From: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
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 19:31:20 GMT
Article-I.D.: nntpd.1992Oct7.193120.16060
Reply-To: edp@math.zk3.dec.com (Eric Postpischil)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

In article <1992Oct7.152137.23818@Princeton.EDU>,
egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Edward G. Nilges) writes:

>Nothing prevents people from having incoherent views.  Since
>libertarianism has been repeatedly been shown to be incoherent, indeed
>logically self-contradictory,

That is arguing from a conclusin, without evidence to support it.

> . . . the
>point I am making is that libertarianism does NOT ground Sinead's
>rights, . . .

What do you mean by "ground"?  You mean you want to force NBC to
broadcast Sinead's message?  By what philosophy does it make sense to
force NBC to commit an act they do not wish to commit?

> . . . 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).

More bullshit.  The conservativism in the speech of television networks
is a consequence of the government controlling their licenses.  They
live in fear of losing their business if they do not obey.  Without that
forceful limitation upon them, they would speak much more freely.  A
libertarian government would recognize their freedom to speak, unlike
the present government.

>Such access (while valuable) is restricted to a very small class of
>technical people.

No, it is available to anybody who can pay for the equipment and
communications lines and either has the technical knowledge OR can get
somebody technical to help them set up the system.  There are probably
many college students who would be willing to help set up a non-profit
network site for little or no money.

>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.

Oh, oops, pardon me.  I didn't realize how completely irrelevant a
network connection is to MOST marginal people.  Of course, the ability
to speak as Sinead O'Connor did is ENTIRELY relevant to ALL those
people, yessiree.

>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.

If your thesis was about "our society", then it is irrelevant to
libertarianism.  Our society is NOT libertarian now, and so a thesis on
what is wrong with our society is NOT an indictment of libertarianism.


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