Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.censorship,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 8 Oct 92 20:47:37 EST
Followup-To: alt.fan.ed-nilges
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.
Summary: Ed simultaneously achieves the height of hypocrisy and untruth

In article <1992Oct7.054011.2337@Princeton.EDU>, egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:
> As I get ready to leave Princeton and cease posting from this location,
> I won't refrain from (1) saying hip hip hurrah for Sinead's performance
> on Saturday Night Live, 

	But Ed, it was hate speech, the kind you want to ban.  She was
obviously taunting Catholics!

> and (2) reflecting that the logic of the modal
> net "libertarian" position on freedom of speech would PREVENT Sinead from
> speaking.  

	Liar.

> For the "libertarian" systematically winds up with a strong
> view of property rights (including rights acquired by force and fraud)

	Liar.

> such that the "right" of freedom of speech disappears, to be replaced by
> the PRIVILEGE, always exercised on what turns out to be some man's
> property.

	Liar.

> Net.libertarians, that is, feel themselves magnaminous when on the one
> hand they extend the "right" of free speech to views they oppose, and on
> the other maintain that, well, USENET is private property and you must
> purchase public access.  

	Liar.

> This makes the "right" a privilege, which is
> always under a form of veiled threat: take away Viktora's right to
> assault black people, we'll  pull Doonesbury, your uucp feed, "and your
> little dawg, too! (crazed laughter.)"

	Liar.

> And, of course, Sinead made her protest on air time which most
> libertarians will argue was (surprise) private property, to be disposed
> of by NBC and not by Sinead.  This argument will ignore Ralph Nader's
> argument that the airways were originally public property, for
> libertarianism always winds up assenting to the claims of the Randian
> superior man, which implicitly authorizes at least some forms of force
> and fraud.  

	Liar.

> The libertarian must perforce support the claims of the
> network execs to control what's said on Saturday Night Live, claims that
> were asserted a long time ago and which directed SNL humor a long time
> ago against foolish, weak, and powerless "marks" such as "the wild and
> crazy guys", and away from powerful targets that would hit back.

	Here you're just being silly.

> Sinead went against this tradition.  Because of the infantile Baby
> Boomer view that Freedom is nice and good and Power is evil and bad,
> many idiots in my generational cohort will say, Sinead oppressed
> Catholics by insulting Popey Jopey.  This neatly ignores the vast
> disproportion between the power of the Vatican and the numerous
> governments allied with the Vatican, and that of Sinead O'Connor.  I'm

	Hypocrite.

> sure the rock establishment would rather have her wasting her time in
> "we are the world" concerts that have never made much of a difference to
> the starving masses of the Third World, rather than doing what she did,
> which was to speak out against a clerical establishment that, along with
> the Brits and potato blight, is one of the awful disasters to befall Ireland.

	True enough (finally!)

> I say, good for Sinead, and I quote Frank Harte, singing about the
>...
	And we trust you would feel the same way if she burned a cross?
 
>      THE HELL WITH KING BILLY AND OUT WITH THE POPE.  GO SINEAD.

	Good riddance to the both of you.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: misc.legal