cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1997-07-11 - Re: The Recent Trend in “Collective Contracts”

Header Data

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 36b20cc030b373d3b0c5c2a2a99dd36c4c4f3cb13bb893d56e34fc3dc220e951
Message ID: <v03102801afeb78dc837d@[10.0.2.15]>
Reply To: <199707102236.SAA07074@mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu>
UTC Datetime: 1997-07-11 05:54:48 UTC
Raw Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 13:54:48 +0800

Raw message

From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 1997 13:54:48 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
In-Reply-To: <199707102236.SAA07074@mail3.uts.ohio-state.edu>
Message-ID: <v03102801afeb78dc837d@[10.0.2.15]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



>Men from black helicopters forced Tim May to say:

>(I say "worst" in the liberty/freedom of choice sense. Personally, I have
>never smoked a single cigarette and think anyone who does is foolish. But
>being foolish is everyone's right. Taking away choice is not a solution a
>free society can live with. This applies to advertising, which is pure
>speech, in my view--the aforementioned point about sponsorship of sporting
>events, or print ads, has zero, zip, nada to do with any alleged FCC role
>in limiting use of the "public airwaves," so it's a speech issue. There are
>possible FTC (advertising claims) and FDA (safety of nicotine if it is
>deemed a drug) roles that some could plausibly argue, but these are not
>central in the Grand Deal discussions, and are not at all the same as
>halting sports advertising, etc. Lots of issues, obviously, and our posts
>are only touching on a few facets.)


What if private citizens decided to place Joe Camel ads in print and TV or
sponsor an event.  Would they also be constrained in their freedom of
speech?

--Steve

Thread