From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Date: 7 Oct 92 15:21:37 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <1992Oct7.131302.4326@nntpd.lkg.dec.com> edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.054011.2337@Princeton.EDU>,
>egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
>
>> . . . (2) reflecting that the logic of the modal
>>net "libertarian" position on freedom of speech would PREVENT Sinead from
>>speaking.
>
>That's bullshit.  The libertarian position would absolutely NOT prevent
>Sinead from speaking.  Further, I would bet that most libertarians would
>not only not prevent Sinead and defend her right to speak, but would
>also support what she said.

Nothing prevents people from having incoherent views.  Since
libertarianism has been repeatedly been shown to be incoherent, indeed
logically self-contradictory, it is to be expected that libertarians and
their fellow-travelers will delude themselves into thinking they support
Sinead's act.

However, whenever a decision procedure is needed to settle conflicting
claims (such as the very real claim of NBC's stockholders versus
Sinead's equally real claim to free speech), libertarians can only come
up with economic decision procedures, based on private property.  This
means that they must respect NBC's repeatedly asserted claim to control
the content of Saturday Night Live, even if NBC decides on the basis of
the Sinead incident to pull the "live" aspect.

>
>That's more bullshit.  Libertarianism is not limited to strong property
>rights.  The limitations that libertarianism recognizes are that it is
>unethical to initiate force or fraud.  This is a strong defense of ALL
>rights -- people have a right to speak as long as they don't initiate
>force or fraud, people have a right to do what they want with their
>property as long as they don't initiate force or fraud, people have a
>right to do what they want with their bodies as long as they don't
>initiate force or fraud, et cetera.

The legal person NBC therefore has a right on this view to prevent
Sinead from ever appearing again on SNL.  They would do so as corporate
policy, which would involve neither the initiation of force nor the
initiation of fraud.  I am not, of course, arguing for NBC's rights; the
point I am making is that libertarianism does NOT ground Sinead's
rights, and that the prevelance of libertarianism among my ("baby boom")
generational cohort EXPLAINS why so few entertainers are as outspoken as
Sinead O'Connor, and why SNL has never seriously questioned political
realities in the USA (no, Dana Carvey's imitations of Bush don't count).

The (Nozickian) analysis of force and fraud is completely without merit
in our society, because the retention of property claims to real estate
involves the "initiation" of continued background force and fraud
directed against Native Americans, blacks, poor and women.

>
>Sinead did get to speak, didn't she?  Sinead did get to make a powerful
>message, didn't she?  Sinead did get to make a statement that might have
>been censored at another time, by our government or another, didn't she?
>So the fact that she did it using NBC's property does not seem to have
>harmed her, does it?

The incident was unrehearsed.  If Sinead had said to the director that
she was going to speak out, she would have been forced not to speak out,
perhaps by being disinvited from the show.  The fact that this one
person, who enjoyed a limited amount of access and used it to speak out,
had to transgress against a corporate policy in order to speak out only
points up the fact that the networks are using airwaves declared to be
public property to push an agenda that completely excludes messages such
as Sinead's.

>
>
>You obviously have a misunderstanding of Usenet.  While "public" access
>_can_ be purchased by buying access time on somebody's system, a person
>could also hook up their own equipment to the net and not have to pay
>for anything except their own equipment and communications connections. 
>(Of course, somebody has to pay for those, and I don't see why it
>shouldn't be the person who wants to use it.)  Further, there are plenty
>of "public access" sites that sell access time, many of which will
>defend their users' rights to speak, so free speech is in no danger
>here.  In fact, such a system with many points where a person can seek
>access is much better than a system where one government agency
>regulates what the rules are.

Such access (while valuable) is restricted to a very small class of
technical people.  I don't agree with Gordon Fitch's vision of
technology as empowering, say, the homeless.  I was without a car for a
week a while back and my HP 95 palmtop's keyboard quickly shorted out in
the sort of rain that is a homeless person's daily companion in many
areas; technology is highly material and contingent, it's NOT magic;
Apple Computer's ads, showing wilderness campers using PowerBooks, are
laughable to anyone who's been in the wilderness.

Whereas the homeless or otherwise disempowered technician might be able
to get some limited power by lashing up a network connection (out of the
rain), this phenomenon is completely irrevelant to the needs of MOST marginal
people.  
>
>Okay, let's not ignore Nader's argument.  Let's say the airways are
>public property.  What does this have to do with Sinead getting on the
>air?  In most markets, the airways are not full -- there are unallocated
>channels.  Therefore, if NBC had not wanted to air Sinead's speech,
>there are other frequencies available for use.  Sinead must have enough
>money to pay for a transmitter; she could have broadcast her speech if
>nobody else wanted to transmit it (e.g., ABC, CBS, Fox, syndication,
>individual stations, et cetera).  (Don't tell me the FCC wouldn't let
>her; remember that we are positing a libertarian society here; a
>libertarian government would allow her to broadcast if she wanted to. 
>Only if all frequencies were in use would any regulation be needed.)

You're missing the point completely, Eric.  My thesis all along was that
our society provides us with the formal, technical freedom of speech
that allows you to tell the above story of how Sinead could get a
transmitter; but that this formal freedom is in fact associated with a
radical diminishment in REAL speech and REAL dialogue.  Sinead's stunt
pointed up, by way of contrast, how little spontaneity exists in real
public discourse in our country.  Increasingly, more energy is devoted
to stage management than to serious critical thought and debate;
Democrats treat Jerry Brown and Tom Harkin as intrinsically marginal,
prior to debating their issues, and the same Democrats completely
exclude the governor of Pennsylvania from the convention because he's
anti-abortion (I'm pro-choice, but the point, again, is the priority
given stage management over issues.)

We have a formal freedom of speech.  It's in danger not so much from
extreme right-wing forces as it is from forces within the marketplace
that make people afraid to use it, and which give, in fact, moneyed
players of the "free speech game" orders of magnitude MORE free speech.
This, I think, is what the net.libertarians and EFF types miss.