[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Does John Gilmore...
On Mon, 18 Nov 1996, Dave Hayes wrote:
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 13:30:51 -0800
> From: Dave Hayes <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: Does John Gilmore...
>
> Black Unicorn writes:
> > Dave Hayes writesL:
> > > [For those who's assumptions rule their perception: I am *not* arguing
> > > that all speech should be subsidized. I am merely pointing out that
> > > the organization that is spending the money to broadcast is
> > > controlling the speech, hence it is *not* free speech in terms of
> > > freedom or cost.]
> > Again, you confuse free speech with free broadcast.
>
> Isn't broadcast a subset of speech, especially in this culture?
That which is broadcast is certainly speech.
Trying to draw some kind of "right to be broadcast" as a result is
stupidity or ignorance, or both.
Anyone has the right to, e.g., start a mailing list, or a newsletter.
No one has the right to compell ABC or FOX or John Gilmore or anyone
else to broadcast their speech. (The rarest exceptions, like equal time
rules, exist in election contexts).
Learn the difference. Go to law school before you argue free speech
concepts in any detail. Most importantly, spend more time thinking, less
talking or typing.
> ------
> Dave Hayes - Altadena CA, USA - [email protected]
> Freedom Knight of Usenet - http://www.jetcafe.org/~dave/usenet
>
> The penalty for laughing in a courtroom is six months in jail; if it were
> not for this penalty, the jury would never hear the evidence.
--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist Switzerland