nrh@inmet.UUCP (07/06/85)
Where does Sevener get all the straw? >/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb / 8:45 am Jul 2, 1985 ****/ >> >> Actually, I never said this. . . . but since you brought it up, my position >> is that "Freedom of Speech" means that the government has no right to stop >> you from saying anything so long as you are not violating anyone else's rights. >> You have the right to say what you want, but it is ludicrous to suppose that I >> have to supply you with the media. >> >> Mike Sykora > >In other words, you can have a soapbox to debate political issues in >the narrow space of your own home but to provide public parks to allow >anyone to speak or to provide access to TV and radio for all public views >is wrong? Wrong, kiddo. Nothing stops a libertarian in a libertarian society from donating such places. In particular, if you owned suitable land, and believed in open political debate (as I do) you might well set up a blind trust to administer the land, or give it to the city administration on the condition that all such speech must be tolerated there. 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. >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. >Is public debate and the right to circulate opinions and views served >when two candidates from major parties for Senator of California are >not placed on Los Angeles TV stations to debate because the TV stations >could make more money with commercial programming? Not at all. But so far as I know, nobody on the net has speculated that TV would drop coverage of political stuff entirely -- you seem to neglect C-SPAN, a network that seems to do nothing but watch politicians. >Do workers have the right to discuss unions at their place of work? Sure! Does the employer have the right to fire them for any idiotic reason whatever? Sure! Do the employees and the employer have the right to agree to limitations on these rights with respect to one another? Also yes. >Or does "free speech" stop at the edge of private property? It is not your speech I've a right to stop, but your presence. Step off my land, and do I have a right to move you further? No. (Oh, there are possibilities, such as you setting up a 2000-watt loudspeaker at the edge of my land and broadcasting your free speech at odd hours of the night, but basically....) > > tim sevener whuxl!orb >/* ---------- */ >