AT&T Censors Pearl Jam's Anti-Bush Comments (Lollapaloza Webcast)

Pickle-El

Superhero
Joined
May 30, 2004
Messages
6,840
Reaction score
0
Points
31
I was in Chicago for this....didn't know about it till we got back to L.A. yesterday, what do you think? Should the net be a neutral place? Cuss words allowed? Should artists keep their mouths shut? Since when is 'George Bush' a censored word? Or, is this simply a case of a 'mistake', like AT&T claims?

This thing is snowballing like crazy.....check google as more and more outlets are running with this.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070809-pearl-jam-censored-by-att-calls-for-a-neutral-net.html

Pearl Jam's response:

After concluding our Sunday night show at Lollapalooza, fans informed us that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the "Blue Room" Live Lollapalooza Webcast.

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them.

During the performance of "Daughter" the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but were cut from the webcast:

- "George Bush, leave this world alone." (the second time it was sung); and

- "George Bush find yourself another home."


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.

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.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "NetNeutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue.

Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor..

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

"Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider." (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

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.

The complete version of "Daughter" from the Lollapalooza performance will be posted here soon for any of you who missed it. We apologize to our fans who were watching the webcast and got shortchanged. In the future, we will work even harder to ensure that our live broadcasts or webcasts are free from arbitrary edits.

AT&T's response:

AT&T sees things a bit, well, differently. Company spokesperson Brad Mays tells Ars Technica that the company does monitor broadcasts for profanity, as Blue Room is available to all ages, but that the censorship was 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."

The company especially objects to making this incident part of a larger rallying cry for network neutrality, and we can see their point. This wasn't the company monitoring, degrading, or censoring someone else's content flowing across its IP networks; it was an act of content censorship of AT&T's own programming. It's much like the censorship that routinely takes place on television, and "network neutrality" enters the picture only because this particular show was streamed over the 'Net.
 
how fkd up is it that George Bush is associated w/ being an insult or a cuss word . . . and his dumbass is still president :mad: :mad: !!!!!!

reminds me of this cops episode I was watching the other day . . . there was this dude all hopped up on meth that was messing w/ some random family guy in a restaurant . . . the man who was being harrassed said:

"this guy started hassling me, and wouldn't leave me alone . . . then he called me George Bush and that was just the last straw" LOL!! true story
 
F**k censorship. :down

...

Oh, the irony of that phrase here. :o
 
So I guess AT&T is never going to endorse system of a down?
 
I was at this awesome show as well...great thread...I am posting one like this in a different forum...

Don't Go To BP Amaoco!
 
This wouldnt have happened in the 60's. They would have just blasted your skin off with a fire hose.
 
More importantly:How awesome was Pearl Jam?:heart:
 
I think it's good they got censored. They should all get censored for blasting Bush. This way, washed up bands will have to find other ways to make headlines instead jumping on the bandwagon and trying to be controversial. A little originality, along with good music, never hurts.

I'm not against people speaking their minds, I'm just sick of these rockers all blasting Bush because the next person is doing it. I really don't believe any of these people actually even care about the politics or the world, they just want to look hip, and talking about Bush is their way of doing it.

It's like all these celebrities telling everyone to "go green", while they're still driving around in gas-guzzling SUVs.
 
I think it's good they got censored. They should all get censored for blasting Bush. This way, washed up bands will have to find other ways to make headlines instead jumping on the bandwagon and trying to be controversial. A little originality, along with good music, never hurts.

I'm not against people speaking their minds, I'm just sick of these rockers all blasting Bush because the next person is doing it. I really don't believe any of these people actually even care about the politics or the world, they just want to look hip, and talking about Bush is their way of doing it.

It's like all these celebrities telling everyone to "go green", while they're still driving around in gas-guzzling SUVs.

"OMG, bashing Hitler is so cliche, everyone just shut up!" :cwink:
 
I think it's good they got censored. They should all get censored for blasting Bush. This way, washed up bands will have to find other ways to make headlines instead jumping on the bandwagon and trying to be controversial. A little originality, along with good music, never hurts.

I'm not against people speaking their minds, I'm just sick of these rockers all blasting Bush because the next person is doing it. I really don't believe any of these people actually even care about the politics or the world, they just want to look hip, and talking about Bush is their way of doing it.

It's like all these celebrities telling everyone to "go green", while they're still driving around in gas-guzzling SUVs.

Yeah, screw freedom of speech and all that! :cmad:

jag
 
Yeah, screw freedom of speech and all that! :cmad:

jag


I completely believe in freedom of speech, but I feel like the only reason these people speak is for attention. They shouldn't have to rely on controversy to sell records and make headlines. Their talent and music should do that for them.
 
I work for AT&T...


honestly.. dont think it was a mistake.... I have seen the inner thoughts of upper management :cmad:
 
You dont know what your talking about Keith
Pearl Jams newest Album came out last summer..So how does that fit in to your equation that they need controversy to help record sales?
 
Does anyone else think it's convenient that just a year or two ago the government was caught listening to phone conversations?
 
Interesting as hell Krit.Just like when Bush and Cheney are meeting with Oil Executives and representatives of The Big Three in the same month.Far be it from us to make any sort of logical implications
 
Interesting as hell Krit.Just like when Bush and Cheney are meeting with Oil Executives and representatives of The Big Three in the same month.Far be it from us to make any sort of logical implications

Oh no, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. :o
 
i mean its not like we live in a democracy or anything
 
Oh no, I'm sure it's just a coincidence. :o

No my friend,Im sure this is a coincidence
Gas came down low(2.92 a gallon)
Yet a barrel of crude is at a new high(78.21 a barrel)

May20th Gas=3.25 / Crude=64.94
June 11th Gas=3.12 / Crude=65.97
July 9th Gas=3.02 /Crude=72.19
 
I completely believe in freedom of speech, but I feel like the only reason these people speak is for attention. They shouldn't have to rely on controversy to sell records and make headlines. Their talent and music should do that for them.

Music has a very rich history of political activism. Pearl Jam has been decrying the current administration for years upon years, so this is nothing new for them. They genuinely dislike Bush and have every right to speak their mind. So don't sit there and type things like "I completely believe in freedom of speech" when you just said that you think it's good that they got censored in your previous post. When you start putting conditions on it like "they have to say things I agree with or do it for reasons I agree with" then you're no longer advocating free speech, but censorship instead. Either you support free speech or you don't. It's really pretty simple.

jag
 
No my friend,Im sure this is a coincidence
Gas came down low(2.92 a gallon)
Yet a barrel of crude is at a new high(78.21 a barrel)

May20th Gas=3.25 / Crude=64.94
June 11th Gas=3.12 / Crude=65.97
July 9th Gas=3.02 /Crude=72.19

Interesting isn't it. :o
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"