In a message dated Thu, 15 Mar 2001 1:14:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, monkerud <monkerud@scruznet.com> writes:
<< Let's keep the perspective ... as in who paid for this ad? It was not
Horowitz but his backers... the Nazis ran ads in newspapers I'm sure. I'm
sure the liberals jumped to the tune of free speech at the time....
The Nazis were doing more than running ads in
newspapers. Under the leadership of Storm
Trooper boss Ernst Roehm, they organized gangs
of thugs to attack and silence their opponents
in the street.
Since in a recent post I "came down on the
side of free speech," for such people as the
the dreaded Horowitz, there is a need for
clarification.
My general principle was that all viewpoints
ought to have equal access to taxpayer supported
venues. Does anyone disagree with that? Am
I "jumping" to high to the tune of free speech
by embracing this principle?
I assumed that the University of California
student newspaper enjoys some taxpayer support.
On the other hand, if the paper is completely
independent of public funds and does not enjoy
use of public buildings, then they have the
right to decline advertising from whomever they
please.
~ Michael Wright
Norman, Oklahoma
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Mar 17 2001 - 17:20:30 EST