Of course, the first ammendment does specifically prevent laws from
being enacted that you seem to suppoort.  Your position seems to be
that free speech should be restricted in favor of supporting unpopular
views, that is, to have the government compel individuals /
corporations to print/publish/say things that they do not believe nor
support.  All in the interest of promoting a viewpoint that 'you'
think is fair.

In other words, government censorship in favor of corporate freedom.

--Joe

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 17:05:16 -0600, Philip Stortz
<madscientist.at.large@earthlink.net> wrote:
> in strictly legal terms, i agree with you.  however, i still think it's
> a bad thing.  there are fewer and fewer channels as mega corporations
> grab them up (particularly since the FCC changed their rules, which wer=
e
> made specifically so that no one company had too much control over the
> media in a given area or the country).  however, i think it's a bad
> thing for a democracy/representitive country.  voices are being
> squelched, and that hurts every one, even those who disagree.  it's goo=
d
> to know what the other views are and why people hold those views, and
> just to know that they do exist and that not every one is onboard with
> whatever view the owners like.
>=20
> the case where they can't run enough ads is not the point, obviously
> they can only run so many ads, but that doesn't mean they have to turn
> away paying customers when they have the ad space or that they should
> insist on only selling it to some people while freezing others out.
>=20
> most people don't read multiple news papers, most people really don't
> have the time even if they wanted to.  for many people, tv and radio is
> their window on the world, when that window is consistently tinted
> perception becomes tinted as well even in people who might agree with
> the unpopular view if only they were made aware of the arguments.
>=20
> yes, it's perfectly legal, and a fine case where what is legal is not
> necessarily right or fair, and fairness and rightness are the whole
> point when citizens are to have power over government and industry
> rather than it being only the other way around.
>=20
> Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> >
> > Jay replied already, and as far as the general issue is concerned, I =
agree
> > with him completely. Follow some additional comments.
> >
> > > having said that, i still agree that google should be allowed to sa=
y what
> > > they want, but advertising is NOT them saying something, it is them
> > > allowing someone to buy access to others to say what they want.  by=
 not
> > > letting people of some views have that same access, they are impedi=
ng
> > > free speech in an unreasonable way.
> ---------
>=20
>=20
>=20
> --
> Philip Stortz--"In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I
> didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
> Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a
> Jew.
> Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I
> wasn't a trade unionist.
> Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a
> Protestant.
> Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
> -- Martin Niem=F6ller, 1892-1984 (German Lutheran Pastor), on the Nazi
> Holocaust, Congressional Record 14th October 1968 p31636.
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.piclist.com
> View/change your membership options at
> http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
>

_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist