Censorship vs Boycotts

[eileen from OH]

Now that the Reagan thing has died down, I wanted to throw out some stuff (or "throw up" some stuff, depending on your point of view.)

I consider censorship to be when the government actively prevents, by force, its citizens from seeing/reading/speaking. In other words, it becomes illegal and punishable.

A "boycott" is a non-governmental attempt to commercially "discourage" a sponsor by threatening sales, etc.

So, was the Reagan flap "censorship"? Or was it merely cowing to threatened "boycott"?

And, if it's the latter, how is it different than when we boycott or encourage a boycott of sponsors of Rush, Hannity, etc.?

Bottom line, what I'm trying to ask here is if the Reagan flap was no more or no less than what we do every day towards Rush, etc., We applaud those successes (i.e., Michael Savage) but since there was no governmental co-ercion, do not the pro-Reaganites have the same right to act accordingly?

No, I'm not a troll. I was raised Catholic and therefore cursed with seeing both sides. (Even if I do instinctively spit on the right, hahahahaha)

Educate me on where I'm wrong (and I'm sure you will!)


eileen from OH

[JaySherman]

1. There was definitely pressure from higher up

i.e. Republical congressmen. To me that constitutes censorship.

A boycott of Limbaugh, Hannity, or even your favorite left-wing personality does not constitute censorship because it is an act of the people. If on the other hand, there is governmental influence in that boycott, then it becomes a form censorship.

Censorship can come in many forms. It does not necessarily have to be overt or forceful.

[eileen from OH]

2. Okay, playing devil's advocate here

does just the fact that a Republical congressman, or men, or person, exerts pressure automatically equal censorship? If they state their opinion, but do not endorse or introduce legislation to actively advocate a legal restriction constitute a violation of free speech? If no laws are established, then no laws are "broken", right? No one was threatened with court or jail over the Reagan thing, right? Are they not allowed to express their opinion, just as we want our leadership to express ours?

I absolutely agree that a boycott of Limbaugh, etc., is not censorship. But, what is "governmental influence"? Expressing support? If a Dem lawmaker came out and castigated Michael Savage, would we not applaud?

I guess I adhere to a stricter standard in regard to censorship. To me there is DIRECT and CLEAR distinction between legal prohibitions on what we can see, hear, or read, and that we do not WANT to see.

And,if a boycott, albeit an organized boycott including legislators, results in the cancellation of a program I think we have to buck up and eat it. Just as we would want the same thing from the other side.


eileen from OH

[JaySherman]

3. You're right. It is a very thin, blurred line.

I guess I've decided that censorship does not only constitute overt governmental regulation. With often underhanded tactics the right resorts to, especially to exploit legal loopholes, we need to be especially weary. Than again, I'm not comfortable with politicians coming out and castigating any media.

[eileen from OH]

4. Ahh, but the question is. .

is it just the opposition's politicians doing this that make you uncomfortable? See, that was my original dilemma.

Thanks for your comments,

eileen from OH

[AP]

6. One is weiling your economic weight as a consumer, and letting the sponsor

do the math. The other is weilding your power to prevent an idea from disseminating, without even looking to the economic angle as a tool in any way.

People may boycott Rush's sponsor, but they're not going to his studio and snipping the power cables.

[ijk]

7. Possible Republican "pressure"

What people are probably talking about is not a legislator expressing his opinion about a program; it's congressional leadership threatening CBS's parent company, Viacom, with a legislative decision that would cost them a great deal of money. We have no way of knowing whether this happened or not. In all probability it didn't, in the sense that no one needed to say anything to anyone; once the miniseries became a public issue, Viacom was probably happy to scrap it on the mere thought that someone on the Hill would care. That's how really institutionalized censorship happens; it's internalized. While it's not actually illegal, probably, for legislators to make these kinds of deals - they have just about absolute latitude in their decisions - it's certainly corrupt. If that's the reason CBS pulled it, I'd call that censorship.

Other differences between this and a boycott of, say, Dr. Laura : I find the 'prior restraint' nature of this boycott kind of scary. There's a pretty clear difference, in my mind, between boycotting something on what it actually said, and boycotting it in advance because of vague suspicions. The latter is awfully chilling towards public discourse.

The effectiveness of the boycott, if it didn't have anything to do with political powers, is astonishing and frightening. Much larger boycotts on the left take months to work, when they work at all. That seems worrisome to me. There's probably an ethical difference, too, between the use of a tactic like this by a minority group that has a real struggle for an equal voice facing it, and its use by a group that already has all the tools of power in its hands. We're not really in any danger of a wave of censorship by the all-powerful LGBT community, after all.

Then there's questions of actual content. I don't understand why people think we can only judge this action on the nature of the tactic, and not the nature of the subject. First is the point that what was said about Reagan was apparently basically accurate - not up to the standards of serious history, of course, but not really all that far off the mark in its basic idea. If you wield the power of a boycott for the most minor offense against how you think the world should look, and you're so thoroughly successful with it, that's a balance-of-power so far out of whack as to amount to censorship if it continues.

And second, Reagan was a public political figure. It doesn't mean he should be falsely represented, of course, but there's a certain leeway for debate that needs to be associated with that. (Gods know it's a 'leeway' conservatives don't hesistate to take when talking about liberals on TV!) That's not the same as, say, spewing out hate against a minority group; gay people didn't ask to be fodder for talk shows, if you see what I'm saying.

[AP]

5. Reublican goal was to prevent an IDEA to circulate.

They were censoring an IDEA.

There was no indication that the problem was that people weren't going ot watch it. And, in fact, it probably would have been watched by more people, thanks to the fuss.

With the Rush boycotts, what they're saying is that Rush is disgusting and we're holding advertisers accountable. If you associate with something disgusting, we'll associate disgusting things with your product. If some advertisers feel the benefits of associating themselvesl with, and endorsing Rush outweigh the burdens, it's there choice. However, boycotters are merely letting them know the burdens exist. I think people would like it if Rush's ideas didn't cicrulate, but, I for one, am confident that all Rush's ideas are pretty easily refuted, and I'll challenge them on their merits.

With the Reagan thing, people didn't target the sponsors (perhaps, because they knew that not enough people would be outraged by the show, or that the notion that the sponsors endorsed the content would be harder to make for a one-night movie of the week). They went straight for the broadcaster, and put tremendous pressure on them making the most specious of arguments, each one of which would have justified the same argument that the Jessica Lynch movie should be pulled from the air too.