claiming georgia tate-- a further discussion with author gigi amateau

in response to my CGT post, author gigi amateau has sent more thoughts she'd like to share about censorship and the media. she rightly questioned my statement about borders pulling the book... my research was limited to only a few stores in nyc/nj and some online reading about "racy" teen novels and some negative comments on amazon. perhaps they chose not to carry the book but have it available online which is what my research indicated. my apologies if i was not completely accurate... see the book's awards here. i've posted gigi's comments in full to keep the dialogue going strong... it just kills me that all reporting on this beautiful story targets and blames the victim... who is a child abused by her father.

"I really don’t know if Borders or any other bookstore has pulled Claiming Georgia Tate because of media’s misrepresentation of the story or for any other reason. I do believe the negativity that spun around my book caused booksellers and readers to be more cautious about it. Understanding any bookseller’s decision to carry or return any title is difficult and probably ultimately comes down to whether they think that title will sell or not. On the flip side, Books A Million (BAM), a chain that is very strong in the south, has been so loyal to this book because they immediately understood the positive and spiritual aspects of the story. Even when the book was getting hit kind of hard BAM hung in there with it and I am so thankful for that because I know it’s tough for big chains to take risks on titles like this one from new authors. That said the independent booksellers have really helped my book by hand selling it and giving it a home. In fact, in 2006 it was nominated for the Southern Independent Booksellers Alliance Children’s Fiction Award.

During the height of all of this nonsense, I had a speaking engagement scheduled with a group of adult women. A day or two before I was scheduled to speak a representative from the group called me and requested that I not bring a bookseller with me as planned, not mention the rape that occurred in the book, and not read any section from the book that might contain strong language. I declined the new terms and cancelled the event but, the bookstore had ordered quite a few extra copies based on the expected turnout. I bought the books myself because the bookstore and I were in partnership together and it was important to me that the store not suffer financially because my book and I were censored.

For me it’s not about Borders or Barnes and Noble or BAM or anybody else, but geez what are we all so afraid of that we make it this hard to find one little ole book? And what are the other books out there that can’t even get into print or possibly get written because the environment today is so very tightly controlled? The Subversive Garden is such a critical voice in this conversation. Thank you for doing what you do."

AT&T Censors Pearl Jam Concert

According to Pearl Jam AT&T censored a show at Lollapalooza. Pearl Jam was informed by their fans that portions of that performance were missing and may have been censored by AT&T during the "Blue Room" Live Lollapalooza Webcast.

When asked about the missing performance, AT&T informed Lollapalooza that portions of the show were in fact missing from the webcast, and that their content monitor had made a mistake in cutting them. Pearl Jam is an intelligent band and has always been on the cutting edge of both music and what record executives and the record business in general has been trying to do to music, censor it, mainstream it or stream line it for big dollars, taking out artistic integrity at all costs.

During the performance of "Daughter" the following lyrics were sung to the tune of Pink Floyd's "Another Brick in the Wall" but were cut from the webcast:-

"George Bush, leave this world alone." (the second time it was sung); and- "George Bush find yourself another home."

This is Pearl Jam's response:

This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T's actions strike at the heart of the public's concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Aspects of censorship, consolidation, and preferential treatment of the internet are now being debated under the umbrella of "NetNeutrality." Check out The Future of Music or Save the Internet for more information on this issue.

Most telecommunications companies oppose "net neutrality" and argue that the public can trust them not to censor.

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown.

"Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider." (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance -not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations - fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it's about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.

I could not have said it any better myself.