OpenBSD loses DARPA funding - for "anti-war comments"

[Stelliform]

.....

 

[Stelliform]

.....

 

[herr_neumann]

Bottom line, according to Ari Fleischer, at today's press conference. our President sees things in "black and white" and "right and wrong." This is the same way every little kid I know sees things. So our government is run by a child and we should not be suprised when it acts like one.

"You struck me out, so I am taking my ball and going home..."

That more or less is the reaction here.

 

[Groovsonic]

Originally posted by charboneau
That's not quite an accurate description of what happened. ClearChannel which owns 1200 radio stations and controls a large percentage of billboard advertising and concert events also has close ties to the Bush administration. A corporation with near monopoly powers stopped playing the Dixie Chicks and organized anti-Dixie Chicks events. It's a rather chilling, though essentially legal as far as I know, use of corporate power to punish artists whose politics differ from the ClearChannel agenda.

Of course, FCC ownership regulations which encourage local ownership would be nice. ClearChannel wants to get into TV.

I think you are wrong. If this was true, why would Sheryl Crow, Madonna, and other artists that have spoken out against the war continue to get airplay?

I am not a big fan of clear channel and their way of playing the same 15 songs all the time, but this has obviously been a sucessful business model. They have become a "near-monopoly" through sucessful business practices. I agree their should be (and is) competition in radio.

And yes, it is legal for a company to stop supporting someone they disagree with. They are under NO obligation to play the dixie chicks. The dixie chicks offended a part of their audience, and clear channel responded.

 

[pseudobrit]

Here's something to chew on: if a project manager for a public arts programme said something pro-war and the NEA cut off funding to him, you'd call them unpatriotic and anti-free speech, wouldn't you?

 

[wsteineker]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Here's something to chew on: if a project manager for a public arts programme said something pro-war and the NEA cut off funding to him, you'd call them unpatriotic and anti-free speech, wouldn't you?

Bingo.

 

[hmmfe]

Originally posted by pseudobrit
Here's something to chew on: if a project manager for a public arts programme said something pro-war and the NEA cut off funding to him, you'd call them unpatriotic and anti-free speech, wouldn't you?

Actually, no. In any event, it is an irrelevant point. Suppose someone did think that, the best you could prove is that they were logically inconsistent. The soundness of the argument is untouched either way.

 

[Stelliform]

.....