[Vision2020] Re: David Irving - Caution

[Andreas Schou]

> But it seems to me that we're right on the edge of saying
> Mr. Irving is so awful that he doesn't deserve the right of
> free speech. I would say, rather, that he is awful and DOES
> deserve the right of free speech.

Mister Irving has the right to speak. He does not have the right to use my megaphone to do so.

The protections actualized in the First Amendment are not meant to make "speech" an neutral battleground, where all ideas are given an equal playing-field and no views are endorsed by the government: the government clearly does endorse certain views, and, indeed, one of the major battlegrounds of politics is the decisions over what views the government will endorse. One the contrary, the purpose of the First Amendment is to provent the use of government coercion (or, indeed, coercion in general) to stifle private speech.

There is a grey area for common carriers like postal services and telephones: they must carry all information that passes through them. But limited resources (like radio waves and conference rooms) do not meet that standard: they can be given to anyone, but only a limited number of people may use them. Their owners must decide what views their limited resources will endorse.

The owners of the Mark IV have apparently decided that their resources will not endorse Holocaust revisionism.

Bully for them.

-- ACS

> Don Coombs
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          Vision2020@moscow.com
> ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
>