Forward this email to everyone you know who cares about free speech

[freespeechhere]

I've seen a couple of threads about this, but not the actual e-mail that needs to be circulated...
Please forward to everyone you know who cares about democracy.

Last week, CBS censored free speech by refusing to sell airtime to the
MoveOn Voter Fund for a political ad during the Super Bowl. The ad is
critical of the Bush Administration's run-up of the federal deficit.

CBS -- owned by media giant Viacom -- says it doesn't run
"controversial" ads during the Super Bowl. But it plans to air a White
House drug policy spot during the game. The last such ad linked
marijuana smoking to terrorism... hardly uncontroversial.

It is no coincidence that the White House and the FCC are pushing
through new media ownership limits at the behest of CBS and other media
giants -- efforts that MoveOn and Free Press activists have been
fighting. CBS/Viacom spent $4 million lobbying Congress in the last
four years alone.

CBS is playing politics with the right to free speech: another example
of media monopoly's chilling effect on democratic debate.

We need your help to spread the word about CBS and the growing media
crisis. Many members of Congress continue to fight media consolidation
because millions of Americans have raised their voices. This recent
insult proves that we need millions more.

First, forward this email to everyone you know who cares about free
speech and democracy.

Next, go to http://www.mediareform.net/media to learn more and sign up
to be a Free Press E-Activist if you are not one already.

Help us expand the number of activists working to build a media system
that serves the public interest, not just corporate interests. Our
democracy depends on it.

Onward,
The Free Press Team

P.S. Stay up to date on news relating to media reform with our free
daily headline service. Sign up at
http://www.mediareform.net/news/deliveries.php . Give it a try; both
subscribing and unsubscribing are easy.

P.P.S. Support media reform by becoming a Free Press Action Fund
member at http://www.mediareform.net/support.php

[Goldom]

1. that doesn't include

the official petition at
www.moveon.org/cbs

[JDPhD]

2. Umm, I think this is very misguided.

I have too be careful here, because I don't want to be insulting--but this message shows an incredible level of ignorance.

First, when dealing with topics such as "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" it must be recognized that these generall are terms of art that refer implicitly to the First Amendment. That amendment prohibits Congress from infringing upon those freedoms. It says nothing--I repeat, nothing--about what private individuals or corporations may do. In the usual sense of violating the First Amendment, it is impossible for a private corporation, such as CBS, to take away someone's "Freedom of Speech."

Second, in the context of "freedom" of speech, any reference to censorship must be taken as referring to restrictions that are not allowed under the First Amendment. Again, in this sense, it is impossible for CBS to "censor" anything--only the government can be such a First Amendment infringing censor. Yes, I know CBS can exercise censorship in a generic sense. But its exercise of censorship, as a private entity, is no different than DU refusing to become a forum for Freepers. A private entity can decide what views it does or does not wish to promote. Come on, should Malloy be forced to sell ad time to Limbaugh? And would his refusal be a violation of Limbaugh's freedom of speech? Would Malloy be censoring Rush by refusing to promote Rush's show? It is the same with CBS refusing to show the commercial.

Finally, it very misleading to label such private behavior as a challenge to "democracy." Democracy refers to direct participation of The People in government. CBS refusing to run an ad does nothing to stop anyone from participating in politics either through seeking elective office or casting a vote. To claim that CBS's business decision some how weakens democracy is just Chicken Little nonsense.

These kind of illogical, over the top accusations make the Left look really bad. We need to stop thinking that everything that we don't like must some how be an infringement of some fundamental liberty. Most are not.

Ironically, wanting some one or something to step in and force CBS to run the ad (since the only entity powerful enough to do so is the government) is to actually advocate the destruction of freedom of speech--CBS's freedom speech. If we really are for freedom of speech and the press, we should defend rather than attack CBS's freedom to not carry the commercial.

[hansberrym]

3. I have to disagree in part

What you say about individuals and corporations being free to discriminate I agree with.

What I think you are missing is the idea that the government is creating or at least allowing the creation of an "institutional press" in the hands of a few that will have rights that other corporations and individuals will not have.

(gotta run so I can't elaborate but I think you will get my drift)


From McConnel v. Campaign Finance Law:

In addition to arguing that §316(b)(2)'s segregated-fund requirement is underinclusive, some plaintiffs contend that it unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of media companies. FECA §304(f)(3)(B)(i) excludes from the definition of electioneering communications any "communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, unless such facilities are owned or controlled by any political party, political committee, or candidate." 2 U. S. C. A. §434(f)(3)(B)(i) (Supp. 2003). Plaintiffs argue this provision gives free rein to media companies to engage in speech without resort to PAC money. Section 304(f)(3)(B)(i)'s effect, however, is much narrower than plaintiffs suggest. The provision excepts news items and commentary only; it does not afford carte blanche to media companies generally to ignore FECA's provisions. The statute's narrow exception is wholly consistent with First Amendment principles. "A valid distinction ... exists between corporations that are part of the media industry and other corporations that are not involved in the regular business of imparting news to the public." Austin, 494 U. S., at 668. Numerous federal statutes have drawn this distinction to ensure that the law "does not hinder or prevent the institutional press from reporting on, and publishing editorials about, newsworthy events." Ibid. (citations omitted); see, e.g., 2 U. S. C. §431(9)(B)(i) (exempting news stories, commentaries, and editorials from FECA's definition of "expenditure"); 15 U. S. C. §§1801-1804 (providing a limited antitrust exemption for newspapers); 47 U. S. C. §315(a) (excepting newscasts, news interviews, and news documentaries from the requirement that broadcasters provide equal time to candidates for public office).89

[Occulus]

4. you're not considering

who owns the airwaves themselves. Those are in trust to these private companies, making this definitely a 1A issue.