----- Original Message ----- From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 12:32 PM Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court
> on 11/12/02 5:43 pm, Dan Minette at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "William T Goodall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "BRIN-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 10:41 AM > > Subject: Re: Internet Free Speech struck down by Australian court > > > > > >> on 11/12/02 12:54 pm, The Fool at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>>> Has there ever been free speech in publishing? > >> > >> No. > > > > Why doesn't the Pentagon Paper ruling count as free speech for publishing? > > That would be an instance of free speech. I took the rhetorical question to > mean 'there never been free speech in publishing generally', to which > specific instances of free speech are not a counterexample. OK, I guess you are technically correct. There is no free speech in publishing; just freedom of the press as given in the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. What was the reason for making this distinction? I'm still not clear why the slightly sloppy reference to freedom of the press as freedom of speech in publishing needs to be corrected in quite that manner. Why not say "technically that's freedom of the press" and leave it at that? Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
