Blogs > Liberty and Power > Opie and Anthony Suspended. Do The Terrorists Win?

May 16, 2007

Opie and Anthony Suspended. Do The Terrorists Win?




We need to acknowledge that free speech is under attack in this country in a very serious and new way. It started with the firing of Don Imus and now continues with the suspension, by XM Satellite radio, of Opie and Anthony for something they did not even say themselves. One thing we should remember on the day that Jerry Falwell died is that when he sued the publisher of Hustler Magazine, Larry Flynt, for $45 million “charging that he was libeled by a liquor-ad parody that quoted him as saying he lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse” the Supreme Court ruled against him. The justices asserted that the joke, even though pornographic had a claim to 1st Amendment protection because Falwell was a public figure. The crude sexual humor about Condoleezza Rice, Laura Bush and Queen Elizabeth II put forth by Opie and Anthony’s guest, Homeless Charlie, on the recent broadcast was absolutely constitutionally protected speech. Much of it was surely tasteless and offensive, but the constitution has always been most meaningful in protecting such utterances.

However, a new form of censorship is taking hold and it is the equivalent of small groups of people going around barricading and locking up theaters or lecture halls to keep the public out. They get away with this by threatening the livelihood of the owners of venues that allow a platform for speakers or material that they personally object to. The far greater numbers of people who want to hear this communication do not seem to count anymore. A belief in free speech is not just about the right to speak it is also about the right to listen, freedom of assembly.

How does this help the terrorists? Well, CNN’s Glenn Beck in a very articulate and informative segment pointed out that he too is a target of special interest groups whose goal is to remove him from the airways. This attention comes from his strong stand against Islamic terror leading, of course, to charges of religious bigotry. You do not have to stretch the rationale which led to the demise of Imus very far at all to justify Beck’s dismissal.

Beck believes the solution to this new type of censorship will come when society begins to focus on the personal responsibility of turning the dial in the face of material you as an individual find objectionable instead of the nebulous concept of corporate responsibility. This is especially true because the financially responsible thing for these companies, when faced with what are essentially hollow threats, to do is to keep someone who is generating ratings and revenue on the air.

One of Beck’s guests Debbie Wolf was co-founder of an organization, People Against Censorship which is attempting stem the rising tide of this new censorship. She has penned an eloquent letter to Executives of CBS and Free FM pointing out that they are “setting a bad example that other companies have begun to follow, your actions have also placed an insurmountable handicap on every person who broadcasts on every radio station in America (one that will likely extend to television as well). You have put them in a position where broadcasters cannot speak freely without a fear that they may offend some group that will result in their firing. Certainly you must be aware that it is impossible to speak, in this day and age, without offending someone. This is an untenable situation and must be corrected.”

On CNN Wolf argued that any broadcaster or musician or comic should be outraged and fearful that their ability as artists to express themselves will be lost. She might have added that anyone who enjoys discussion of controversial issues, music, or laughing should also be angry and concerned.

Beck’s other guest Michael Harrison publisher of Talkers Magazine unaware of the action taken later by XM Satellite maintained that free speech would not be lost but would rather move elsewhere. That is why the suspension of Opie and Anthony is so disturbing because satellite radio is the elsewhere he had in mind. And, once the so easily offended special interest groups have control of that medium is there any doubt that television is next, followed by the internet?

Cross posted on The Trebach Report



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Andrew D. Todd - 5/23/2007

There is an old saying to the effect that freedom of the press belongs to the person who owns one. If you are doing something controversial, there is a point where you need to go out and buy your own printing press, so to speak. Consider the case of Virginia Woolf and the Hogarth Press. Of course, this has to be adapted to modern conditions, by choosing an appropriate method of electronic communication.

As I understand it, XM Satellite Radio negotiates for content and broadcasts it, on the same basis as a radio station, except that they have a subscription system and a proprietary type of receiver. They have a reserved frequency range (approximately within 2.310- 2.360 GHz), that is, in the same general range as cellphones and Wi-Fi, with about the same properties, and the same limitations on receiver performance. Frequency rights in this range are purchased from the federal government in auctions for sizable sums of money (billions of dollars), though XM Satellite Radio got its frequencies under the old "license to broadcast in the public interest" model. XM Satellite Radio has considerably more capacity than conventional radio, Nominally, AM and FM have a hundred channels each, but overlap issues restrict that to something like twenty different programs on each band. Thus, XM Satellite Radio's 175 channels are considerably more extensive. In view of the more expensive equipment required to receive satellite radio, the market value of a given frequency, and the prospective advertising revenue, must be much lower. So it is probable an error to lump Opie and Anthony together with Don Imus.

Parenthetically, Satellite Radio is separate and distinct from the "Ku band" (12.2-12.7 GHz) used by television broadcast satellites to transmit to aimed dish antennae. I should explain that any frequency above 5 Ghz is useful for line-of-sight communications (satellite dish antennae, microwave relays), or radar, and very little else; as such, these frequencies are essentially non-rivalous. The Ku band is thus line-of-sight, a fairly important legal distinction in federal communications law. Federal radio law is based on the notion of "interference." If someone has to aim their receiver at your transmitter in order to pick up your signal, then they are free to aim their receiver elsewhere (to "look away"), and you therefore cannot be guilty of interference.

Some transmission media have more common carrier status than others. The Post Office has about the strongest common carrier status of all, especially if one mails things first-class. If one's material is not time sensitive, it is worth looking into whether one could distribute it on DVD disks. A DVD disk can hold something like a hundred hours of compressed audio, and can be profitably sold for several dollars through the mail, if one goes about it the right way. One can buy a small disk-duplicating machine for a couple of thousand dollars, so the barriers to entry are not very great.

Another alternative is internet podcasting, with which HNN has experimented to a limited degree. Broadband internet ISP's seem to have de-facto common carrier status for downloads in the multi-megabyte range, such as audio podcasts. The situation is more involved for complete movies (as distinct from short video clips), and for internet telephony. These applications tend to stick their necks out much further, and are therefore more liable to commercially-motivated sabotage. The fighting over Net Neutrality tends to take place further out than podcasting needs to venture. This fighting creates a "safe zone" for podcasting to live in. Verizon does not want to take any measures which generate minimal revenue, and yet prejudice its position in its controversy with the internet telephony (VOIP) vendors who are presenting a threat to Verizon's long-distance telephone revenue.

Don Imus was broadcasting over WFAN, an advertising-supported, CBS-owned AM radio station, of the super-powered "clear channel" type, in the New York area, which employs a couple of dozen different hosts, anchors, announcers, etc. Given the way people leave radios set to one frequency or another, this could not by any stretch of the imagination be called a common carrier. Imus's complaint is essentially that he is having difficulty in being paid by advertisers who sell goods to the general public. Imus was fired because the advertisers pulled the plug, notably including Proctor & Gamble, Staples, and Bigelow Tea, examples of comparatively small companies which buy much more advertising than their size would indicate. Imus was also getting advertising from really big firms such as General Motors. However, he was apparently not getting appreciable quantities of advertising from anyone who wanted to use the distinctive qualities of his audience. At present, Imus does not seem to have a website of his own (though his fans have many). He was using a page within the WFAN website, and of course that went away when he got fired. Presumably, however, Imus could start podcasting if he wanted to. This supposedly censored artist has the common-carrier means to transmit his material to his fans without extraordinary difficulty. However, that would not give him access to the oligopoly which supports large advertising revenue.

The case of Opie and Anthony is rather different. It seems that they are paid employees of XM Satellite Radio, ie. that they have not bought out a block of time on a concession basis, infomercial fashion. However, Opie and Anthony also have the usual range of podcast downloads and internet mail-order vending available on their own website, which they are presumably at liberty to use as a fallback. They were able to locate advertisers who were interested in the distinctive qualities of their audience. When their show was suspended, they obtained protest cancellations from such advertisers as Nashville Coffee, a specialty mail order coffee merchant, and Adam & Eve, the mail-order sex toy vendor, bona fide small businesses. In short, the economics of satellite radio, with more than a hundred channels available, seem to be more akin to magazines sold on newsstands than to broadcasting per se.

The newsstand has largely ceased to exist. It used to be that one went to the newsstand to browse magazines, before deciding to subscribe to some. The newsstand was a kind of broadcasting in the sense that the magazine jobber exercised the same kinds of prerogatives as a television network. Now, of course, one browses on the internet. This is part of a broader trend. Broadcasting is breaking down in favor of common-carrier communications involving the creation of a private channel between two parties. Broadcasting was always a kind of "poor man's solution" from the point of view of everyone except the few oligopolists who benefited from it. Now, with abundant technological riches, broadcasting is no longer necessary.

It is a basic principle of advertising that, if possible, one is supposed to "advertise to the channel," that is, find an organization of people around an interest corresponding to whatever one is selling, such as an enthusiast magazine. For example, something like half of all advertising for computers and software is in magazines-- one can pick the computer magazine which corresponds to the precise degree of enthusiasm and expertise of one's optimum customer. If one can put a name to the prospective customer, the situation is even better. One can send him a catalog, with an order blank and a pre-addressed envelope, spending almost nothing. Since the advent of the internet, we now have keyword advertising. It is only when channel advertising breaks down that one needs to resort to broadcast advertising.

Broadcast advertising, which is much more expensive than print or internet advertising, is generally appropriate for articles of common consumption, things which nearly everyone uses. These are essentially boring goods, which means that the producer has to bombard an unwilling audience with commercials in order to get a few more sales. This is of course a very good thing for the broadcasting industry. Now, here's the crab: such articles are generally bought in volume by whoever shops for the household, instead of being bought individually. If something is boring enough that you are impervious to advertisements, then you don't want to spend much mental energy in buying it. One of the biggest advertisers, Proctor and Gamble, sells a range of prepared foods and household supplies which are bought incidentally to the purchase of fresh foodstuffs. The major grocery chains not only have house brands competing with P&G's wares, but they charge "slotting fees" as well, while competing with each other on the basis of fresh food. Daily or weekly shopping is basically an extension of cooking. One has only to visit a grocery store to observe that shopping is a preponderantly feminine activity. One can often see a woman pushing a grocery cart down the aisle, followed by a little girl pushing a miniature grocery cart made of brightly colored plastic (supplied by the store). Fathers do not take their sons grocery shopping-- they play baseball instead. It is perhaps predictable that the "shock jocks" might not go over very well with women.

There are cases of censorship, the activities of U. S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan in Pittsburgh (Western Pennsylvania) being perhaps the most blatant, but one need not use the term to describe the actions of advertisers who prefer not to be identified with a given performer.

The Hogarth Press

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogarth_Press

Technicalities of Radio

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM_Satellite_Radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Audio_Radio_Service
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_broadcast_satellite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_band
http://www.xmradio.com/
http://www.xmradio.com/xmp3/index.xmc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_Satellite_Radio

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2006/tc20060413_150389.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcast_band
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FM_broadcasting_in_the_USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM_radio
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_channel

Censorship

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more_sports/2007/04/08/2007-04-08_cbs_call_on_don_hinges_on_dollars_not_se.html

http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news?slug=ap-imus-protests&;prov=ap&type=lgns

http://chicagoparent.com/cs/blogs/parenting/archive/2007/04/11/so-what-are-you-gonna-do-about-imus.aspx

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/05/19/2041259.shtml
http://www.radioandrecords.com/RRWebSite/NewsStoryPage.aspx?ContentID=SD5U1fifX0M=&;Version=2


Keith Halderman - 5/18/2007

I do not think that it is plausible they wanted him gone, he was making them alot of money and his show had prestige as well as a cable slot. CBS was blackmailed into fireing him. A standrard is being formed that will enshrine the right not to be offended. Once this right exists how long do you think it will be before government begins to act in harmful and costly ways with the excuse it is protecting this right? Just look at Canada and Europe. How long will it be before critism of government is considered to be offensive. If I say that Social Security is a bad program will the people who work there not be offened?


Anthony Gregory - 5/17/2007

If someone says something prohibitively offensive on this blog, he is kicked off. Stephan Kinsella was kicked off for a while, and he wasn't even being that offensive. I don't think it's right, but it's not a libertarian issue.

The Janet Jackson flap was partly the state getting involved. The FCC had no right to fine them. But if the viewers don't want to watch that kind of thing, it's in their right to vote with their dollars.

I don't see Imus losing his job as the market failure you seem to. Why did he have a right to a job? How could anyone have a right to that job? I don't get it. Maybe they wanted to rid of him anyway, and that was a good PR excuse.


Keith Halderman - 5/17/2007

The market clearly is not handling this, if it was then Imus would still be on the air. His remark did not offend any of his listeners and the value of advertising on his program did not decrease by even one person. When Imus made that joke he was doing what his fans expected and what they liked about him. His advertisers left in the face of special interest group pressure which if allowed to continue will eventually end in repressive unlibertarian legislation. Just as that happened after Janet Jackson's Super Bowl appearence. If you like the freedom to express yourself represented by this Blog then wake up to what is going on around you. Today it is Opie and Anthony and Imus, tomorrow it will be you.


Keith Halderman - 5/17/2007

It is fear of govenment regulation prompted by these special interest groups that led a satellite radio company to suspend them. Also, Opie and Anthony did not make the comments in question a homeless man in the studio did and they were not revolting, in context they were very funny. News reports of the incident have been wildly inacurrate because the news media has an agenda, make radio as dull and boring as possible thereby eliminating competition. By the way thanks for throwing me and the millions of other people who enjoy Opie and Anthony's kind of humor under the bus. If someone does not like it they can tune to another station. If they are not on the air I can not listen to them at all. The next time an issue of gay rights comes up perhaps I will take the attitude that hey I am not gay so what do I care.


Anthony Gregory - 5/17/2007

Yes, really, what does this have to do at all with free speech and the First Amendment? Radio people are hired for what they say and fired for what they say. So what? Imus is going back on the air later this year. The market should handle this stuff.


Roderick T. Long - 5/17/2007

Freedom of speech doesn't imply or include the right to be given a forum. I am 100% against any use of governmental pressure against free speech -- and to the extent that these firings are motivated by fear of government action, that certainly concerns me. But that last connection aside, I see absolutely nothing wrong, and certainly nothing unlibertarian, about firing Opie and Anthony for their revolting comments.