From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Subject: Re: Sinead O'Connor's freedom of speech
Keywords: Those croppies who will not lie down
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:13:02 GMT

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.

> For the "libertarian" systematically winds up with a strong
>view of property rights (including rights acquired by force and fraud)
>such that the "right" of freedom of speech disappears, . . .

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.

> . . . to be replaced by
>the PRIVILEGE, always exercised on what turns out to be some man's
>property.

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?

>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.

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.

>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, . . .

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.)


                                -- edp (Eric Postpischil)
                                "Always mount a scratch monkey."
                                edp@alien.enet.dec.com
Newsgroups: misc.legal