From: cmort@NCoast.ORG (Christopher Morton)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Reply-To: cmort@ncoast.org (Christopher Morton)
Organization: North Coast Public Access *NIX, Cleveland, OH
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:40:46 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal

As quoted from <1992Oct7.152137.23818@Princeton.EDU> by egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges):

> 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.

Ah, I see:

"I made an incorrect statement, misrepresenting somebody's views... therefore
they are incoherent."

> >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

Absolutely.  And she can get her own show.  Of course in some localities, she
would be required to be allowed to speak on local television.

> 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).

You're so right.  Don't you just hate those Reagan mouthpieces like George
Carlin, Mort Sahl, Whoopi Goldberg, Little Steven Van Zant, Queen Latifah and
Billy Bragg....

> 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.

Ah, yes, the language of Stalinism: "formal freedom of speech".  Is that like
a "fetish for formal democracy"...?


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------  

"Well whose opinions did you THINK these were...?" 
------------------------------------------------------------------  
Newsgroups: misc.legal