orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (07/11/85)
The anonymous nrh, who seems to be embarrassed to sign his name to his articles, accuses *me* of distortion in the debate on providing for freedom of speech on private property. The irony is that it is the anonymous nrh who has distorted my arguments. For example, nrh anonymous states: > Since you present the idea that open speech in public parks is wrong as > Sykora's view ("In other words...."), it must stand exposed as a > straw-man. I *never* accused Sykora of opposing free speech in public parks. I merely pointed out that he opposes all public property such as parks in favor of private property. Since he also said he opposed the New Jersey court's decision that freedom of speech should be guaranteed in publicly used shopping malls even if they happen to be privately-owned I concluded that there would be no guaranteed free speech left once the Libertarian extremists attained their nightmare of eliminating all public property. This is the logical indirect result of Sykora's past statements. If Mr. Sykora wishes to retract these positions let him do so. Subtle readers will note the difference between direct opposition to freedom of speech in existing public parks (nrh's statement) and my argument that an indirect result of totally private property would be restrictions on free speech OR restrictions on free speech to those who own property. Now for nrh anonymous' next distortion, to wit: > >Instead one should allow public debate to be decided by the democracy of money? > > Straw man #2. The OUTCOME of the debate is not being dealt with here. It > is the ARENA of the debate. I've seen nothing of Mike's to the > effect that the debate should be DECIDED on the basis of money -- merely > that property owners have a right to tell people to leave on any basis > they choose. > I am not saying *anything* about the outcome of any debates. What I am talking about is the possibility of debate even taking place in the first place. Mobil Oil, Reynolds Tobacco, W.R. Grace and other corporations regularly present political positions in their advertising (and deduct such advertising as a "business expense" from their taxes). They have the money to do so. Environmental groups, peace groups, and others do not have such money. Therefore we do not see their views presented to debate corporate views. Environmental Action some years ago did a study which showed that the worst polluters also were those who had spent the most on advertising showing their "concern for the Environment". Obviously then environmental groups would challenge their advertising's claim of "concern for the environment". But environmental groups do not have the money for such advertising. Therefore all people know is the polluters advertising. Is the ability to present or debate the truth to be determined solely by the amount of money you have? *That* is my question. I am perfectly willing to allow the OUTCOME of debates to be determined by the people. But first all sides, including Libertarians, should be allowed to present their views IN a debate. I believe that TV and radio stations, in return for their access to part of the broadcast spectrum, have the obligation to present such debates and to allow groups to respond to their editorials if not their advertising. The FCC under Reagan's appointees have eliminated the Fairness Doctrine which guarantees groups the right to respond to editorials. Since the decision to accept even paid advertising is already in the hands of station managers, who have rejected paid advertising they considered too politically controversial or they didn't agree with in the past, this leaves absolutely no recourse for people to present alternative views without station owners and managers permission. I do *not* think this is free speech. tim sevener whuxl!orb
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (07/13/85)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 9:37 am Jul 11, 1985 */ >The anonymous nrh, who seems to be embarrassed to sign his name to >his articles, accuses *me* of distortion in the debate on providing >for freedom of speech on private property. I have seen Nat Howard (nrh) sign some of his postings. >This is the logical indirect result of Sykora's past statements. I don't agree. Perhaps we have different definitions of "freedom of speech." I stated mine in an earlier posting. What's yours? > >Instead one should allow public debate to be decided by the democracy of money? > > Straw man #2. The OUTCOME of the debate is not being dealt with here. It > is the ARENA of the debate. I've seen nothing of Mike's to the > effect that the debate should be DECIDED on the basis of money -- merely > that property owners have a right to tell people to leave on any basis > they choose. > >Mobil Oil, Reynolds Tobacco, W.R. Grace and other corporations >regularly present political positions in their advertising (and deduct >such advertising as a "business expense" from their taxes). Note, this is not a major issue for libertarians, as libertarians favor eliminating most or all taxes. >Is the ability to present or debate the truth to be determined solely >by the amount of money you have? *That* is my question. Environmental groups are free to publish books, etc. on the subject. People are not compelled to believe the advertisements of corporations. >I am perfectly willing to allow the OUTCOME of debates to be determined >by the people. But first all sides, including Libertarians, should be >allowed to present their views IN a debate. What happens if everyone has an opinion to present? Where do you draw the line? Do we give each citizen 5 minutes to present his/her viewpoint? Is this not absurdly impractical? >I believe that TV and radio stations, in return for their access to part >of the broadcast spectrum, have the obligation to present such debates >and to allow groups to respond to their editorials if not their advertising. Why did the stations agree to this in exchange for these groups providing such access? Did these groups provide such access? I thought access to the airwaves was provided by electronic equipment. >Since the decision to accept even paid advertising is already in the hands >of station managers, who have rejected paid advertising they considered >too politically controversial or they didn't agree with in the past, >this leaves absolutely no recourse for people to present alternative views >without station owners and managers permission. Which alternative viewpoints should be presented? Why? > tim sevener whuxl!orb Mike Sykora