Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Who's distorting who?: re to the anonymous nrh
Message-ID: <2380098@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 12-Jul-85 19:41:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.2380098
Posted: Fri Jul 12 19:41:00 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Jul-85 21:14:03 EDT
References: <684@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 62

>/* 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