Research Projects

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

OPINION!

Radio World is a fine publication, and one that I read every week. This week, for the first time, I felt compelled to write to the editor. The opinion piece [link] that set me off is by Craig L. Parshall and it regards the John Milton Project, (not to be confused with the poetry performance of the same name).
    
His thesis is that religious content has some kind of innate right to be on all media platforms even when espousing deeply offensive or hateful language. This struck me as so appallingly entitled, that I had to respond. Knowing the topic, and the hypersensitive persecution complex of the group in question, I expect it will not be printed. But since I have a blog, I don't have to wait. The following is the complete text of my letter:


The right to free speech is a right to speak, not a right to be heard on every media platform you want. If a religious group's doctrine is so radical that a media platform feels uncomfortable you should look at the content. Are they propagating sexism, homophobia, or racism? In those cases it's acceptable for them to decline to carry your content.  Dismissing this as censorship is arrogant and entitled.

Being stymied by Apple, Facebook et al. is frustrating no doubt. But it's the same response you might get from a print publication, or from a broadcaster when you bring them questionable content. This is not overt censorship. They are not obligated to taint their brand and/or their product with your hate-speech. If you want a media platform that is wide open to troglodyte opinions; build your own, the internet is a big place. There's plenty of room.

Jose Fritz
Arcane Radio Trivia
http://tenwatts.blogspot.com/

7 comments:

  1. Jose - I read article in radio world and couldn't make heads or tails out of it. It seems he is upset because a company (not the government) removed a few apps from it's own web store. I wouldn't call that censorship, I would call that market forces. Apple likely received complaints and decided it was not worth damaging their business to cater to a small niche at the risk of offending the greater public. The article seems like a bit of self-aggrandizing and I wonder at Radio World's publishing it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Paul, I totally agree. I was surprised to see it in print.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Found your blog because I was researching some amateur radio trivia, and decided to browse a bit. Haven't found the info I was looking for yet, but I'm not giving up. In the meantime, I'll sign on as a follower and see what kind of interesting tidbits I can pick up here in the future. (AF4FO)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Stumbled across your blog while researching amateur radio trivia, and ended up browsing through your site. Nice to meetcha. Count me in as your newest follower. (AF4FO)

    ReplyDelete
  5. what info were you looking for? If I don't know one of my readers probably does.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry for making TWO kinda-the-same comments. Was having a little trouble with Blogger. (Go figure.)

    Anyway, here's what I was looking for: I vaguely remember reading about some member of royalty (possibly Austrian?) who was so intently operating in an amateur radio contest, he was completely oblivious to war being waged right outside his residence. (WWI? WWII? Can't quite recall ...)

    Ring any bells? I asked my hubby, who gave me a blank look, and said, "No. Sounds like YOU."

    (Not much help ...)

    Thanks. I appreciate any input you or your readers may have.

    susan-swiderski.blogspot.com
    af4fo@arrl.org

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think I have heard that story but I remember him being Hungarian... Perhaps a reader can cite us a reference

    ReplyDelete