sam_handelman's Journal: Censorship in private media

Firstly, to clarify my original point: I don't think their natural rights were necessarily violated. HOWEVER, it is definitely *a free speech issue* that must be considered, and carefully considered. A blanket statement that free speech is never an issue in commercial media is completely unjustified.

  Shows are cancelled all the time:

  If they are cancelled because they do not have an audience, that is legitimate.

  If they are cancelled because of pressure from advertizers, that is censorship. Thus, Don Imus was censored.

  Let us start from basic principles.

  You have a natural right to communicate with your fellow citizens to the limit of technological and economic feasability, in a market of ideas. If the government artificially raises (or lowers, through subsidy) the cost of such communications, those who benefit from those restrictions or subsidies are answerable to the public interest.

  The FCC officially recognizes this, although their enforcement is a pathetic joke thanks to the lobbying power of the corporate media.

  This is not a socialist statement: you have the right to participate equally in the marketplace of ideas, which is a market (market market market), from those who produce content, to their audiences (market!). MARKET! If the government meddles in this market in such a way that equal participation becomes impossible, that is a violation of our natural rights. Recall that a true market must have an effectively infinite number of participants, with a low barrier of entry or new participants.

  The fact that 90% of supposed free market liberals do not seem to believe this reveals the depths of cynicism to which they have sunk - to an adherent of liberal philosophy, the above statement should not be (MARKET!) controversial.

  Why does XM radio exist? *Completely distinct* from the government charter of the institution itself, you have a government charter for the entire business model - they couldn't stay in business if the government didn't actively prevent other people from decoding the incoming satellite signals without paying some kind of government imposed fee.

  Another basic assertion that should not be non-controversial to liberals: government licenses and privileges (including every kind of intellectual property) is *not* property, and no property rights attach to the person who owns it. If you get a government license of any sort, it is supposed to be in the public interest, and you do *not* have a *natural right* to do whatever you want with the associated government privileges.

  The same is far more true for terrestrial radio, which doesn't just depend on a copyrighted (or whatever) decoding key, but on the government actively intervening to prevent ordinary citizens from setting up "pirate" radio systems, even in unlicensed spectra.

  This is in *no sense* a requirement of the underlying technology - when I was a teenager in California I helped put together pirate radio stations.

  I think that covers all relevant responses to my original post.

You say free market liberal like it's a bad thing

[WillAffleckUW]

When, in fact, if it wasn't for us, there wouldn't even BE a fair market.

Re:

[sam_handelman]

I have nothing against actual free market liberals - I disagree with them on certain points but I usually disagree with other anarchists also, so it's not that big a deal.

  HOWEVER, most of those who *call* themselves free market liberals are engaged in deeply cynical, intellectually dishonest doublethink in the service of established power - see, in particular, the editorial board of the Economist (may they rot in hell.)

Re:

[WillAffleckUW]

Well, like the editorials of the WSJ, I find they both can easily be used to line a hamster cage.

I don't have a bird.