At 10:09 AM 1/31/99 +0000, you wrote:
>>And, lest we forget, the right to free speech only guarantees that the
>>government won't pass laws or take actions to directly inhibit your ability
>>to express an opinion. That means the government won't interfere with you
>>right to say what you want, but it doesn't mean others can't decide to
>>limit what things they wish to hear/read. At least in this country.
>
>I think you'll find that the right to free speech has a lot of nuances.
>Much of it is to do with the ability of unpopular speech to be allowed a
>platform. Much of it has to do with the ability or not of the powerful or
>controllers to stop others saying things.
>It of course doesn't have anything to do with forcing others to listen -
>but that is a red herring and not the point here.
>Ivan
I think you are close here... but we have to remember that "unpopular" is
not an objective standard but a subjective standard to you. So what might
be unpopular to one person could be perfectly fine to tens of millions of
others.
As far as forcing others to listen, that should be defined. If I speak and
you can hear, I didn't force you to listen. If I send you a piece of junk
mail (by regular mail) I didn't force you to listen. But if I back you
into a corner & speak in your face so you can't move away - then I am
forcing you to listen. that is why the courts allow anyone to speak any
message they want on the street but not, for example, in an airport
terminal or subway - because the audience is captive and can't walk away.
But remember, the burden is on the listener to walk away, ignore, throw
away or hit delete, not on the speaker to not speak.
