At 09:35 AM 3/9/98 -0500, Tom Heard wrote:
>I have been following the posts on the Met protest and the posts which led
>up to them which have clearly laid out the conflict as it progressed.  I
>think the tacticts being described (throwing people to the ground etc..) are
>frightening to say the least.  They are also very similar to those used at
>union rallies/picket lines to bait protesters into defending themselves
>("attacking" so to speak the police).
>
>Despite my feelings about police actions there is one thing that gnaws at me
>about this whole issue.  I am no legal scholar and I understand that there
>is a court ruling stating that the artists have protection for the sale
>of free-speech protected material.  As a citizen I have to say I may
>disagree with the court.  It seems to me that there should be some type of
>distinction between expressions protected as free speech and the sale of
>those expressions whatever form they take.  Isn't one commerce and the other
>free speech?
>
>More than likely my perception is based in part in having heard over time
>what I consider to be one too many defence of free speech by TV people,
>newspaper people etc... who basically represent corporations who make
>profits by selling the "news" to us.  This only dilutes the entire idea
>of free speech.
>
>I would be very interested in your thoughts on the many confusing questions
>swirling around between my ears.  Where does Free Speech stop and making a
>buck start if at all?
>
>Since this is a museum list after all I guess we should focus on the subject
>at hand - the art protest situation in NYC.

It seems to me that if free speech is to mean anything at all, it must be
allied to the ability and the mechanism to distribute. Free speech has
traditionally be tied to the freedom of the press. And freedom of the press
requires and assumes an ability to publish and distribute--they go hand in
hand. Consequently if freedom of expression is to be safeguarded, it must
be wedded to the freedom to distribute. In our society, more often than
not, that means the freedom to sell. To limit distribution is just about
the same thing as limiting expression. It is not without significance that
the following expression has been adopted as the credo of desktop
publishing: "Freedom of the press belongs to those who have one."

Robert Baron
[log in to unmask]