| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"caesarjbsquitti" |
| Date: |
10 Apr 2005 04:15:01 PM |
| Object: |
Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
Freedom of the press; The negative side ?
Most of us have been falsely taught that 'freedom of the press' is
always a good thing; well thats wrong.
Everything, but nothing can have a negative side to it. The freedom of
the press to print or not to print, is their freedom, not your's and
not the freedom of truth to be printed.
So think this one over again...the media can become a powerful tool of
progaganda...
Caesar J. B. Squitti
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
15 Apr 2005 02:19:21 PM |
|
|
caesarjbsquitti wrote:
Freedom of the press; The negative side ?
Most of us have been falsely taught that 'freedom of the press' is
always a good thing; well thats wrong.
Everything, but nothing can have a negative side to it. The freedom of
the press to print or not to print, is their freedom, not your's and
not the freedom of truth to be printed.
So think this one over again...the media can become a powerful tool of
progaganda...
Caesar J. B. Squitti
The underlying problem is neither freedom of the press nor free speech.
In an pre-Industrial era in which a sheet of paper and a nail to
post it were within the means of most ordinary citizens, free press
meant an awful lot.
In today's era, in which most people are inundated by news relying on
infrastructure of prohibitively expensive tv/radio time, satelite
technology, media monopolies, etc. free press still has no "negative
side" to it. It's just been grossly squeezed out by extremely unfree
market dynamics.
We need free media and free access -- more freedom -- in order to
restore "free press" back to its earlier ideals. True publicly owned
airwaves, satellites, the works.
Paul F. Bramscher
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~brams007/manifesto.html#freespeech
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
15 Apr 2005 02:49:12 PM |
|
|
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in news:d3p449$hgk$1
@lenny.tc.umn.edu:
We need free media and free access -- more freedom -- in order to
restore "free press" back to its earlier ideals. True publicly owned
airwaves, satellites, the works.
By "free," I assume you mean "paid for by unwilling financiers, at
gunpoint."
And what is an "airwave?" Surely you don't mean electromagnetic signals,
which are clearly not publicly owned. They are owned by the person who
built or bought the transmitter, and who pays the power bill.
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~brams007/manifesto.html#freespeech
Read your tract. Unfortunately, it is riddled with the organic fallacy ---
the assumption that modern, civilized societies are a kind of organism, or
large tribes, with a collective purpose and common goals and interests
among its members. Purge that assumption, and it will take some extensive
re-writing to make it coherent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
15 Apr 2005 03:21:05 PM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in news:d3p449$hgk$1
@lenny.tc.umn.edu:
We need free media and free access -- more freedom -- in order to
restore "free press" back to its earlier ideals. True publicly owned
airwaves, satellites, the works.
By "free," I assume you mean "paid for by unwilling financiers, at
gunpoint."
And what is an "airwave?" Surely you don't mean electromagnetic signals,
which are clearly not publicly owned. They are owned by the person who
built or bought the transmitter, and who pays the power bill.
Of course not. They're owned by megacorporations which monopolize
frequencies, whether or not they "built a transmitter." Get yourself a
transmitter and start broadcasting over your local megacorp. affiliate.
Claim that you own the airwave because you have the transmitter all
you want to the FCC.
Read your tract. Unfortunately, it is riddled with the organic fallacy ---
the assumption that modern, civilized societies are a kind of organism, or
large tribes, with a collective purpose and common goals and interests
among its members. Purge that assumption, and it will take some extensive
re-writing to make it coherent.
I put about 10 years of writing, 8 years of education, and 20 years of
travel & camping across North America into that tract. Let's see yours.
And no pseudonyms either. Until then, I certainly am not about to act
on your criticisms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
16 Apr 2005 01:01:12 AM |
|
|
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in
news:d3p7o2$i8j$1@lenny.tc.umn.edu:
And what is an "airwave?" Surely you don't mean electromagnetic
signals, which are clearly not publicly owned. They are owned by the
person who built or bought the transmitter, and who pays the power
bill.
Of course not. They're owned by megacorporations which monopolize
frequencies, whether or not they "built a transmitter." Get yourself
a transmitter and start broadcasting over your local megacorp.
affiliate.
Claim that you own the airwave because you have the transmitter all
you want to the FCC.
I'm always amazed when people advocate "public ownership of the airwaves",
and then complain of the monopolistic policies of the FCC. They seem to
overlook the fact that the FCC is a public agency operating in accordance
with the very principle they are advocating.
The reason you have an oligopoly in the broadcast media is because the
State has asserted an ownership of the "public airwaves" (which is a piece
of physical nonsense) and then presumes to "license" access to that
fictional resource. Thus, broadcasting becomes a function of politics,
which public ownership of anything invariably does. If you want to see
diversity in that media, you *abolish* that doctrine, establish property
rights in frequencies (which are in infinite supply), and dismantle the
FCC. Anyone could then begin broadcasting on any frequency he pleased, as
long as it was not already "homesteaded" in the market in which he
operates. Your broadcasting oligopoly then quickly disappears.
BTW, a radio transmitter powerful enough to cover most metro areas can be
put on the air for less than $10,000 --- about the price of a good used
car.
I put about 10 years of writing, 8 years of education, and 20 years of
travel & camping across North America into that tract. Let's see
yours.
Here:
http://209.126.173.140
BTW, I do appreciate the effort involved. Anyone who does some thinking
gets a few points in my book.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Bramscher" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
15 Apr 2005 03:39:05 PM |
|
|
Publius wrote:
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in news:d3p449$hgk$1
@lenny.tc.umn.edu:
We need free media and free access -- more freedom -- in order to
restore "free press" back to its earlier ideals. True publicly owned
airwaves, satellites, the works.
By "free," I assume you mean "paid for by unwilling financiers, at
gunpoint."
Indeed, at gunpoint. The corporate state, dominated by the same
megamedia outlets, their lobbyists, the military industrial complex at
large and their political toadies.
Or do you subscribe to a fairyland libertarian analysis? Private and
state power are in bed with one another, and have been throughout the
history of human civilization.
That gun doesn't have a democratic hand at the trigger. It's the oil
companies, the energy lobby, and military industrial complex at large.
Unwilling indeed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
16 Apr 2005 01:05:59 AM |
|
|
Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@tc.umn.edu> wrote in news:d3p8pp$igh$1
@lenny.tc.umn.edu:
By "free," I assume you mean "paid for by unwilling financiers, at
gunpoint."
Indeed, at gunpoint. The corporate state, dominated by the same
megamedia outlets, their lobbyists, the military industrial complex at
large and their political toadies.
Or do you subscribe to a fairyland libertarian analysis? Private and
state power are in bed with one another, and have been throughout the
history of human civilization.
That gun doesn't have a democratic hand at the trigger. It's the oil
companies, the energy lobby, and military industrial complex at large.
Unwilling indeed.
Does that mean that robbery at gunpoint is acceptable if the robber is
poltically correct? Sorry --- I'd prefer to eliminate robbery altogether.
Of course private and state power are in bed together. So will they always
be, unless you restrict the power of the State narrowly enough that there
is no incentive to co-opt it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
16 Apr 2005 10:15:06 AM |
|
|
I'm still waiting for an example of freedom of speech with the public
that isn't 100% dependent on public funding.
Ditto for the "right to travel."
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
16 Apr 2005 02:56:48 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1113664505.967592.162230
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
I'm still waiting for an example of freedom of speech with the public
that isn't 100% dependent on public funding.
Since it has been the topic so far in this thread, here is one example: all
forms of broadcasting.
Now, if you presume that broadcasting requires use of the "public
airwaves," which the State generously make available to broadcasters, then
of course you will conclude that broadcasting is publicly funded. As usual,
if you begin from false premises, you can reach some ridiculous
conclusions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
17 Apr 2005 12:46:23 PM |
|
|
< > I'm still waiting for an example of freedom of speech with the
public
< > that isn't 100% dependent on public funding.
< all forms of broadcasting.
And how do you keep me from jamming your signal?
It matters not if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or ExxonMobil or
Walmart pulling out full page ads in the Wall Street Journal or buying
time on NBC or CNN, or the "'NAM VET, WILL WoRK FoR FOOD, GOD BLEss"
guy working your nearest busy intersection, you are ALWAYS 100%
dependent on public funding to get your message out to the public.
The public funding might not amount to much but it is always there,
like the weakest link in a chain.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
17 Apr 2005 01:32:28 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1113759983.457729.102620
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
< > I'm still waiting for an example of freedom of speech with the
public
< > that isn't 100% dependent on public funding.
< all forms of broadcasting.
And how do you keep me from jamming your signal?
If there is no government to protect rights, then I shoot you.
You have now given a plausible justification for a government which
protects rights. The trick is to justify any larger role for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
17 Apr 2005 10:14:45 PM |
|
|
< If there is no government to protect rights,
< then I shoot you.
I have an Apache gun ship. I blow your house to smitherines before you
have a chance to say "home 'n hearth" or "if I git pushed too far."
< You have now given a plausible justification
< for a government
In other words, free speech with the public is always 100% dependent on
public funding.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
17 Apr 2005 10:34:24 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1113794085.118620.273970
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
I have an Apache gun ship. I blow your house to smitherines before you
have a chance to say "home 'n hearth" or "if I git pushed too far."
Nope. Your gunship has been sabotaged on the ground, and its crew executed.
< You have now given a plausible justification
< for a government
Geez -- snipping quotes in the middle of a sentence now, eh? Was the
complete sentence . . .
You have now given a plausible justification for a government which
protects rights. The trick is to justify any larger role for it.
too tough to deal with?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
18 Apr 2005 08:09:28 AM |
|
|
<> I have an Apache gun ship. I blow your house to smitherines before
you
<> have a chance to say "home 'n hearth" or "if I git pushed too far."
< Nope. Your gunship has been sabotaged
< on the ground, and its crew executed.
Sorry, I bought them off because I have more money than you.
You don't have freedom of speech without public funding as we agree
below..
< > < You have now given a plausible justification
< > < for a government
Yup, the most basic rights, free speech and the right to travel are
both 100% dependent on public funding.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
18 Apr 2005 01:03:27 PM |
|
|
Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ?
Group: alt.philosophy Date: Mon, Apr 18,
2005, 6:09am (EDT-3) From:
BretCahill@aol.com (Bret=A0Cahill)
Yup, the most basic rights, free speech
and the right to travel are both 100%
dependent on public funding.
Bret Cahill
So what? Who cares? Who's effected? How?
Speak freely. You apparently have the right to do so here regardless of
who's funding the operation.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
http://www.trisector.org/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
18 Apr 2005 01:41:57 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1113829768.364680.271020
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Yup, the most basic rights, free speech and the right to travel are
both 100% dependent on public funding.
Yup, if you can't answer an argument, ignore it and repeat your mantra.
Go, Brett!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
19 Apr 2005 07:48:59 AM |
|
|
Does anyone have an example of free speech with the public that isn't
100% dependent on public funding?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthony G. Rubino" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
19 Apr 2005 11:20:04 AM |
|
|
Group: alt.philosophy Date: Tue, Apr 19,
2005, 5:48am (EDT-3) From:
BretCahill@aol.com (Bret=A0Cahill)
Does anyone have an example of free
speech with the public that isn't 100%
dependent on public funding?
Bret Cahil
I repeat:
So what? Who cares? Who's effected? How?
Speak freely. You apparently have the right to do so here regardless of
who's funding the operation.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
http://www.trisector.org/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
26 Apr 2005 07:57:45 AM |
|
|
<> Does anyone have an example of free
<> speech with the public that isn't 100%
<> dependent on public funding?
< I repeat:
I do that a lot too. Lots of slow ones here.
< So what?
So, in an nation where all geo resources have been claimed, the most
basic individualist rights are always 100% dependent on the collective.
Free speech w/ the public and the "right to travel."
< Who cares?
Liberdopic types, who believe individualist rights are always at odds
with the collective.
< Who's effected?
Everyone in a free society.
< How?
I repeat:
In an nation where all geo resources have been claimed, the most basic
individualist rights are always 100% dependent on the collective.
< Speak freely.
Freedom to speak freely ain't free. Taxes are the price we pay for
free speech.
< You apparently have the right
< to do so here regardless of
< who's funding the operation.
No one can post freely here without public funding.
It matters not if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or ExxonMobil or
Walmart pulling out full page ads in the Wall Street Journal or buying
time on NBC or CNN, or the "'NAM VET, WILL WoRK FoR FOOD, GOD BLEss"
guy working your nearest busy intersection, you are ALWAYS 100%
dependent on public funding to get your message out to the public.
The public funding might not amount to much but it is always there,
like the weakest link in a chain.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
27 Apr 2005 12:40:01 AM |
|
|
Bret Cahill wrote:
Some guy whom Bret forgot to attribute to wrote:
< Speak freely.
Freedom to speak freely ain't free. Taxes are the price we pay for
free speech.
You can't take a leak without using some publicly
funded something or other. Does that mean that
taxes are the price we pay for the right to take
a leak?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
27 Apr 2005 07:55:15 AM |
|
|
< > < Speak freely.
< > Freedom to speak freely ain't free. Taxes are the price we pay for
< > free speech.
< can't take a leak without using some
< publicly funded something or other.
You mean the crapper in your house is publicly funded?
What dept. funded THAT project?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
27 Apr 2005 02:44:32 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114606515.598891.20600@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
< > < Speak freely.
< > Freedom to speak freely ain't free. Taxes are the price we pay for
< > free speech.
< can't take a leak without using some
< publicly funded something or other.
You mean the crapper in your house is publicly funded?
What dept. funded THAT project?
The City of Beaverton runs the sewers here, I'm afraid. Okay, maybe you
can pee behind a privately owned tree, but peeing in the public trough
is 100% dependent on public funding, just like free speech with the
public.
In fact, you can't do anything in the public trough without being 100%
dependent on public funding. Hell, even cremation requires driving
on the public roads to the private crematorium. So taxes are the
price we pay for death, by your logic.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
27 Apr 2005 08:00:42 AM |
|
|
< You can't take a leak without using some
< publicly funded something or other.
You can't ***** on your own private property?
Similarly you can communicate with others on private property without
being dependent on public resources.
All speech isn't 100% dependent on public funding, just free speech
with the public.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
27 Apr 2005 02:46:46 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114606842.204558.218250@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
< You can't take a leak without using some
< publicly funded something or other.
You can't ***** on your own private property?
Similarly you can communicate with others on private property without
being dependent on public resources.
Exactly. The analogy holds. Peeing in the public trough, just like
blathering
in the public trough, is 100% dependent on public funding.
All speech isn't 100% dependent on public funding, just free speech
with the public.
Speech with the public, is what you mean, regardless whether it is free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
27 Apr 2005 03:01:48 PM |
|
|
<>< You can't take a leak without using some
<> < publicly funded something or other.
<> You can't ***** on your own private property?
No answer?
< > Similarly you can communicate with others on private property
without
< > being dependent on public resources.
< Exactly.
But who cares about that? You can communicate with others w/o being
dependent on public funding in a complete despotism, in N. Korea or
Cuba for examples.
James Madison, however, was trying to avoid despotism when he wrote the
First Amendment therefore he wasn't talking primarily about free speech
restricted to those on your private property.
He was talking about free speech with the public.
That requires public funding.
< The analogy holds. Peeing in the public trough,
Thing is, you don't need to. You can do it on private property 100% of
the time and still be a fully functional citizen.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
28 Apr 2005 12:26:05 AM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114632108.299998.303580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
<>< You can't take a leak without using some
<> < publicly funded something or other.
<> You can't ***** on your own private property?
No answer?
Um. Duh! Didn't you read anything else? You can ***** on your
own private property, you can die on your own private property
and have your son freeze you in the cooler in a rocking chair,
you can speak freely on your own private property, but you
can't do it with the public without public funding. Therefore
your little koan is nothing but a platitude.
< > Similarly you can communicate with others on private property
without
< > being dependent on public resources.
< Exactly.
But who cares about that? You can communicate with others w/o being
dependent on public funding in a complete despotism, in N. Korea or
Cuba for examples.
Um. Totally irrelevant.
James Madison, however, was trying to avoid despotism when he wrote the
First Amendment therefore he wasn't talking primarily about free speech
restricted to those on your private property.
Again, totally irrelevant. Your public funding thesis is a platitude
because
anything you do with the public requires public funding, even if it's dying
in a gulag. Taxes are the price some people pay to die in a gulag.
He was talking about free speech with the public.
Yeah? So?
Even unfree speech with the public requires public funding.
Say Michael Moore takes over the Ministry of Truth in the
Hillary regime sometime in the future. When he tells us about
how the Bush bought his SAT scores from a Saudi foreign
exchange student, that speech too will be 100% dependent on
public funding. In fact, it will really literally be 100% dependent
because 100% of its funding will come from the public.
That requires public funding.
< The analogy holds. Peeing in the public trough,
Thing is, you don't need to. You can do it on private property 100% of
the time and still be a fully functional citizen.
Try disposing of your relatvies without public funding on your own
private property, and you'll see that taxes are the price you pay
for the chance to go to prison, as well as dying.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
28 Apr 2005 08:07:45 AM |
|
|
<><>< You can't take a leak without using some
<> <> < publicly funded something or other.
<> <> You can't ***** on your own private property?
<> No answer?
< Um. Duh!
No one ever said rightards were very bright.
< Didn't you read anything else?
I just wanted an answer.
< You can ***** on your own private property
OK, Finally! We got an answer!
Now we need an answer to THIS question:
Why does pissing on your own private property require taxation?
< Your public funding thesis is a platitude because
< anything you do with the public requires public funding,
You ***** with the public?
Is this one of those kinky things you guys use to "mainstream"
yourselves?
.. . .
<Try disposing of your relatvies without public funding on your own
< private property,
First, we weren't talking about incestual necrophilia, but pissing w/o
public funding.
Second we were never talking about any particular form of society.
Free speech w/o public funding is impossible in libertaria as well as
under Jeffersonian democracy.
That's why I oppose libertaria: free speech with the public is
impossible w/o public funding.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
28 Apr 2005 10:56:43 AM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114693660.606789.327500@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
< Didn't you read anything else?
I just wanted an answer.
And you got one a while back. Geez, Bret. Don't be dense.
< You can ***** on your own private property
OK, Finally! We got an answer!
I gave you that answer in another post a while back. What is
your major dysfunction?
Now we need an answer to THIS question:
Why does pissing on your own private property require taxation?
Nobody said it did.
< Your public funding thesis is a platitude because
< anything you do with the public requires public funding,
You ***** with the public?
I don't know about you, but I am not afraid of public restrooms.
At least not the urinals. If the floor is wet, I'll balk though.
Is this one of those kinky things you guys use to "mainstream"
yourselves?
So, now it's kinky to use a public restroom. I think the kinks are
yours.
<Try disposing of your relatvies without public funding on your own
< private property,
First, we weren't talking about incestual necrophilia, but pissing w/o
public funding.
Speech without public funding is just as possible as pissing without
public funding. We already established that. Why these points
don't stick in your mind is beyond me.
Second we were never talking about any particular form of society.
Free speech w/o public funding is impossible in libertaria as well as
under Jeffersonian democracy.
In societies that existed before public funding, there was still speech
with the tribe. Of course, you could call that public funding because
the public had to "pay" attention.
That's why I oppose libertaria: free speech with the public is
impossible w/o public funding.
That's not why you oppose libertaria. You oppose libertaria because
your definition of free speech is: the gummint supplies you with a
bulltetin board down at the Employment Division just so you can
post graffiti on it, kinda like that lawsuit of yours (Cahill vs. Sanity).
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
28 Apr 2005 06:20:51 PM |
|
|
< Speech without public funding is just as possible as pissing
< without public funding.
But the issue is free speech with the public.
Can you give even one example of free speech with the public that isn't
100% dependent on public funding?
.. . .
< In societies that existed before public funding, there was still
< speech with the tribe.
1. Was it free speech to speak freely?
2. Were all geo resources already claimed?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
28 Apr 2005 09:50:08 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114730451.336449.177490@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
< Speech without public funding is just as possible as pissing
< without public funding.
But the issue is free speech with the public.
Can you give even one example of free speech with the public that isn't
100% dependent on public funding?
The issue is whether this platitudinous position paper writin' of yours
means anything at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Freedom of the press; The negative side ? |
28 Apr 2005 10:57:28 PM |
|
|
Can anyone give even one example of free speech with the public that
isn't 100% dependent on public funding?
Remember, no dodgin'.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
