express displeasure at something you say and then intimidate your employers and have you fired? I could see the argument if XM had not hired Opie and Anthony for the sole purpose of this kind of speech, but they did. The truth is they would not have been fired if no one had shown outrage at the comments. They were silenced because someone outside of XM and their audience didn't like what they had to say. XM didn't decide to censor out of thin air. Yes, the first amendment directly states that the government may make no law abridging the right to free speech but the spirit of that law implies that we should as citizens have the social responsibility to respect each others rights as well. How free is our speech if we do not allow each other the right to express it? That is why I do think the very heart of this issue is indeed a violation of this basic constitutional right.


Exactly, the excuse of suspending them because "they didn't seem to understand the seriousness of the situation" is bullshit.

WHAT SITUATION? The fact they don't even REMOTELY explain what this "situation" is, boggles my mind. Fucking faggots.

[AnalLeakage]

Don't want to be disagreeable, and I'm not saying I agree with it, but there are limits on nearly every freedom we were given in the Constitution and the Supreme Court has upheld those limits several times. Try and go buy a gun without jumping several hoops and the right to bear arms should be as plain as the right to free speech when they wrote it. How about not being able to say piss or tits without the FCC pulling you license. Can't grow that plant in your back yard because you can smoke it. Selling a 2 Live Crew album 20 years ago got a few record store owners arrested in South Florida. The group was hauled off the stage in handcuffs for performing a song down there in protest. Sucks the boys are in the crosshairs of this argument this round, but its been going on for decades.

[GoodDaySir]

It's not a First Amendment issue if XM was the one to silence the boys due to something they felt was indecent. They have that right.

Now if they're appeasing Washington due to the merger and the gov't had a hand in it, THAT'S when it falls into it being a First Amendment issue.

Put it this way: If you're in my home and I don't like what you're saying, I have the right to throw you out. However if you're still in my home, the gov't doesn't like what you're saying and THEY throw you out, then that's a freedom of speech issue.

However as long as I'm supposed to be paying for uncensored content, free speech or not, it's my perrogative to not agree with what XM is pulling...and believe me I don't. If this isn't some publicity rouse and they actually are fired, then fuck XM for taking my favorite show away.

[pike]

As much of a fan as I am, I have to agree with Fandango.

It is NOT a free speech issue. As fandango pointed out, it's "corporate responsibility"... ickk..

Try this: tomorrow morning, go into work and tell your boss you're going to rāpe his mother, sister and grandmother. When you get fired, are you going to file a free speech suit against your employer? The courts will laugh you out of town...

-Mike

[Jims Rottweiler]

With all respect, sir, you are confusing the First Amendment with Freedom of Speech. This is NOT a First Amendment issue. It is very much about free speech and censorship. Government involvement would make it a First Amendment issue. But it is censorship even if it is done by a private entity. It is fraudulent when the private entity sells you something that they claim is uncensored, and then turn around and censor it.

[patbattlefield]

You're wrong on a few counts.

1) They were silenced because they talked about it after they were asked by their employer not to, not because they said it in the first place.

And the reason they were forbidden to talk about it was because the feared repercussions from special interest groups. Thus reinforcing my point.

2) Special Interest groups are allowed to protest under the same amendment - it's called Freedom of assembly. They can also complain to the FCC, it's called Freedom of Petition. Nobody's forcing companies to buckle to these groups.

Then why when we protest and have a larger outcry are we not heard?

3) Opie and Anthony can go talk **** with homeless people anytime they want. Their free speech rights have not been infringed upon. As their employers, XM and CBS have every right to decide what they would like to air. Call it censorship, call it corporate responsibility, call it whatever you want, but it is not an infringement on their constitutional rights.

They have said similar and probably more horrific things on air. XM hired them and knew this is the kind of thing they would say. They would not have been fired if someone had not been offended and demanded they be fired. XM did not make this decision on a whim.

4) You may not have been around when O&A were first hired on XM, but one of the things they said many times is that while they are 'uncensored', there are limitations. I believe it was Anthony who said many times that their limits were that of 'human decency'. ****** the First Lady, the Queen, and the Secretary of State may sound hot, but maybe it crossed that line in XM's eyes.

Bull fucking shit. XM would not have lifted a finger if no one had complained.

5) This is not the first time XM has censored O&A, it is the third. The first two times, O&A obliged and have never discussed those incidents again. This time they did not.


Those incidents involved possible legal repercussions not the offense of someone at a comment made. There is quite a difference in a situation involving possible legal action.

[AnalLeakage]

The rights Sharpton uses to do harm (in our view) also gives us the right to protest XM and cancel. They also give us the right to contact the XM sponsors to cancel. Same rules apply both ways - unfortunately.

[patbattlefield]

The rights Sharpton use to do harm (in our view) also gives us the right to protest XM and cancel. It also has given us the right to contact the XM sponsors to cancel. Same rules apply both ways - unfortunately.

There is a difference. It is in principle. We are fighting for our right to express our speech they are fighting for the right to shut us up. This may not be a legal violation of freedom of speech but it is one in spirit. The rights we have mean nothing if we the people do not honor them. We are through social irresponsibility destroying the very foundations of our country.

[fuckwit]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


While people who use the argument 'the government isnt trying to censor anyone' to troll us they fully understand its purely a literal interpretation. Because these activist groups are working on behalf of the government. A censoring is occurring and people in this country are currently afraid to speak freely.
As far as I know the First Amendment was written (in regards to the freedom of speech part) to protect citizen from voicing opinions that go against the government. Its to allow political debate and protest. What the founders didnt write the constitution for was the freedom to say 'nappy headed-ho's'. Not because they dont feel you have the right to say it. But because they probably didnt envision the problem. The only issue they had envisioned was a freedom to speak negatively about the government. Hence the law protecting you from the government.
Maybe we need to amend the constitution to include protection from the government and al sharpton. But dont let these 'its not a freedom of speech issue' trolls get to you. It is. If people are afraid to speak freely in this country, there is a fucking freedom of speech issue.

But I still havent ruled out this being about the merger. :action-sm

[noisy30]

The first amendment says government shall not place restrictions on speech, but in a representative government ("By the people, for the people"), the government is representative of society. Therefore, if the constitution says government is "the people" (or society), the first amendment indirectly says that society shall not limit speech, which is what is happening in these situations.

[patbattlefield]

While people who use the argument 'the government isnt trying to censor anyone' to troll us they fully understand its purely a literal interpretation. Because these activist groups are working on behalf of the government. A censoring is occurring and people in this country are currently afraid to speak freely.
As far as I know the First Amendment was written (in regards to the freedom of speech part) to protect citizen from voicing opinions that go against the government. Its to allow political debate and protest. What the founders didnt write the constitution for was the freedom to say 'nappy headed-ho's'. Not because they dont feel you have the right to say it. But because they probably didnt envision the problem. The only issue they had envisioned was a freedom to speak negatively about the government. Hence the law protecting you from the government.
Maybe we need to amend the constitution to include protection from the government and al sharpton. But dont let these 'its not a freedom of speech issue' trolls get to you. It is. If people are afraid to speak freely in this country, there is a fucking freedom of speech issue.

But I still havent ruled out this being about the merger. :action-sm

well written. that is my point. and i do agree that the merger is a factor which then WOULD most certainly involve the government as XM fears the comments would affect government officials negatively.

[Hoagie]

This argument caa nad probably will always go back and forth. It's all in how you look at it. The First Ammendment was not written with the freedom of speech between one guy talking to the guy on the barstool next to him. It was to protect dissenting voices ability to reach out to the masses. Do I think this individual case is a freedom of speech issue? Yes. First of all Opie and Anthony did not act with insubordination. They issued the apology they were told to. And their comments were not pointed at XM itself. It was social commentary on the entire situation of politcal correctness in media and the effect of special interest groups. Now XM does have the right to control what is broadcast over the airwaves. But they do have responsibility to their on air talent. When you hire a show to push the edge and tell them to make use of their freedom of speech, then suspend them for doing so, it creates a hypocrisy and double standard that sets a precedent that will only continue to stifle the ability of people to express themselves freely.

[fandango86]

I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree, Pat. :action-sm

[Jims Rottweiler]

This argument caa nad probably will always go back and forth. It's all in how you look at it. The First Ammendment was not written with the freedom of speech between one guy talking to the guy on the barstool next to him. It was to protect dissenting voices ability to reach out to the masses. Do I think this individual case is a freedom of speech issue? Yes. First of all Opie and Anthony did not act with insubordination. They issued the apology they were told to. And their comments were not pointed at XM itself. It was social commentary on the entire situation of politcal correctness in media and the effect of special interest groups. Now XM does have the right to control what is broadcast over the airwaves. But they do have responsibility to their on air talent. When you hire a show to push the edge and tell them to make use of their freedom of speech, then suspend them for doing so, it creates a hypocrisy and double standard that sets a precedent that will only continue to stifle the ability of people to express themselves freely.
Well Said.

[fuckwit]

Nobody's forcing companies to buckle to these groups.

Have you seen cable news? Or read anything by Mushnick?

[JBenet'sPimp]

You're wrong on a few counts.

1) They were silenced because they talked about it after they were asked by their employer not to, not because they said it in the first place.



Said what dickweed?


Youre just wrong on ALL counts. Go screw.

[AnalLeakage]

But heres the problem, XM has the right of association as a business. They can choose not to associate with Opie and Anthony and have them represent their company. Now if in their contract XM can fire them without reprocussions for content issues (almost a certainty unfortunately since SFS) then that is their right. Not saying its just, but its what happens every day in business. Talking freedoms when discussing the business world is nearly impossible. I usually wear a suit to work, if my superior doesn't like what I'm wearing, he can tell me to change or walk. I have the right in this country to wear what I want and he has the right in the business world to pink slip me.

[JBenet'sPimp]

Thats my freedom of speech right there.

[patbattlefield]

But heres the problem, XM has the right of association as a business. They can choose not to associate with Opie and Anthony and have them represent their company. Now if in their contract XM can fire them without reprocussions for content issues (almost a certainty unfortunately since SFS) then that is their right. Not saying its just, but its what happens every day in business. Talking freedoms when discussing the business world is nearly impossible. I usually wear a suit to work, if my superior doesn't like what I'm wearing, he can tell me to change or walk. I have the right in this country to wear what I want and he has the right in the business world to pink slip me.

If that is the case then why does it still allow RAW XM 66 to broadcast? If they truly want to disassociate themselves from this speech then they would get rid of any music or talk stations that broadcast it. This is a witch hunt and an attempt by people who probably don't even have XM to trample on our right to have the product we payed for. It is fear motivating XM's actions not principle or their desire to not associate with O&A.

[mud]

I don't believe this is all about the comments on Monday like xm says. I thought OnA said thanks and keep it up. I take that as what they saw behind the scenes they were in trouble. Then that was their excuse to take a step and suspend them. Of course going against management hurt them (not saying they didn't do the right thing) but I don't think it was the biggest reason.
Now as far as censorship this is an infringement. If you can't say something without fear that you will be canned if 1 strong voice doesn't agree you are not free. Recent events have shown that as soon as some group of people (no matter how small and who just about always are not the actual consumer) say what was said is wrong the ax is dropped. If people protested and after time it was proven that is not what the consumer wanted it's a different story.
Execs are paranoid so as soon as someones offended they censor those that caused the controversy.

[AnalLeakage]

If that is the case then why does it still allow RAW XM 66 to broadcast? If they truly want to disassociate themselves from this speech then they would get rid of any music or talk stations that broadcast it. This is a witch hunt and an attempt by people who probably don't even have XM to trample on our right to have the product we payed for. It is fear motivating XM's actions not principle or their desire to not associate with O&A.

Has anyone gone after 66? Why not go after 66 then. We seem to have alot of shit disturbers around here that could do damage. Is whats good for the goose? Hmm..

[patbattlefield]

Has anyone gone after 66? Why not go after 66 then. We seem to have alot of shit disturbers around here. Is whats good for the goose? Hmm..

That would go against our own principles to demand they remove it. It is good to point out the hypocrisy though.

[Hoagie]

But heres the problem, XM has the right of association as a business. They can choose not to associate with Opie and Anthony and have them represent their company. Now if in their contract XM can fire them without reprocussions for content issues (almost a certainty unfortunately since SFS) then that is their right. Not saying its just, but its what happens every day in business. Talking freedoms when discussing the business world is nearly impossible. I usually wear a suit to work, if my superior doesn't like what I'm wearing, he can tell me to change or walk. I have the right in this country to wear what I want and he has the right in the business world to pink slip me.You speaking in terms of legality. I don't question that the suspension is legal or that XM has a legal right ot suspend them. If they didn't, there would probably be a lawsuit filed by now. This is an issue of right and wrong. Too often people draw their line at what's legal, depending on the courts to back them up. But now we're trying to take a stand on what's right rather then wait till it degenerates to a legal issue.

You're right that speech is generally very limited in business and private settings. And freedom of speech does have it's limits. Even here speech is somewhat limited. But it's a little different when you are a broadcasting company. You can't hire people to do edgy material and tell them to "go crazy" (I believe those were the exact words used). Then suspend them when they deliver that content. To use your analogy, what if you took a job modeling shorts for a designer. And you signed a standard contract that may have had a dress code written in that didn't allow shorts at work. But because your job specifically requires you to wear shorts, you're not held to that dress code day in and day out. Then one day you come in wearing shorts with a pattern that the designer doesn't like and he fires you, citing failure to follow the dress code. Is it legal? Technically yes. Is it right? Fuck no.

[loki2486]

This all is directly related to the Sirus-XM merger. Like many on the boards and news source have said already, XM is doing this solely because of the merger. XM does not give a crap if a homeless person's comments offended anyone.

XM is using this incident to look good for congress as they consider the merger. It's not a Free Speech issue at all.

What's important and worrisome to us as consumers is that XM is so willing sacrifice their consumer base (a VERY loyal base) to corp. greed.

Before this incident took place, how many of us were willing to support XM to the end? Now how many of us would give a crap if all three(?) of their satillites fall out of the sky?

[Larz]

Bottom line: OnA are XM employees and can be fired at any time for any reason, same as me at my job. Its just the way of the world.

We can debate whether XM was being hypocritical, unethical, etc... but when you argue Freedom of Speech in a first amendment context, it implies some kind of legal footing. You could never make a freedom of speech case out of this in court. I will say that the the Spirit of Freedom of Speech is a fine banner to rally around.

Just as the undesirables have a right to protest and use pressure tactics, we as fans have the right to lobby in favor of the show by protesting, talking to the media, contacting advertisers, and cancelling accounts. Its the push and pull of public discourse, just as the founders wanted it however frustrating it might seem to us. The OnA situation is a great example of our constitution at work.

[patbattlefield]

My main frustration is that we have had a much larger outpouring of support for the boys and XM is not listening. We continue to smash radios and cancel our service and all we get from XM is deafening silence. My instincts tell me our suspicions about the merger are correct. If this is so I wonder how much of a hand Mel is having in all this. And if he is involved we all know who else is.

[user name]

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree then

[Captdicard]

Ok...here is my take as a aspiring lawyer. This argument from what I understand has never been you in a corporate free speech issue.

Here is what I understand to be the case. Lets make it clear, O&A weren't suspended because of the homeless charlie interview, they weren't suspended from XM because they "talked" about the handling of issues like this. The audio is on here somewhere, look it out.
XM sold the show as uncensored, to the customers, they lied, but this doesn't make it a free speech issue, what does is the censorship of O&A. I understand that XM has a right to hire/fire at their discretion, but they can not because they dissagree with what O&A say. Why.....when XM became a corporation, they agreed to to follow the laws of the government, they also continue to support the soverignty of this nation by paying taxes. Now, because they are not held to the regs. of the FCC, XM doesn't legally have an argument to descency standards that don't follow the first amendment. This is because they sold O&A to us as uncensored and also because the government cannot make a law abridging free speech. The only time the government can is if it is related to national security...O&A don't.
Even if O&A signed an agreement, if you follow the actual rational of the first amendment, a gag clause in a contract cannot legally be recognized. The only time a moral clause can be enforced truelly, though because of the system and pussies that give up it generally doesn't, is when the morals in the contract that are to be enforced abid by US law.
So, again, I say long live free speech, may the pests help to turn the tide back towards freedom!!!!

[BenDunn]

You're wrong on a few counts.

1) They were silenced because they talked about it after they were asked by their employer not to, not because they said it in the first place.
2) Special Interest groups are allowed to protest under the same amendment - it's called Freedom of assembly. They can also complain to the FCC, it's called Freedom of Petition. Nobody's forcing companies to buckle to these groups.
3) Opie and Anthony can go talk **** with homeless people anytime they want. Their free speech rights have not been infringed upon. As their employers, XM and CBS have every right to decide what they would like to air. Call it censorship, call it corporate responsibility, call it whatever you want, but it is not an infringement on their constitutional rights.
4) You may not have been around when O&A were first hired on XM, but one of the things they said many times is that while they are 'uncensored', there are limitations. I believe it was Anthony who said many times that their limits were that of 'human decency'. ****** the First Lady, the Queen, and the Secretary of State may sound hot, but maybe it crossed that line in XM's eyes.
5) This is not the first time XM has censored O&A, it is the third. The first two times, O&A obliged and have never discussed those incidents again. This time they did not.

Edit - Note the stars - Irony.

Your wrong .....1. The employer asking them not to talk about anything that is not a legal issue is censorship. What next they don't talk about embarrassing business for XM or maybe they can not talk about homeless, racism, religion, boobies. No matter how you cut it Censorship is Censorship.

2. Special interest groups have freedom of speech by the same token the Anti-Special interest groups like People against Censorship do... And I'm glad to see them finally come about. Note 5 times as many advertisers have pulled out because OnA were suspended than pulled out because of what they said. The power base is shifting the advertisers are listening to there customers, as XM should be.

3. Corporations run on money. I was promised Uncensored content. It's censured. Corporate Responsibility??? What is XM 66 RAW nothing like that Crap ever came out of the boys mouth, but XM has the right to play it also. Freedom of speech is an Absolute, you can pick and choose but what because they're white.... that is called freedom of speech by skin color. I will not support a company that violates the law by advertising that they as a bastion of FREE SPEECH and behind the scenes do everything they can to stifle it. XM is getting what it deserves.

4. I was around before OnA and guess what they said some things were beyond them in the matter of good taste like graphic pedifile humor, the deal here is it was their choise. Like you have a choice to change the channel and I have the choice to cancel, call advertisers, tell people that satellite radio was once a great product but now same as terrestrial Radio. Try www.slacker.com instead much better.

5. The other 2 were legal issues. One involved an underaged gorl in the studio and BTW they have talked about it. The other was an intern has sex with a girl in the office space and again they have talked about it.

Note: I was an XM subscriber before OnA (12/2003) I become a fan shortly after the free play (10/2004) the two incidents you speak of happened before the free play so the only way I would have known about them is if they had been talked about later.

Argue all you want, the lawyers are already looking into it, It is as much a Free speech issue if it happened on the air or behind the scenes. WE know the fans that they have been censored slowly since Hugh Panero came to work for XM, I'm just waiting for the court order for emails and memos to come down and prove that it is far more reaching than this episode.

REAL FANS you have seen the edge drop off... confirm this for the numb nuts out there. It is the only statement that I can not prove absolute. I could bring up the last spanking in the XM studio, but as a fan they haven't said anything about is so i will be quiet.

[Larz]

My instincts tell me our suspicions about the merger are correct. If this is so I wonder how much of a hand Mel is having in all this. And if he is involved we all know who else is.

I agree... so theres a couple of things to do.

Cancel, Cancel, Cancel XM.
Support the CBS show like never before.
Make your voice heard about the merger, Contact your congressman, senators, FCC, FTC, SEC, and DOJ.

My gut tells me XM is lying about the OnA suspension and they won't be back unless the merger collapses. Its sort of why I feel that arguing free speech is a waste of energy, broadcasting corporations could give a fuck about their "Free Speech" image. Focus on poisoning the merger to make a difference.

[Frogacuda]

It's not a free speech issue in the traditional sense.

Really, what it boils down to is a culture war. The culture spirit in which our first amendment was created was one that tolerated and embrace a diverse clash of ideas, and it was a time when no one press outlet held too much power.

So what's going on here, it's not a violation of free speech at all, but it's a reaction based on a lack of appreciation for the principles on which freedom of speech was founded.

I happen to agree that crying "free speech" is not the right approach. Calling it censorship is certainly fair, but the free speech thing implies that it's a civil liberties issue, when it's not.

[BenDunn]

It's not a free speech issue in the traditional sense.

Really, what it boils down to is a culture war. The culture spirit in which our first amendment was created was one that tolerated and embrace a diverse clash of ideas, and it was a time when no one press outlet held too much power.

So what's going on here, it's not a violation of free speech at all, but it's a reaction based on a lack of appreciation for the principles on which freedom of speech was founded.

I happen to agree that crying "free speech" is not the right approach. Calling it censorship is certainly fair, but the free speech thing implies that it's a civil liberties issue, when it's not.


You are absolutely correct (because it is not a governmental issue, this isn't FCC suppressing them)... but to most people they see censorship and free speech as the same thing. Call it semantics if you will.

It's really a simple issue XM lied by censoring them and advertising they were not. XM violated the customers trust by the actions it took. It is poor management run a muck. The fans are speaking yes there maybe confusion but the message is clear we are tired of the censorship. The customers also know that this merger were things were not supposed to change is a farce things will change if it goes through.

[TheCableNazi]

Then why when we protest and have a larger outcry are we not heard?

Nobody has the "right to be heard." You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you or any media outlet has to air your opinions.

[DoucheSatchel]

Look, this is much simpler than many people want to make it.

XM has/have/had EVERY right to excersize their corporate authority over their on air talent, it's their station.

WE have EVERY right to excersize our consumer authority by cancelling our subs because we feel that corporate censorship is not what we want to pay for.

The fact is that the FCC has written guidelines that need to be adhered to, at least with them you have some idea of where you stand, XM is now regulated by nameless, faceless people that can't be held accountable as they have no rules governing what and how they censor their content, this is MUCH scarier than having to deal with the FCC, if this guys hemoroids flare up we can all end up waking up with Whoopie and never having any fucking idea why it happened or who to blame.

I'm done with XM for good.

[BeltOfScotch]

My main frustration is that we have had a much larger outpouring of support for the boys and XM is not listening. We continue to smash radios and cancel our service and all we get from XM is deafening silence. My instincts tell me our suspicions about the merger are correct. If this is so I wonder how much of a hand Mel is having in all this. And if he is involved we all know who else is.

How can you possibly say they have been silent when XM issued two statements revising their position on the situation within a week? When the press release first came out, all it said was that they had been suspended for 30 days, nothing about the show coming back, zero reassurance. For all intents and purposes, a 30 day suspension with no other comment was the same as JV&E's "indefinite" suspension.

After the cancellations started, they came back and the new story was that XM had every intention of bringing them back but they would not guarantee it would happen. This is a small movement, but a movement. I don't think you ever saw an official statement from CBS radio saying it was their intention to bring Imus or JV&E back.

Then, this past Friday, in the little announcement that everyone seemed to think was not a big deal, XM came out and officially said O&A will be back on June 15th. Complete reassurance. They aren't just saying they're suspended, they aren't saying XM wants them back in 30 days but we'll see, they have definitively said O&A will be back on the air on June 15th. I'm really not sure what else you guys want (I know you want them back on the air tomorrow morning, but that's not going to happen), you were heard, be happy about it.

[fandango86]

Here's another thing to think about - It is infinitely difficult for a corporation to stand up and say 'We think it's ok to make jokes about ****** the Secretary of State.' It is even harder to market your company to a wide ranging audience when the media is taking that one 10 second snippet and portraying that as what your company and it's flagship pogram are all about.

I'm not saying I sympathize with XM, nor do I agree with the way they've handled this. But the issue is not free speech, it's about misinformation within the media and special interest groups and the impact that negative publicity can have on artistic integrity.

[ceeps04]

I agree they have been told to be quiet in the past because of legal issues.

But what about their decision to not do box of cocks. That was a directive from XM. And they never did the bit again. The "my pussy has talent" competition was also not allowed by XM although perfectly legal.

They were almost fired for the AOTM and immediately stopped promoting that.

If they had gone ahead and continued with all three of these bits they would probably have been suspended/fired. They didn't because they knew that.
Thus they were being censored already.

This situation was different because they were forced by XM to apologize which they hadn't had to do in the past. They have always told everybody to not apologize, but because they were forced to this time they probably felt like hypocrits and despite being told by XM to not say anything else on the matter said FUCK IT and spoke their minds.

Ron is being censored right now on both of his shows (even the one on CBS) by XM. So lets not act like XM just turns the mics on and has never given a fuck what happened on the channel until this incident. We never really had a problem with the show being "censored" in the past. And if/when they come back and I reactivate my radios I have no reason to believe the show will be any different than before.

[Frogacuda]

It's really a simple issue XM lied by censoring them and advertising they were not.
Bingo. The false advertising issue hits home more than the civil liberties issue.

Though the fact that the mentioning of prominent Republican figures sparked this whole controversy does make you wonder if there isn't pressure on XM from the fed.

[Frogacuda]

Here's another thing to think about - It is infinitely difficult for a corporation to stand up and say 'We think it's ok to make jokes about ****** the Secretary of State.'
But it's ok to crack n*gger jokes and all the other shit they say?

The media only picked up on the story after the aplogy. O&A say shit like that all the time and no one ever felt empowered enough to give a fuck. XM told all the shitheads they're allowed to be outraged at sattelite, so now they are. Good going, XM.

[Loach]

It is absolutely a free speech issue and a censorship issue.

It is not a 1st Ammendment issue and I have had to Corrrrrrect some on that.

Just because it was a business decision does not negate the free speech aspect. We need to make it clear that it was a bad business decision by hitting XM where it hurts.

[Vyce]

With all respect, sir, you are confusing the First Amendment with Freedom of Speech. This is NOT a First Amendment issue. It is very much about free speech and censorship. Government involvement would make it a First Amendment issue. But it is censorship even if it is done by a private entity. It is fraudulent when the private entity sells you something that they claim is uncensored, and then turn around and censor it.

Quoted because I'd like to thank you for correctly pointing out the issue here.

Nothing annoys me more when censorship happens and someone inevitably chimes in, "Hey, it's not a free speech issue because the government didn't suppress the speech!"

IRRELEVANT.

There's free speech, and there's first amendment speech. First amendment speech absolutely concerns free speech, but just because it's a private entity that is censoring someone, that doesn't make it any less censorship or a deprivation of someone's right to say what they will, especially in the context of an entertainment program. "Free speech" is a concept that has grown far, far beyond that of just first amendment issues.

[Jacksix]

Just so you guys understand the real issue here, I am breaking my board silence and posting for the first time on Wackbag.

If the market that O & A work in was truly a free market, there would be no issue at hand. They would be broadcasting on XM and we would have had our poker tourney yesterday. A handful of vociferous activists and reporters have hijacked that free market and silenced the market. Our voice has been taken. We and O & A speak to XM and other corporations through that market and we cannot be heard over hyperbole and undue amplification due to racial and gender profiles. FUCK THE ASSHOLES WHO ARE TAKING O & A AWAY FROM ME.

It's not about what they said on the radio, it's about what the market is allowed to say. God Bless Nashville Coffee!

-Jacksix

[23 Skidoo]

I just love how people keep saying that they were suspended not because of the remarks, but because of things said afterward or "not understanding the seriousness of the situation." Absolute horseshit. Homeless Charlie making explicit jokes about having rough sex with Condi Rice is the genesis of this whole thing, no matter how much XM says anything to the contrary. XM made them apologize, O&A rightly pointed out that the ever-changing policies are "dumb" and then XM yanked them off the air.

This may not involve a direct violation of the First Amendment, as XM is a private organization, but this does involve the broad concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. On a platform that is marketed as uncut and uncensored, any reasonable person would conclude that anything goes (except for material that may legally implicate XM, such as libel or slander). So when XM is deeming Homeless Charlie and the boys' conversation "over the line", they've crossed the line into censorship. And thusly, freedom of speech where entertainment is concerned is absolutely suffering.

So don't let XM fool with their bullshit double talk. It's censorship, plain and simple. I am very confident they'll be back on the 15th of June... I just fear that the boys are going to be gun shy, and who can blame them, when their so-called "uncut and uncensored" platform has the backbone of a jellyfish.

[Jolie]

First amendment speech absolutely concerns free speech, but just because it's a private entity that is censoring someone, that doesn't make it any less censorship or a deprivation of someone's right to say what they will, especially in the context of an entertainment program. "Free speech" is a concept that has grown far, far beyond that of just first amendment issues.

Their employer also has a right - the right to fire them at will. Opie and Anthony have a right to say whatever they want without the government infringing on that right. They do not have the right to say whatever they want without possible repercussions from their employer.

[OvaHere]

Their employer also has a right - the right to fire them at will. Opie and Anthony have a right to say whatever they want without the government infringing on that right. They do not have the right to say whatever they want without possible repercussions from their employer.

Yes. That doesn't mean its morally right though. XM has the right to fire or suspend or gag order, whatever you want to call it. Just because they have that right, doesn't mean it can't be abused or used unnecessarily. Context is key, in everything thats been going on. Just because XM has that right, doesn't mean you just sit back when they fuck with it too much and go "oh well, sucks, they can do it." Just because they have the right to censor within their property, doesn't mean theres no context and its always ok. We then have the right to absolutely call it how it is and protest and demand better from who we're giving our money and backing to. And the exact same right to do to XM's advertisors what Sharpton and his naggers and all the nervous nellies do. Which is what we need to do more of. Thats what the game has become, sadly, from people who just can't handle things that aren't Dora the Explorer or Bob the Builder safe and things they don't agree with or like.

[patbattlefield]

Nobody has the "right to be heard." You can say whatever you want, that doesn't mean anyone has to listen to you or any media outlet has to air your opinions.


I'm not saying we have a "right" to be heard it just seems ridiculous that XM folds to people who are most likely not even subscribers and when a flood of support comes in from the other side of people who actually listen and subscribe to XM they are reluctant to respond. Its all fucking topsy turvy.

How can you possibly say they have been silent when XM issued two statements revising their position on the situation within a week? When the press release first came out, all it said was that they had been suspended for 30 days, nothing about the show coming back, zero reassurance. For all intents and purposes, a 30 day suspension with no other comment was the same as JV&E's "indefinite" suspension.

After the cancellations started, they came back and the new story was that XM had every intention of bringing them back but they would not guarantee it would happen. This is a small movement, but a movement. I don't think you ever saw an official statement from CBS radio saying it was their intention to bring Imus or JV&E back.

Then, this past Friday, in the little announcement that everyone seemed to think was not a big deal, XM came out and officially said O&A will be back on June 15th. Complete reassurance. They aren't just saying they're suspended, they aren't saying XM wants them back in 30 days but we'll see, they have definitively said O&A will be back on the air on June 15th. I'm really not sure what else you guys want (I know you want them back on the air tomorrow morning, but that's not going to happen), you were heard, be happy about it.


Repeating the same statement with different wording isn't a legitimate response to this amount of support. When the amount of people that responded in kind to them being suspended(c'mon we really know they WERE fired) they should have put them back on the air immediately and issued an apology to the subscribers. Continuing to keep them off the air is an effort to wait out our protest and fire them when things die down. We have got to keep the fire lit firmly under their asses. IMO as long as they aren't broadcasting they are fired.

[LiddyRules]

Even if this is a free speech issue, remember, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

[patbattlefield]

Even if this is a free speech issue, remember, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

If they start broadcasting from a movie theater let me know.

[LiddyRules]

If they start broadcasting from a movie theater let me know. Hey, if Geraldo can use that "reasoning" to limit "offensive" speech on the radio, I can.

[patbattlefield]

Hey, if Geraldo can use that "reasoning" to limit "offensive" speech on the radio, I can.

:haha7:

[patbattlefield]

Just so you guys understand the real issue here, I am breaking my board silence and posting for the first time on Wackbag.

If the market that O & A work in was truly a free market, there would be no issue at hand. They would be broadcasting on XM and we would have had our poker tourney yesterday. A handful of vociferous activists and reporters have hijacked that free market and silenced the market. Our voice has been taken. We and O & A speak to XM and other corporations through that market and we cannot be heard over hyperbole and undue amplification due to racial and gender profiles. FUCK THE ASSHOLES WHO ARE TAKING O & A AWAY FROM ME.

It's not about what they said on the radio, it's about what the market is allowed to say. God Bless Nashville Coffee!

-Jacksix
:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:


Welcome to the posting club.


I just love how people keep saying that they were suspended not because of the remarks, but because of things said afterward or "not understanding the seriousness of the situation." Absolute horseshit. Homeless Charlie making explicit jokes about having rough sex with Condi Rice is the genesis of this whole thing, no matter how much XM says anything to the contrary. XM made them apologize, O&A rightly pointed out that the ever-changing policies are "dumb" and then XM yanked them off the air.

This may not involve a direct violation of the First Amendment, as XM is a private organization, but this does involve the broad concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. On a platform that is marketed as uncut and uncensored, any reasonable person would conclude that anything goes (except for material that may legally implicate XM, such as libel or slander). So when XM is deeming Homeless Charlie and the boys' conversation "over the line", they've crossed the line into censorship. And thusly, freedom of speech where entertainment is concerned is absolutely suffering.

So don't let XM fool with their bullshit double talk. It's censorship, plain and simple. I am very confident they'll be back on the 15th of June... I just fear that the boys are going to be gun shy, and who can blame them, when their so-called "uncut and uncensored" platform has the backbone of a jellyfish.

Thank you. I am sick of people saying its about insubordination. IS IT? Take XM's cock out of your ass and stop believing their bullshit lies.

[Mook_Dawg]

I've been practicing law for several years, and have litigated many a nasty case. I also have been listening to O&A for a while, Imus for 20 years, and I also used to listen to Stern back when he was married and had Jackie the Jokeman with him.

Bottom line, this O&A situation is certainly NOT a consitutional issue. If you want to somehow broaden the definition of "free speech" beyond government censorship, then so be it. But strictly definied, this is not about free speech - it is about petty intraoffice politics between XM brass and O&A. Obviously, O&A were instructed to follow XM's "dumb rules," and they elected not to. They probably knew what they were getting themselves into . . . needless, to say, this has NOTHING to do with free speech, you melodramatic saps.

I love the idea of hitting XM in the wallet, and smashing eggs all over their sullen corporate faces, but put the fucking Captain America flags down, please.

[Mook_Dawg]

And honestly, who DOESN'T believe in free speech and free thought on this message board? However, it's XM's service and XM can run however they want to run it. They made a stupid business decision and defrauded millions of consumers who otherwise thought they were getting unedited radio.

Hitting them back hard is beautiful, but wrapping yourself in the flag and claiming free speech is lame. USA = Capitalism, and XM made a capitalistic decision. As a private entity, they had the ability to do so.

XM suspending / firing O&A is more American than letting them speak freely. If O&A or any posters on here wants a satellite station where they can speak without any limit whatsoever . . . they can raise the money and start one themselves.

[patbattlefield]

I've been practicing law for several years, and have litigated many a nasty case. I also have been listening to O&A for a while, Imus for 20 years, and I also used to listen to Stern back when he was married and had Jackie the Jokeman with him.

Bottom line, this O&A situation is certainly NOT a consitutional issue. If you want to somehow broaden the definition of "free speech" beyond government censorship, then so be it. But strictly definied, this is not about free speech - it is about petty intraoffice politics between XM brass and O&A. Obviously, O&A were instructed to follow XM's "dumb rules," and they elected not to. They probably knew what they were getting themselves into . . . needless, to say, this has NOTHING to do with free speech, you melodramatic saps.

I love the idea of hitting XM in the wallet, and smashing eggs all over their sullen corporate faces, but put the fucking Captain America flags down, please.


Is free speech limited to only government vs. the people? Technically you are correct but seeing how much power corporations have over what we see and hear and the fact that the actual listeners and viewers are not being considered worries me as to whether we need to expand the 1st amendment to protect ourselves. The heart of the problem is that no one has the guts to stand up and actually put the threats issued by these special interest groups to the test. As Opie has said many times they would find that no one would care and they would move on. People keep folding and making apologies and we keep losing ground.

IMO: This is not a legal free speech issue, but it is a free speech issue in the spirit of that law. Now excuse me while I whip this out:

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/timotheus_havener/AmericanFlag.jpg

[patbattlefield]

XM suspending / firing O&A is more American than letting them speak freely.

Wait...what? Capitalism had nothing to do with this decision. The market didn't decide it. They were the #1 station making them a shit load of money. It was fear and political correctness that brought this about.

[abudabit]

It's a censorship issue, just not a 1st amendment issue. Either way XM fucked us so fuck XM.

In the words of Dr. Dre to Eazy E:

You fucked me now I'm fucking you, little ho.

[Mook_Dawg]

Wait...what?


Above and beyond speech, this country's cornerstone principal was, and still is, the maintenance and protection of PROPERTY rights. XM's ability to function as an independent private entity, and do whatever the fuck they want to do, stems from those rights.

[Mook_Dawg]

Wait...what? Capitalism had nothing to do with this decision. The market didn't decide it. They were the #1 station making them a shit load of money. It was fear and political correctness that brought this about.

Who cares what XM's motivations were? It can do anything it pleases!

I am 100% behind the boycotts, advertiser blitzes, media blitzes, stock dumps, and radio-smashing in relation . . . all those things are within OUR right to undertake as a response . . . but XM doing what they want is what this country is all about.

Do I think that XM consumers have a valid class action suit here based on consumer fraud? Sure. But don't hang XM as unAmerican.

[Craig]

This really IS a free speech issue. It's a bit more indirect though. The few elite media scumbags have decided what millions should and should not listen to. They attacked O&A, until an action was taken (xm suspension).

Everyone who listened to the show, didn't give a flying fuck about the sexual comments, which kept being described as "r.a.p.e" in the media by the way. No one fucking cared. Everyone laughed. The show would have continued with no difference the next day, but the media picked up on it and turned it into an issue. XM wouldn't have even cared, but the media kept attacking and attacking. So they basically controlled and filtered something, that people wanted to hear in the first place and were paying to hear.

If that's not a free speech issue, then I don't know what is.

[patbattlefield]

It's a censorship issue, just not a 1st amendment issue. Either way XM fucked us so fuck XM.

In the words of Dr. Dre to Eazy E:

You fucked me now I'm fucking you, little ho.

From wikipedia:

Freedom of speech is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracies. The right to freedom of speech is guaranteed under international law through numerous human rights instruments, notably under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, although implementation remains lacking in many countries. The synonymous term freedom of expression is sometimes preferred, since the right is not confined to verbal speech but is understood to protect any act of seeking, receiving and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.


From the dictionary:

cen·sor·ship


noun
Definition:

1. suppression of published or broadcast material: the suppression of all or part of a play, movie, letter, or publication considered offensive or a threat to security

2. suppression of something objectionable: the suppression or attempted suppression of something regarded as objectionable

3. ancient Roman office: the office, authority, or term of an ancient Roman censor

4. psychiatry suppression of memories: the suppression of potentially harmful memories, ideas, or desires from the conscious mind

Censorship = limiting freedom of speech. So by definition it is a free speech issue. It is not technically a first amendment issue but by the very nature of that amendment and the principles under which this country was founded it is connected to the spirit of that law. You may not be able to argue it in court but you can argue it in principle. Legal doesn't equal correct it just means its legal as far the courts are concerned and we all know how partial that can be.

[patbattlefield]

Who cares what XM's motivations were? It can do anything it pleases!

I am 100% behind the boycotts, advertiser blitzes, media blitzes, stock dumps, and radio-smashing in relation . . . all those things are within OUR right to undertake as a response . . . but XM doing what they want is what this country is all about.

Do I think that XM consumers have a valid class action suit here based on consumer fraud? Sure. But don't hang XM as unAmerican.


To me unamerican is limiting the ability of people to speak based on whether it is politically correct or not. Whether you are acting within your rights or not if you act against the principles that govern a free society you cannot be called a supporter of liberty and freedom. Legally right does not and never will equal morally right.

[patbattlefield]

Above and beyond speech, this country's cornerstone principal was, and still is, the maintenance and protection of PROPERTY rights. XM's ability to function as an independent private entity, and do whatever the fuck they want to do, stems from those rights.

XM is not a private entity the last time I checked. They are a publicly traded company. This isn't some farmer holding a shotgun standing his ground against trespassers. This is a public company that should go by the rules of the free market and do what its customers and stock holders want. This is not a wise business decision for either of those parties. And apparently neither of them were consulted before this decision was made.

[Larz]

Legally right does not and never will equal morally right.


Unfortunately you don't get things done in this country by arguing ethics, fairness, or morals. When you do this you're attacking problems from a position of weakness, no one listens.

Use the Law, find a legal argument that can favor OnA in the courts. Use financial pressure by cancelling subs, contacting advertisers, scuttle the merger. Thats how you fight.

[Mook_Dawg]

I'm not about to go into a corporate governance discussion here. F that. We don't need to go that route on this board.

Hey, Pat, I'm all about fucking the PC Police over as hard as possible, as well - it turns my stomach. I think that we just disagree about classifying XM's actions this time around.

HOWEVERm whatever the motivation, whatever the principal, XM was 100% wrong in what they did, and I freaking love the backlash that they are receiving. We can all agree that XM's actions were completely STOOPID, and I love to see that kind of stupidity kicked straight in the fucking teeth. XM is spitting chicklets right now, and I can't read enough about it.

[Vyce]

I just love how people keep saying that they were suspended not because of the remarks, but because of things said afterward or "not understanding the seriousness of the situation." Absolute horseshit. Homeless Charlie making explicit jokes about having rough sex with Condi Rice is the genesis of this whole thing, no matter how much XM says anything to the contrary. XM made them apologize, O&A rightly pointed out that the ever-changing policies are "dumb" and then XM yanked them off the air.

This may not involve a direct violation of the First Amendment, as XM is a private organization, but this does involve the broad concepts of freedom of speech and freedom of expression. On a platform that is marketed as uncut and uncensored, any reasonable person would conclude that anything goes (except for material that may legally implicate XM, such as libel or slander). So when XM is deeming Homeless Charlie and the boys' conversation "over the line", they've crossed the line into censorship. And thusly, freedom of speech where entertainment is concerned is absolutely suffering.

So don't let XM fool with their bullshit double talk. It's censorship, plain and simple. I am very confident they'll be back on the 15th of June... I just fear that the boys are going to be gun shy, and who can blame them, when their so-called "uncut and uncensored" platform has the backbone of a jellyfish.

Completely agree.

XM saying that O&A "didn't take things seriously enough" is basically the equivalent of the Imus situation from just a few weeks before, where Imus apologized, and then it was immediately decided that his apology "wasn't sincere enough."

It's all pretext. XM was probably considering suspending O&A all along; this just gave them the excuse they were looking for once the pressure from the media (not from any actual real outrage from people or listeners) continued. This gave XM the opportunity to censore O&A without looking like they were caving in to the Sharptons or the other special interest groups.

It was ALWAYS about free speech, though.

Here's something I don't think people are focusing on enough. Not only is 202 described and marketed as uncensored, but it's also a channel you can BLOCK if you find its content offensive. Not only is XM false advertising, they're also censoring O&A when the consumers themselves already have the option of removing O&A's content if they so choose.

[patbattlefield]

I'm not about to go into a corporate governance discussion here. F that. We don't need to go that route on this board.

Hey, Pat, I'm all about fucking the PC Police over as hard as possible, as well - it turns my stomach. I think that we just disagree about classifying XM's actions this time around.

HOWEVERm whatever the motivation, whatever the principal, XM was 100% wrong in what they did, and I freaking love the backlash that they are receiving. We can all agree that XM's actions were completely STOOPID, and I love to see that kind of stupidity kicked straight in the fucking teeth. XM is spitting chicklets right now, and I can't read enough about it.

OK, fair enough.:)

Unfortunately you don't get things done in this country by arguing ethics, fairness, or morals. When you do this you're attacking problems from a position of weakness, no one listens.

Use the Law, find a legal argument that can favor OnA in the courts. Use financial pressure by cancelling subs, contacting advertisers, scuttle the merger. Thats how you fight.

Well, they do have a case for civil action for getting fired considering that XM treated them unfairly as there are other stations(XM 66) that have the same content and they do not take steps to censor them.

And as far getting nowhere arguing ethics, fairness, or morals isn't that ALL these special interest groups argue? They seem to have gotten pretty far.

[Brando7]

It's really a simple issue XM lied by censoring them and advertising they were not. XM violated the customers trust by the actions it took.

Do you (or any of us for that matter) really know how many times XM has censored O&A? They might have been told 50 times by XM not to say something about a specific subject, so they didn't, and we'd never know.....the "false advertising" is a dead end as far as I'm concerned.

[Jim T.]

I have noticed that a lot of people are taking the time to emphasize that this is not a free speech issue. I would like to give my opinion why they are wrong.

Yep. The point I've been trying to make is that when they wrote the First Amendment, they didn't have special-interest groups, the Internet, and a scandal-hungry media trying to fill 24 hours a day. If you think the government is the only thing you've got to worry about, WAKE THE FUCK UP.

[Deebomber]

Who really is doing the censoring XM or O&A? When they first got to satellite we were promised a uncensored show from O&A. We were also told by O&A that they were the true pioneers of satellite radio and they are going to make it the next big thing. But in April 2006 they made the jump back to FM and for 3 hours a day for a year now we have been given a censored O&A show. According to O&A they felt the satellite radio was not growing fast enough and they could reach a bigger audience and get better guest on CBS. (I.E. "this is going to slow for 2 guys who were off the radio for 2 years")A small percentage of people bitched about the move but all we were told was to either deal with it or go flush and f@ck . When that small percentage complained that we were now getting a watered down show everybody told us to shut up. Even Wackbag started to ban people because they were bitching to much.

In all truthfulness we got a uncensored show on XM 2 weeks ago when we heard what Charlie had to say. And I might be wrong about this but didn't they replay the tape on CBS the next morning with most of what he said bleeped out? ANybody has the right to say what they please but if your saying it on somebody else's time you could get canned for it. If you say it out on the street you also run the risk of offending somebody and getting your ass kicked. I think what XM did was wrong but it's their air waves and they can do what they want. But as far as I'm concerned O&A started censoring themselves in April 2006.

[patbattlefield]

Who really is doing the censoring XM or O&A? When they first got to satellite we were promised a uncensored show from O&A. We were also told by O&A that they were the true pioneers of satellite radio and they are going to make it the next big thing. But in April 2006 they made the jump back to FM and for 3 hours a day for a year now we have been given a censored O&A show. According to O&A they felt the satellite radio was not growing fast enough and they could reach a bigger audience and get better guest on CBS. (I.E. "this is going to slow for 2 guys who were off the radio for 2 years")A small percentage of people bitched about the move but all we were told was to either deal with it or go flush and f@ck . When that small percentage complained that we were now getting a watered down show everybody told us to shut up. Even Wackbag started to ban people because they were bitching to much.

In all truthfulness we got a uncensored show on XM 2 weeks ago when we heard what Charlie had to say. And I might be wrong about this but didn't they replay the tape on CBS the next morning with most of what he said bleeped out? ANybody has the right to say what they please but if your saying it on somebody else's time you could get canned for it. If you say it out on the street you also run the risk of offending somebody and getting your ass kicked. I think what XM did was wrong but it's their air waves and they can do what they want. But as far as I'm concerned O&A started censoring themselves in April 2006.


Cancel your subscription to life.

[styckx]

Cancel your subscription to life.


Line of the day

[ceeps04]

Do you (or any of us for that matter) really know how many times XM has censored O&A? They might have been told 50 times by XM not to say something about a specific subject, so they didn't, and we'd never know.....the "false advertising" is a dead end as far as I'm concerned.

They've said many times that XM has told them not to talk about stuff. Ronnie is not allowed to talk about it either even on CBS. Box of Cocks was not allowed to run. Censorship? My pussy has talent was not allowed to run. Censorship?

They have been censored many times by XM in the past, but never forced to apologize for anything and that was the problem this time. They didn't want to apologize, had to and then were pissed and talked about the bullshit that XM pulled and thus were suspened.

They have always been censored by XM this is nothing new.

[Deebomber]

Cancel your subscription to life.

Why because I don't have blinders on pal?

[Captdicard]

Ok...here is my take as a aspiring lawyer. This argument from what I understand has never been you in a corporate free speech issue.

Here is what I understand to be the case. Lets make it clear, O&A weren't suspended because of the homeless charlie interview, they weren't suspended from XM because they "talked" about the handling of issues like this. The audio is on here somewhere, look it out.
XM sold the show as uncensored, to the customers, they lied, but this doesn't make it a free speech issue, what does is the censorship of O&A. I understand that XM has a right to hire/fire at their discretion, but they can not because they dissagree with what O&A say. Why.....when XM became a corporation, they agreed to to follow the laws of the government, they also continue to support the soverignty of this nation by paying taxes. Now, because they are not held to the regs. of the FCC, XM doesn't legally have an argument to descency standards that don't follow the first amendment. This is because they sold O&A to us as uncensored and also because the government cannot make a law abridging free speech. The only time the government can is if it is related to national security...O&A don't.
Even if O&A signed an agreement, if you follow the actual rational of the first amendment, a gag clause in a contract cannot legally be recognized. The only time a moral clause can be enforced truelly, though because of the system and pussies that give up it generally doesn't, is when the morals in the contract that are to be enforced abid by US law.
So, again, I say long live free speech, may the pests help to turn the tide back towards freedom!!!! to lazy to type it again.

[patbattlefield]

Why because I don't have blinders on pal?

No, because your trying to bring up a year old argument that has been put to rest and apply it to a situation that has nothing to do with it.

[Deebomber]

No, because your trying to bring up a year old argument that has been put to rest and apply it to a situation that has nothing to do with it.

No it has a lot to do with it because they went back to to censored radio in 2006. And who was it put to rest by? Blinders son, Blinders.

[Larz]

OK, fair enough.:)
Well, they do have a case for civil action for getting fired considering that XM treated them unfairly as there are other stations(XM 66) that have the same content and they do not take steps to censor them.

And as far getting nowhere arguing ethics, fairness, or morals isn't that ALL these special interest groups argue? They seem to have gotten pretty far.


I should have been more specific with regards to a legal argument. I meant something along the lines of XM acting fraudulently and in bad faith against us as customers who have the service specifically to listen to OnA. Maybe a class action.

Far as interest groups go, they may argue ethics and fairness, but the weapons they use are boycotts and the threat of 'bad PR' by crying racism. My take is the OnA situation is really internal to XM and the Merger. Much as I hate SHarpton and other racial racketeer groups like the Chinks that attacked JV & Elvis... those forces weren't at play here. Its better not to get sidetracked by their shit. Thats kind of a different fight.

[patbattlefield]

No it has a lot to do with it because they went back to to censored radio in 2006. And who was it put to rest by? Blinders son, Blinders.

jesus dude. this happened on XM not FreeFM. You know, the "uncensored" part of the show. The debate on whether they should/should not have gone back to FM for part of the broadcast has been debated in dozens of threads and has nothing to do with XM censoring the show. Stop being petty and move on.

[Deebomber]

Hey my point Pat is that we were sold a bag of goods when they came to XM orginally and jumped back to XM. So instead of a 4 hour uncensored show we get a 2 hr show. Is it being petty? Maybe, but I don't like being lied to.

But it was nice discussing it with ya.

[patbattlefield]

Hey my point Pat is that we were sold a bag of goods when they came to XM orginally and jumped back to XM. So instead of a 4 hour uncensored show we get a 2 hr show. Is it being petty? Maybe, but I don't like being lied to.

But it was nice discussing it with ya.

Dude, I understand and if you search my posts I was even a bit annoyed. But I understood why they did it and I moved on. It has nothing to do with XM censoring the show. Let it go. Its not good for your health.

[Zuke]

This is not a free speech issue, because "freedom of speech" refers to government control. This is about a company not providing the product that they advertised and promised. I subscribed because I wanted to hear unfiltered content and that is what they promised but, as of this week, that's not what they are providing.

[patbattlefield]

This is not a free speech issue, because "freedom of speech" refers to government control. This is about a company not providing the product that they advertised and promised. I subscribed because I wanted to hear unfiltered content and that is what they promised but, as of this week, that's not what they are providing.

can we all agree it IS a merger issue?

[Syntax]

here's how i look at it... the boys need mass media to tell their story with XM. the "free speach" issue is the only thing that will do that. Whether "free speach is the case or not... its helping the boys out

[Deebomber]

Ok Battlefield I will forgive but I'm not forgetting.

But yeah XM was wrong in the way they handled it. But I personally think O&A got bullied into all this by us the fans. They always said you should not apologize and they were forced to apologize. Then everybody started saying that they didn't real mean it. Then on Monday they said whatever it was they said and XM suspends them. Now maybe we didn't really bully them but in order to save face they mentioned it and XM took action. Sometimes you have to let sleeping dogs lie.

[bigskank]

With all respect, sir, you are confusing the First Amendment with Freedom of Speech. This is NOT a First Amendment issue. It is very much about free speech and censorship. Government involvement would make it a First Amendment issue. But it is censorship even if it is done by a private entity. It is fraudulent when the private entity sells you something that they claim is uncensored, and then turn around and censor it.

I know I'm coming to the party late on this, but you sir, are EXACTLY right. Free speech and censorship issues apply to all entities, both public and private. The difference is that you can't claim it's a First Amendment issue under the U.S. Constitution unless the government is the one suppressing the speech. Also, if you look at many state constitutions (California being a prime example), there are enhanced free speech rights that keep private entities from silencing you in certain situations as well.

Even if this is because of a merger, it has a hell of a lot to do with free speech as well. Trying to shut you up so you don't screw up a business arrangement is censorship, even if it is not within the confines of the First Amendment.

[Deebomber]

Oh yeah this has merger written all over it. But no matter what we do or anything else that XM tries to pull. This merger is not going thru. The FCC gave these two companies the license for satellite with the notion that there would be no merge between the companies. No monopolies. ANd a merger would create that and that is why it's never going thru. The bad part in all this could be that both companies don't survive. They are both losing cash like crazy and the merger would help them both. But as seperate companies they are going to have a problem. And with Sirius closing in on XM it could get ugly.

[Jolie]

Yes. That doesn't mean its morally right though. XM has the right to fire or suspend or gag order, whatever you want to call it. Just because they have that right, doesn't mean it can't be abused or used unnecessarily. Context is key, in everything thats been going on. Just because XM has that right, doesn't mean you just sit back when they fuck with it too much and go "oh well, sucks, they can do it." Just because they have the right to censor within their property, doesn't mean theres no context and its always ok. We then have the right to absolutely call it how it is and protest and demand better from who we're giving our money and backing to. And the exact same right to do to XM's advertisors what Sharpton and his naggers and all the nervous nellies do. Which is what we need to do more of. Thats what the game has become, sadly, from people who just can't handle things that aren't Dora the Explorer or Bob the Builder safe and things they don't agree with or like.

This thread is about whether or not its a free speech issue - and the facts remain, XM has a right to censor their employees as much as they want - its not a free speech issue.

Whether its morally acceptable or whether they SHOULD do it is a completely different argument.

O&A had a right to say whatever they wanted, XM had a right to censor them as much as they wanted, we, as consumers, have a right to complain and cancel and protest and make our displeasure known, the advertisers have a right to decide to stay in wupport of XM or not stay in support of XM - no ones *rights* have been infringed on.

I don't like it either - I've cancelled my subscriptions, I've sent emails to XM, which have probbaly gone unread seeing as how they wont respond to me the fuckers - but I'm not going to confuse this with free speech.

[user name]

Like I said before...

We will have to agree to disagree

[Barbwire Mike]

This is NOT a First Amendment issue. It is very much about free speech and censorship.
Exactly.


Try and go buy a gun without jumping several hoops and the right to bear arms should be as plain as the right to free speech when they wrote it.
Not when you live in the south. Registration and waiting periods are for queers. :icon_cool