[Peace-discuss] The Public i and free speech

[C. G. Estabrook]

I don't think you understand what happened in that incident, Ricky.  The Public 
i proposed to change substantively what I'd written and publish it over my name.

I had sent them an article, which they had solicited, with the express provision 
that they had my permission to publish it over my name only if I approved 
changes -- but they had no permission to publish it with changes that I hadn't 
approved.   I did that because I knew that there were political differences 
between me and them (specifically on the virtues of the Democrats). When I was 
told privately by a member of the editorial board that changes had been made on 
that subject, and they did not seek my approval, I wrote (several times) to 
remind them of the written condition I'd attached.

Only when I received no answer did I write and say that I would sue to defend my 
contract with them.  At that point Belden -- apparently the eminence grise of 
the Public i -- called to say that they would publish it only if I withdrew the 
threat to defend the condition under which I'd contributed the piece.

Naturally I refused.  At no time did I threaten the Public i's free speech. 
They are obviously free to publish any opinion they want.  But they were not 
free to publish my piece without my permission. --CGE

P.S.--The piece in question appears at 
<http://www.counterpunch.org/estabrook04162007.html>.


Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> ... I have to say, in closing, I find it a bit hard to take Carl's defence of
> free speech totally seriously, given his one-time threat to sue the 'Public
> i' for having the unmittigated gall to EDIT one such as himself (the
> nerve!)...