NEWS: Television Networks get in on the Banning Frenzy

so the goverment is the only authority that can censor? whether its the goverment enacting policies or corporations strong arming the network, its still censorship and an infringment of our right to freedom of speech. I recognize the fact that networks have allowed put themselves in this position long ago by allowing advertisers to dictate what shows can remain on to display their drivel during commercial breaks. If the network execs grew some backbone and came to realize that it doesnt have to be a symbiotic relationship between them and advertisers, that advertisers need them more than they need advertisers, it would completelly change the game for them. someone will always be willing to pay to have their ad shown, that means the networks will always have some money coming in, but if the networks say no to a company who is trying to bullshit them, then its the advertisers who are hurting because they no longer have a place to show their trunk monkeys, beer drinking refs, and orgasmic shampoos.

[Edited on Jan 13, 2005 6:25PM]

I'm confused about how this is a 'free speech' issue as well. The company running the ads did not like them and pulled them. And that didn't even actually happen. But even if it did, the only thing that would make a free speech issue out of it is if networks were legally required to show every ad someone asks them to.

No Miller Lite was pulled [or banned however you want to look at it] from the air, and some of the Bud were rejected and others pulled [or banned again].

The quote for the offered comment on why was in the article. I even posted it in the story. Did you read the article or story?

Again it depicted an actor committing criminal activity that's dangerous. Hence the rest of the absurdity, because of their television shows.

PLUS ABC isn't Cable television [to whoever said it was].

It isn't run by the government and this still isn't a first amendment issue. It's a story about a network trying to stay out of the middle of a fight between two Brewing companies. That their justifications are silly is nothing new, and nothing important.

Just because it isn't run by the government doesn't take away from the fact that they're rejecting and pulling ads from the air for no decent reason. It's just like how they refuse to run anti-consumerism ads. Censorship is still censorship no matter how big or small it is. And if they didn't want to get involved they wouldn't have ran Miller's ads challenging Bud's in the first place and they wouldn't be running tamer ads that are still supporting the fueds. It's not about them trying to get out of a fight. It's about them being paranoid and censoring themselves.