Re: Cablevision

[Melynda Huskey <melyndah@mail.wsu.edu>]

I think we're getting into some murky waters here--but let me see if I can
clarify what I was originally asking, and maybe even some further points.

The First Amendment right to free speech (and all the other rights
guaranteed in the First Amendment, including the right to free assembly, to
freedom of religion, to a free press, and the right to petition the
government to redress of a grievance) is not absolute.  There are all kinds
of limitations placed on speech, and among them is the right of a business
to regulate the kinds of speech it will permit, sponsor, or support.  I was
interested in the policies governing the use of Channel 11 of the local
cable network because it had been used by a community member, Mr. Stenerson,
to target a particular group of people as responsible for the disintegration
of a community, and to encourage action against those people, which is
obviously different from the announcement of an event, like a drag show or
march.  

No one could possibly dispute Mr. Stenerson's right to his opinion under any
circumstance, nor his right to express that opinion freely on Channel 11,
since we now know that the First Amendment specifically protects his right
to use that public access channel without any let or hindrance, as it does
mine, and yours, and everybody else's.  Disagreeing with someone's opinion
is not censorship; seeking to counter it by legitimate means is not censorship.

Whew!

Melynda Huskey
melyndah@mail.wsu.edu