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