From: miw@cc.uq.oz.au (Mark I. Williams)
Subject: Re: Reply to comments on the Free Speech Thread
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 00:39:20 GMT

apr110@rsphy7.anu.edu.au (Anthony Roberts) writes:

>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.

Why should you get away with it? The point was certainly simple, but it
was also fundamentally unsound.

>First I would say that the concept of `free press' is pretty wooly
>anyway. 

I don't find it woolly at all. If you are prepared to go to the effort
of funding and preparing a message that isn't malicious and untrue (i.e.
you are allowed to be wrongheaded, but you aren't allowed to do
deliberate harm), then you are allowed to publish it. The details of
what constitutes malice and what constitutes simple wrongheadedness are
difficult, but the concept is incredibly simple. 


> 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.) 

The government has ways of causing this to happen, without restricting
the press. In fact, the government owns the largest media business in
the country - the ABC and SBS. It can and *has* in the past legislated
that they carry political advertisements. 

>If the Packer press refused to run liberal party adds would they
>be sitting quietly? 

I imagine they would be very pissed off, but they would have to accept
it, or be traitor to their own principles.

>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. 

So, in other words, you are all for the banning of messages that you
find repugnant, but believe that people whom you agree with should have
free access to the media. This is probably why I don't agree with you.

>agree that a private corporation should not lie or misrepresent
>information for the benefit of its sponsers 

Oh yes - there is probably some consensus that this is unethical.
However, what we are talking about isn't ethics, it is the law. I happen
to be of the opinion that it is *not* desirable to try to enshrine every
point of ethics in law. Systems of ethics differ incredibly, and sofar
not even the philosophers can agree whether *any one* of them has
validity, let alone which one is best. So, lying is unethical, but
except in certain circumscribed circumstances, it is a fairly
fundamental right.

>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.

ACP didn't claim they had a right not to publish it, because they quie
evidently *do* have a right not to publish it. That goes without saying.
What their statement amounted to was a fairly lame excuse as to why they
took the decision not to publish it. If you don't believe the statement,
then write to them. Don't buy the paper. Walk up and down outside their
office with a placard. Fart in their general direction. Distribute
"Friendless reads League Week." stickers. Just don't expect the
government to try to reflect your, or anyone's prejudices.

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

But probably contain more than a grain of truth.

cheers,


--
Mark Williams         The University of Queensland       miw@cc.uq.edu.au
+61 7 36 54012   (w)  Prentice Centre
+61 7 36 54477  (fax) Qld 4072  Australia
Nullum magnum ingenium sine mixtura dementiae fuit.  -- Seneca