John Clark wrote:
> The decision was certainly unjust and stupid, but I remind you it was not made
> by a corporation, it was made by a judge appointed by a politician who got
> the job because of his white teeth, pleasant smile, and really nice haircut.
So the question to you John, is what is your alternative? Without the judge and the
legal system and the Constitution, how would Eric Corley and the MPAA work out their
differences? And in such a system, is there such a thing as free-speech? Or is it
because the MPAA has more money than Eric Corley they decide what can be said and
what can't? After all it was you who said that the *feature* of free-markets is that
such freedoms are open to the highest bidder. Does this mean that that the rich
corporations who have the most money to purchase such commodities as free-speech,
mean that the rest of us loose that right?
>From where I'm sitting, you've painted yourself into a corner. If you can get out of
this one, my hats will be off to you, as you will have successfully answered all of
my reservations about free-markets.
I eagerly await your answers, or anyone else who thinks they are up to it.
Paul Hughes
http://planetp.cc/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:37:11 MDT