Re: Cato forum on liquor advertising and electronic media

[dlv@bwalk.dm.com (Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM)]

Tim May <tcmay@got.net> writes:
> Obviously we libertarians fully agree with this. No advertising should ever
> be banned....to ban or restict any advertising, no matter how worthless or
> despicable the product, is clearly a violation of basic constitutional
> protections of free speech.

Isn't it ironic when people who support Cocksucker John Gilmore and C2Net
call themselves "we libertarians"?
> 
> (Note that the orginal grounds for restricting cigarette advertising on
> television and radio were on shaky grounds that the airwaves were a kind of
> monopoly have now been augmented by laws restricing advertising "too close"
> to schools and other places and other such restrictions. Including crap
> about requiring warnings about cigarettes and alcohol, even in
> non-broadcast advertisements! By this precedent, can it be long before
> political writings are required to carry extensive warnings? The First
> Amendment has become a joke.)

Cigarette advertizing is what created TV in the U.S.

---

<a href="mailto:dlv@bwalk.dm.com">Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM</a>
Brighton Beach Boardwalk BBS, Forest Hills, N.Y.: +1-718-261-2013, 14.4Kbps