The Mirrorball Man wrote:
Not sure what point you are trying to make? I am sure you are aware that the USA has a constitution that makes such a provision, but it cannot force a private TV company to broadcast material they don't want to, and nor should it.
Yeah, sorry, I don't want to derail the thread. Just wanted to point quickly out that the US constitution doesn't actually guarantee freedom of speech, it just prevent the government from putting limits to it. In a world where corporations are the gatekeepers to the media, that provision is meaningless and private ownership effectively trumps the first amendment. In such a system, where actual freedom of speech is not guaranteed, corporate censorship can and does happen and there is nothing one can do to prevent that from happening.
Of course, I realize that this may not be the right place to talk about that kind of thing, so feel free to ignore what I've just said.
The owner of the press gets to decide what he prints, broadcasts, or says. He isn't obligated to print, say, or broadcast what someone else has to say. The person with the objectionable material isn't being censored by the denial or conditions of the owner of the press. He is free to buy his own press or other means to convey his message. With the Internet, and other means of technology today, that's pretty easy.