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: Re: Re: Democracy vs. Autocracy: "Libert"arian's freedom?
Message-ID: <672@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 08:45:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.672
Posted: Tue Jul  2 08:45:28 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 07:45:13 EDT
References: <8472@ucbvax.ARPA> <2380060@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 24

> 
> 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?
Instead one should allow public debate to be decided by the democracy of money?
 
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?
 
Do workers have the right to discuss unions at their place of work?
Or does "free speech" stop at the edge of private property?
 
                         tim sevener whuxl!orb