censorship?

so, i was over checking out what epi has to say these days. he has a nice long post about stupid US media.

well, actually, i think it's more about people's stupid reactions to things.

you should go read his post. it's a well written thought-provoking piece.

my post isn't in response to anything he said, mine is in response to the article "NY Fox Affiliate refuses to air anti-Bush campaign ad for local Democrat"

so, a couple caveats before i post my post. first - i am not a fox supporter. other than the airing of the simpson, the family guy, futurama, american dad and arrested development as far as i can figure the network has done no good and the news portion, well, it just terrifies me. second - i am a lefty. left-wing that is, not left-handed. which means, if i were in the states and forced to choose, i would likely choose this guy. what i'm saying is, this has nothing to do with the person who is the subject of the ad fox refused to air.

what it does have to do with is the fact that people are saying that it is a violation of free speech.

huh?

okay, i admit, i don't know much about how the whole free speech thing works in the states, but as far as i can tell this seems like it has nothing to do with free speech.

and now i'm just going to quote directly from what i wrote on epi's blog, 'cause, well, i'm a lazy sod and don't want to re-write it... so, um, if you already read it on epi's blog, just ignore it here (although i did take the time to check the spelling in this version)

okay, but here's my problem with people crying censorship over fox not airing their ads...

fox has not taken action to silence them, they have just decided that they will not air the ads on their private network. in the same way that a private cafe owner can decide what flyers go in their window, does fox (assholian group that they are, please please please do not take this as a statement of love or support for fox) not have the right to choose which flyers they put in the window of their own store?

this is not at all a comment on the asinine comments comparing bush bashing to bigotry of any kind (i use that to include homophobia and sexism etc as well), but was that really what fox said? from what i read fox said they weren't running it because it was "disrespectful to the office of the president."

wasn't it?

oh. wait. i read it wrong when i read it the first time. i thought it said it was disrespectful to the president. and my response is that any ad i made that involved the current president of the united states would be disrespectful too, 'cause, well, i don't respect him. he's a wingnut. he terrifies me.

anyway, even if fox has their head so far up their ass they're wearing their ass as a hat (apparently i like the long way around, asshat, it's just too, i don't know, easy *grin*) isn't that their prerogative as a private company (even if they are publicly held and accountable to shareholders, they are still a private company, as opposed to a public institution) to air or not air whatever they want?

i mean, even if the reason is 'there's too much purple in that ad, we don't like purple, it clashes with our logo' then that's reason enough. the reason doesn't have to make sense to the rest of the world because it's *their* network, so it's up to *them* to decide what they want on it.

sometimes i think people really misunderstand the whole freedom of speech thing.