From: "E. ALLEN SMITH" <EALLENSMITH@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 95 11:25:26 PST
To: hallam@w3.org
Subject: Re: Political Cleanup program [NOISE]
Message-ID: <01HYZTGSFLM48Y529F@mbcl.rutgers.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


From:	IN%"hallam@w3.org" 19-DEC-1995 13:48:07.90

>It is very strange the way that "Libertarians" are so able to turn all
rights into property rights. Thus freedom of speech become freedom to have
influence on the politicial process in direct proportion to wealth.
------------------
	Funny, I'm disagreeing with you, and I believe that government ought to
be involved with making sure everyone has a chance to make political speech
(via subsidies of education). That doesn't mean that those who can make more
speech (through money or any other ability) should be handicapped.
------------------

>I began work on the web in '92 because I saw its potential as a political tool 
which did not have the bias of wealth. It has the potential to create a new
kind of political dialogue. When the Web becomes as ubiquitous as the
telephone we will still see inequalities of power, the homeless and the poor
will still be underrepresented. But that situation must be judged against our
own where the political process can be bought and traded as if it were any
other form of comodity.
------------------
	You're making the classic PC (otherwise known as distorted egalitarian)
mistake: you're wanting equality of results instead of equality of opportunity.
Freedom of speech and the press doesn't mean that everyone gets a free press
subsidized by the government, and no usage of means outside of that. It means
that everyone _potentially_ can influence the political process and the
marketplace of ideas.
------------------

>It is not simply an issue of money, it is an issue of national security. If a 
foreigner were to control the majority of the media there would be a
significant threat to the national interest. This threat has been realised in
the UK with the comming to power of Rupert Murdoch. Fortunately his influence
on the US political scene has thus far been minor. In his own country he has
brought down the government more than once.
-----------------
	This argument looks quite similar to those used for Canadian Content
restrictions. "We can't let in Hollywood, they might be more demanded by the
people than our own culture." "We can't let in Rupert Murdoch, his product
might be more demanded by the people than our own products." It all comes down
to people not having the courage to let their ideas be tested by what will get
the most demand.
	-Allen