[83019] in Cypherpunks
Re: The Recent Trend in "Collective Contracts"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Fri Jul 11 02:30:30 1997
In-Reply-To: <v03102801afeb676790ab@[207.167.93.63]>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 1997 22:49:08 -0700
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
From: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
Cc: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
Reply-To: Steve Schear <azur@netcom.com>
>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
