[sixties-l] Free speech issues

From: monkerud (monkerud@scruznet.com)
Date: Sun Mar 11 2001 - 13:36:07 EST

  • Next message: radman: "[sixties-l] Panther Sprung (Angola 3)"

    Because as a practical matter destroying newspapers so others won't read
    them and thus become "contaminated" by ideas, doesn't work, putting
    pressure on a newspaper not to run reactionary ads is done all the time in
    the US.

    While I agree with Michael that confiscating and burning newspapers reminds
    the public of the Nazis, I disagree that protesting racist and/or
    reactionary ads in college newspapers is a "right."

    Reactionary papers refuse ads and article from progressive forces all the
    time. This is not to say that it's morally right because they do it, but to
    say this is the way business is conducted.

    Protesting against the acceptance of such ads, boycotting the papers, etc.
    is a form of free speech that I support. But there may be legal issues ...
    does anyone have any knowledge of this? I don't believe the UC/B paper is
    run by the university? If it's run as a business, then it's fair game.

    This is politics, and basing politics on morality gets to be a touchy
    issue. I know people around here want to let the opposition into our
    meetings because they want to be seen as open and democratic, a moral
    stance, but the developers we fight don't let us into their meetings. Let's
    not make our job harder by creating moral pretzels.

    best, Don Monkerud

    At 9:39 PM -0500 3/9/01, Sorrento95@aol.com wrote:
    >The CIA is a government agency. The Bill
    >of Rights was not written to protect the
    >government. It was written to enumerate
    >rights for the people. As I understand our
    >constitutional philosophy, governments have
    >powers, but not rights. Only individuals
    >have rights. For this reason, an argument
    >about abrogating the CIA's "rights" by not
    >allowing it to run an ad makes no sense.
    >For this reason, the slogan of "states' rights"
    >is also nonsensical.
    >Horowitz, on the other hand, is an individual,
    >and has rights, even though leftists don't like
    >him. Since college newspapers enjoy support
    >from taxpayers' money, he has as much right
    >to run an ad there as anyone else, and those
    >who confiscate and burn newspapers which publish
    >opinions they disagree with are no better than
    >Nazis, even if they do call themselves "progressives."
    > ~ Michael Wright
    > Norman, Oklahoma

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Mar 12 2001 - 17:11:00 EST