Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!agate!muffy
From: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu (Muffy Barkocy)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Cable Censorship
Message-ID: <MUFFY.91Jun26180609@remarque.berkeley.edu>
Date: 27 Jun 91 02:06:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: remarque.MUFFY.91Jun26180609
References: <2153@tamsun.TAMU.EDU> <1991Jun26.235525.2474@athena.cs.uga.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: Natural Language Incorporated
Lines: 32
In-Reply-To: mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu's message of 26 Jun 91 23: 55:25 GMT

In article <1991Jun26.235525.2474@athena.cs.uga.edu> mcovingt@athena.cs.uga.edu (Michael A. Covington) writes:
   So why is any cable company morally obligated to carry any programming 
   at all?

They are not "morally obligated," nor did the original poster say they
were.  He said that he wanted to do something about this.  He is
apparently a customer of theirs and they are changing his service in a
way he objects to, without consulting him or any of their other
customers.  Since cable companies often (always?) have a monopoly in
their area, he does not have the option of switching to another company.

   It would only be "censorship" if some outside authority imposed a
   restriction on them.

An outside authority *is* imposing a restriction.  The cable company is
restricting what the viewers can see (see my point about no alternate
providers).  Here's a definition of a censor from the office dictionary:

  1. n. a person empowered to suppress publications or excise any matter
  in them thought to be immoral, seditious or otherwise undesirable.

So, the company is acting in the role of a censor by eliminating things
on the basis of their own judgement that it is "undesirable" (and
probably "immoral").  Censoring is not done only by governments.

Now, certainly, the company can carry whatever channels they please.
However, it makes perfect sense for a customer to object to having the
service changed and want to try to get it changed back.  Why you brought
up the red herring of "moral obligation," I don't know.  It's simply
business.

Muffy