[Peace-discuss] Re: The Public i and free speech -- PS

[Ricky Baldwin]

Another distinction without a difference, I'm afraid.

Ricky
--- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

> BTW, my memory of the leaflet you mention (I think it was critical of Jim Lehrer 
> of PBS) is that it read "Prepared by Members of AWARE" -- which it was.  --CGE
> 
> 
> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> > I may or may not understand it, of course, Carl.  But I figure you believe in free
> > speech or you don’t.  True, a lot of people are willing to make exceptions for
> explicit
> > threats – but not usually for deleting a few words of disputed claims.
> > 
> > Anyway, your argument is particularly curious in light of previous positions you
> took. 
> > I seem to recall a leaflet you printed up with AWARE’s name on it – after AWARE had
> > read the leaflet and expressed the group’s explicit wishes to you: distribute the
> > leaflet if you like, of course, but without AWARE’s permission to use our name,
> please
> > (no threat to sue).  Hm. 
> > 
> > As I’ve said many times I agree with you about 95 percent of the time, but I just
> can’t
> > go here with you.  
> > 
> > Ricky
> > 
> > --- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> > 
> >> 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!)...
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and 
> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
> > _______________________________________________
> > Peace-discuss mailing list
> > Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> > http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 



      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ