yeah, but by doing this they've done the exact opposite of what your claiming was their purpose.The_Fighting_69th wrote:
Bush has lost a lot of my support of this last term (mostly the border issue), but I can understand AT&T doing what it did. I have no problem with a company that wants to try and stay neutral in the eyes of the world. Look at what has happened to some companies, bands, towns etc. Whoever goes way left or way right. There is a backlash and people boycott them. Think Dixie Chicks.
Sure songs, art, etc can be "political", they have every right to be, but AT&T also has every right to control things that affect their image.
by censoring the song, they are no longer neutral. in fact, they've made their position quite clear.
by censoring the song, they also have affected their image. when the dixie chicks made their opinions known, was it the record label that bore the backlash? hardly. if i recall, all they (the label) did was disavow what the dixie chicks said as 'not representing their opinion', and that was that. with this, everyone now knows at&t are a bunch of pandering douche bags who will censor something so lame as a bastardization of a great song, for retarded political purposes.
edit: though as a private organization, they are perfectly within their right. still doesn't change it from what it is.