Actually, constitutionally, it generally isn't (I am a former practicing
attorney). There is a right to speak, but you don't have a right to force
others to listen. But the courts view the right to speak VERY BROADLY and
the "forcing others to listen" VERY NARROWLY. So Yes, I can stand on the
street corner and preach nazi-ism, genecide, or anything that the
mainstream may view as "evil" and I have the absolute right to do it. I
could even send you junk snail mail. That is fine. Because I have almost
an unfettered right to speak. The fact that you can hear and may not like
it is, legally, irrelavant.
Now, as far as "forcing you to listen", that doesn't occur everytime
someone speaks. Just because you can hear or read it, doesn't mean you are
being forced. Forced is very narrowly construed, such as where you
physically corner someone against a wall and shout at them or, in earlier
examples, where you are on a public bus, subway, train or airport because,
in a very real sense, you are a "captive" audience (you can't jump off a
moving bus). But if someone stands on the corner preaching, puts out
newspaper ad that you read, puts out a TV or radio ad that you hear, etc...
you haven't been forced. Hearing or reading it simply does not equal
forced. Being physically pinned and being forced to listen, being locked
in a room, etc... that is forced (and other crimes to boot).
So no, just because someone sends you an email that you read, publishes a
TV, Radio or Print ad that you read or hear, or preaches on the street, you
are not being "forced" to listen (even though you hear it).
As far as limitations on the distribution of speech, that, for the most
part, can't be limited either. The gov't can't control speech based on
content (the message) but can place reasonable restrictions on the method
of speech AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT DISCRIMINATE ON CONTENT. What does that mean?
The gov't can't say "no anti-black messages on TV". Why? Because it
filters the content of TV based on content. So while the motive is good,
it is illegal. They can't say "no ads for MLM's" because thay
discriminates between one kind of message and other. But they could
(possibly) place restrictions on ALL advertising, but not just one type of ad.
The whole idea is that the gov't can't be a censor. So to the small degree
that it can censor (and this is small), it can't be based on content. It's
all or none. A lot of what can get out there may be unpopular with you or
I, but may be perfectly fine to 100,000,000+ of our fellow citizens.
So IMHO (and not a legal opinion), if you don't like it, delete it. I
don't want any ISP filtering my mail for certain keywords. I may find 1 of
20 messages informational or useful. Or not. Or a message from a friend
may contain a buzz word. Or not. But I would want the final say in what I
do or do not read, not someone else. And if this means that we have to put
up with some annoyance in maintaining our freedom, so be it. The price of
it has never been cheap; the perks come with strings. You want to be able
to say whatever you want in public? Fine. But so can everyone else. You
want to say whatever you want via telephone, letter or email? Well, right
now so can everyone else. And when we start saying "OK, everyone can say
anything they want, except if I don't like it", well, it barely warrants
comment.
Sorry to ramble. Guess this was my $0.04.
Cheers.
Gosh, ConLaw (constitutional law) was fun...
At 03:29 PM 1/31/99 +0000, you wrote:
>
>
>>As far as forcing others to listen, that should be defined.
>>But remember, the burden is on the listener to walk away, ignore, throw
>>away or hit delete, not on the speaker to not speak.
>
>I'm sure there is no 'right to be heard'. There is a right to speak.
>However, this is sensibly defined as covering the means of distribution of
>speech, I belive.
>Ivan
