Economic censorship hurts truly free speech

Economic censorship hurts truly free speech
David Trinko dtrinko@limanews.com - 06.25.2007
Free speech may exist in our country, but money still talks here.
What exactly it says remains up in the air, but we’re heading into an era of economic censorship.
Take the example of the radio hosts for “The Opie and Anthony Show,” Gregg “Opie” Hughes, Anthony Cumia and Jim Norton. Their recent history shows the pros and cons of censorship via the flow of money.
On May 15, XM Satellite Radio yanked the comedy show off the air for 30 days. A week prior, a guest on the show, “Homeless Charlie,” described his desire to do vicious things of a sexual nature with Laura Bush, Condoleezza Rice and Queen Elizabeth. The company suggested the hosts weren’t sincere enough in an apology they offered for the homeless guest’s rant or during conversations on the air afterwards.
The Federal Communications Commission doesn’t govern satellite radio. It’s based on satellite usage and not public airways. The company hired Opie and Anthony, boasting of satellite radio’s uncensored nature. The satellite radio show allows graphic and crude behavior and language alike, pushing the envelope of taste sometimes.
To be quite clear, this wasn’t a matter of the First Amendment coming into play. It had nothing to do with FCC regulations. It’s about a company trying to protect its assets, if you know what I mean.
It appeared the company simply bent to economic pressures. It’s in the midst of trying to merge with its main competitor, Sirius. And certainly a number of people were offended by the talk of a homeless man taking certain liberties with powerful women in our world.
Opie and Anthony are probably most notorious for a radio contest in August 2002. A pair of listeners claimed to have sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. In the fallout, the radio team’s employer forced them to sit out of radio until their contracts expired without an audience. Certainly XM knew what it was getting when it hired the team, who focus on juvenile jokes, occasional randy conversations and sporadically thought-provoking conversations about politics and life.
As a subscriber to XM, I listen to the show on my way to work, and I enjoy the show. I don’t necessarily enjoy every second of the show, as sometimes the topics get too graphic for my tastes. The chat with the homeless man fell in that category. But I appreciated there was a place for people to listen to this, if they chose.
And there certainly is an audience for it. This is the part of economic censorship that leaves some hope.
In a Washington Times article, XM officials said the company lost nearly 5,000 subscribers after suspending the program. That’s out of 7.9 million subscribers nationwide. Still, the company must have felt some impact from that. It reached out to Opie and Anthony fans with an offer to waive a regular $14.99 reactivation fee until the end of the month.
During the radio team’s return to satellite radio June 15, Opie spoke up in favor of the fans. He said he believed they would’ve lost their jobs if it weren’t for the support of their fans and the economic pressures fans placed on the company.
This incident reminds us we live in strange times. A vocal group with the financial threat of a boycott can protest to the point speech protected by the First Amendment can get a radio host thrown off the air. That was the case with Don Imus, who referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball team with some rather derogatory terms.
It also shows the customer is still always right, as was the case with Opie and Anthony’s fans. They showed there was a demand for that brand of comedy, and the show is back now.
We’re fortunate at this newspaper, as there’s an ideological wall between our moneymaking side and our newsgathering side. Our news decisions aren’t influenced by what an advertiser wants. Advertising and the newsroom are literally on opposite sides of our building.
Still, the mass media considers the impact of what it prints or broadcasts before hitting the button. Maybe it’s an awareness of political correctness. Maybe it’s fear of economic repercussions. Whatever the reason, we think before we speak.
Ultimately, though, it falls back on the reader, listener or viewer. They must decide if they’ll be insulted, angered or wound up over anything. I worry too many people jump right to censoring when the language or ideas make them uncomfortable.
That’s where a quote widely attributed to the French philosopher Voltaire comes into play. It’s arguable whether the author, born François Marie Arouet, ever really said it or wrote it. Some attribute it to author Evelyn Beatrice Hall in a 1906 as an epitome of his attitude.
Whatever the source, the idea’s worth considering: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Perhaps it’s time for a revision to that. We can just add a few more words to the end, in much smaller type… “unless I lose too much money defending it.”
You can comment on this story at www.limaohio.com.