Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Who's distorting who?: re to the anonymous nrh
Message-ID: <684@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 11-Jul-85 09:37:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.684
Posted: Thu Jul 11 09:37:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 13-Jul-85 07:47:30 EDT
References: <672@whuxl.UUCP> <28200026@inmet.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 66

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