Funferal

OK, I’ll bite

I’m very sympathetic towards the Olympic athletes who have been muzzled by the IOC. Notwithstanding the centrality of television revenues to modern games, I find the concept of ownership of information on results – and especially the stretching of that concept to include people’s narratives of their own experiences, which will not otherwise be told – to be distasteful and strange.
But.
But several of the denunciations of the IOC that I have seen have done so on the basis of what cel4145 at Kairos calls “our American principles embedded in the First Amendment.” The problem is that the First Amendment, well known and laudable though it is, is part of the constitution of the USA. The IOC is a global body, the games are taking place in another country.
A friend of mine has pointed out to me previously that the first amendment is often cited by (younger) people, even in Ireland – partly because it is mentioned so often in (imported) media that many people don’t realise it’s an American concept. The ‘First Amendment’ has many strengths, but it is one example of the enunciation of conceptions of free expression – it is not necessarily perfect, or everything, or the model everyone everywhere should bow to.
So complain about the poor understanding of what media is and can be. Question the dependence of the Olympics – one of the great global projects – on funding from the commercial media sector. But don’t claim it’s wrong because it breaches some aspect of US media law.