|
Censoring Pearl Jam: A call
to save the Internet
Joshua Frank
Online
Journal
Wednesday Aug 22, 2007
Seattle-based Pearl Jam has accused AT&T of censoring lead
singer Eddie Vedder during a live webcast of the band’s
Lollapalooza show on August 5, which was provided online as part
of AT&T’s “Blue Room” concert series.
Vedder, performing a cover of Pink Floyd’s “Another
Brick in the Wall,” included the following substitute lyrics
that he repeated a number of times:
“George Bush, leave this world alone.
“George Bush find yourself another home.”
Fans who tuned in to the Pearl Jam performance didn’t hear
all of Vedder’s lyrics, as the sound cut out after the front
man sang the first line the first time around. In a statement
from the band on their official website, Pearl Jam condemned AT&T
for censoring Vedder’s politically charged message: “This,
of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned
with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated
control of the media.
(Article continues below)
”AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's
concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to
determining what the public sees and hears through communications
media . . .
“If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting
out bits of our performance -- not based on laws, but on their
own preferences and interpretations -- fans have little choice
but to watch the censored version.
”What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and
it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock
band.”
AT&T denied axing Vedder’s lyrics and instead laid
blame on a third-party vendor:
“The editing of the Pearl Jam performance on Sunday night
was not intended, but rather a mistake by a webcast vendor and
contrary to our policy. We have policies in place with respect
to editing excessive profanity, but AT&T does not edit or
censor performances. We have that policy in place because the
blue room is not age-restricted.
“We regret the mistake and are trying to work with the
band to post the song in its entirety.”
Despite AT&T’s claim that they do not “edit or
censor performances,” the incident with Pearl Jam is a clear
indication of what could happen if web neutrality laws are not
passed by Congress. The proponents of Net Neutrality want to protect
the Internet and keep it in the hands of individuals, not corporations.
The Bad Guys in this profit motivated game want to control the
web and put it in the hands of big telecommunication corporations
like AT&T. Now, it's not that black and white of an issue,
but for the most part the Bad Guys are looking to gain more, while
the Good Guys (Google, Amazon.com, who will continue to prosper
by a deregulated Internet) want to protect what they already have.
Right now the debate is heating up with a vote likely to come
down in the near future over the future of the net. A lot of elected
representatives have not come out one way or another on this important
issue. In the days ahead if we abandon Net Neutrality and a telecom
bigwig, shareholders, or a board of directors decide websites
such as this one aren’t worth putting on his company’s
search engine, or provider package, it could be lost.
The telecom giants very well could decide what is and what isn't
available to be viewed on the Internet and could censor content
front Pearl Jam or anyone else anytime they please. They could
also price the little guys out of the market. They want to be
Wal-Mart of the web. They want to control the content and pick
what we can see, read or listen to.
There is quite an underhanded campaign going on by Net Neutrality
opponents, called “Hands off the Internet,” who claim
to want to protect the Internet from regulators and Big Government.
In the past year, they have even run deceptive ads on blogs and
other websites in hopes of pulling Internet readers into their
camp. Some of the big names behind these cunning ploys include
AT&T, BellSouth, and Verizon.
Co-chair of this group is the ex-spokesman for President Bill
Clinton and other Democrats, Mike McCurry who writes an occasional
column at the Huffington Post. McCurry claims Net Neutrality will
kill the Internet.
Fact is Net Neutrality is what has gotten us this far. Yet McCurry
writes, “The Internet is not a free public good. It is a
bunch of wires and switches and connections and pipes and it is
creaky. You all worship at Vince Cerf who has a clear financial
interest in the outcome of this debate but you immediately castigate
all of us who disagree and impugn our motives. I get paid a reasonable
but small sum to argue what I believe.”
So how much does this guy get paid? Well, not sure how much the
big telecom giants are dolling out, but McCurry charges $10,000
and up per speaking gig, so it’s likely he’s bankrolled
by the telecommunications industry. Hands off the Internet wants
to destroy the web just like the radio goliaths have killed the
airwaves.
When you turn on your TV there aren’t thousands of channels
at your disposal. That's because you have to pay for those channels,
they aren't free -- even though you supposedly own the airwaves.
The same thing could happen to the Internet if guys like McCurry
have their way. You'd have to pay for access to the web and each
carrier would have much different ideas about what the “web”
is. There would be different packages and different sites available
per package. Much like cable vs. DirectTV. It would radically
change the way the web functions and, in the process, it would
likely leave out alternative blogs and news sites -- as they would
have to pony up big bucks to have access to consumers. Even if
they did, they might not make the cut. Somebody else could decide
if it’s a site worth your time or interest.
The Internet is a work in progress, spearheaded by innovative
and creative people, not big corporations like the censor-happy
AT&T. Let’s protect it.
|
INFOWARS:
BECAUSE THERE'S A WAR ON FOR YOUR MIND
|
|
