From: apr110@rsphy7.anu.edu.au (Anthony Roberts)
Subject: Reply to comments on the Free Speech Thread
Reply-To: apr110@rsphy7.anu.edu.au (Anthony Roberts)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 08:48:18 GMT

[My article deleted]

From: dyfl@mullian.ee.mu.OZ.AU (Daniel Y Lam)

>The Federal laws banning TV advertising was a prohibition by the
>state.  The ACP decision is a decision by one private company.  ACP
>can't stop others publishing what they want.

>ACP is a private corporation.  Barring explicit contractual
>obligations, they should be free to print or not to print whatever
>they want.   Do you think we should force Green Left Weekly to accept
>Liberal Party ads?

Mark Williams miw@cc.uq.edu.au writes:

>(1) it isn't censorship. Censorship is when you are not allowed to
>publish what you want. Not having to publish what you don't want to
>publish is called "freedom of the press".

>(2) I doubt very much that it is an ACP policy. I just suspect that a
>magazine devoted to Rugby League would have to have a death-wish to
>publish something that offended the organisation (i.e. the NSW Rugby
>League) who provide them with their bread and butter. They probably
>decided that it was better to be solvent than correct-line. Boooo.
>Hissss.... but understandable in these difficult times.

From: lawriew@runx.oz.au (Lawrie Waller)

>I find this diatribe very interesting-just one question of the writer!
>If the same publications refused to print tobacco ads -would you still
>have us all write to our politicians screaming for freedom of speech?
>Please dont hide behind the present fact that a law has been
>introduced banning such ads. If you do I'll have to ask you why you
>are not campaigning against such laws.
>I see in such messages above the worrying "new morality" which is a
>form of lopsided wowerism that seeks to ban or regulate any form of
>social interaction which is not politically correct. This is,and I am
>old enough to remember, the stuff on which the Third Reich was
>founded.

Damn, and I thought I was going to get away with making a simple point
about the influence of commercial interests on the information that we
receive through the media.

First I would say that the concept of `free press' is pretty wooly
anyway. I happen to support the principles behind the equalisation of
allowed media time to political parties as I beleive this in fact
enhances `free speech' (the smaller and poorer parties which dont have
rich sectional interests behind them get a fair say.) I have no
illusions about why the ALP introduced the bill, but even so I beleive
it had positive outcomes.

My point was the if the Liberals were a `Liberal' party, supporting
liberal values then they should take this up as our elected reps who are
paid to do such things.. it would be hypocritical of them not to in
fact. If the Packer press refused to run liberal party adds would they
be sitting quietly? I was strategically trying to develop allies on what
I consider to be an important issue.

And no I wouldnt give two hoots about a democratic government banning
tobacco adds, but I would care if such a government banned
advertisements run by, lets say, a migrant group, about the conditions
in their homeland or their maltreatment at the hands of Australian
officials. In the same vein (in response to the Lam critism of my post)
even a private corporation must subscribe to community standards: we all
agree that a private corporation should not lie or misrepresent
information for the benefit of its sponsers (even though Mark Williams
claims its OK for a paper to bias their material in favour of sponsers
to stay solvent). Even ACP must acknowledge
this as they did not claim that they had a right not to publish it, just
that they claimed it was offensive.
Note the _context_ in which information is being allowed or
hindered. Clearly we do not, and should not, allow the advertising of
magazines which contain child pornography. Nor should we allow a person
to exercise their freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theatre so
that people may be hurt. 

In response to the point that I am a lopsided wowser I have two things
to say. Clearly a company should not be able advertise or sell a product which
has been found to be poiseness in the way that it is used, eg. a
pesticide that is found to cause birth deformities in neighbours
children. Therefore there is a continuum of harm in products, the debate
should be about which side of the line cigarettes fall. Secondly
I have heard the view put that the wowsers were progresive
in the sense that many breadwinners of yore spent much of their income
on alcohol and a good proportion of the wowser movement was seeking to
improve the welfare of families.

Comparing my views with
those that led to the rise of Hitler is just plain offensive.

The final point raised in critisisms of my original post was that
publishers should be allowed to reject particular infromation without
this violating principles of `free speech' because other publishers
would take it up. In the perfect world with a
perfect information market this may be a fair point. However we are far from
a perfect market with 3 or 4 large publishing multinationals controlling
the flow of information to a large number of people. What if _none_ of
the publishers wish to publish? The case in point is a Rugby League
magazine which may be the only one with a certain demographic audience.
Once you dont have access to that group, which is the group so exposed
to the Winfield advertising, your ability to get your view across is
hindered.

Tony Roberts
Newsgroups: aus.politics