- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Where a cable company does not hold a monopoly, there should be no state interference.
So, where two cable companies exist in a market, and both refuse lawful political speech, that's OK? How about when three companies own every media outlet in a given market--print, cable, broadcast--everything. It's OK for them to collectively refuse to carry lawful political speech, and the public can be muzzled with impunity?
When private companies block lawful public political speech--interfering with local, state, or national political discourse(which forms the bedrock or our democratic government), that is fine. But when the public insists on its right of political speech, that is "interference".
As you condescendingly said in your comment--how romantic.
