On 01-05-98, DAVID HARTUNG declared to ALL:
DH> writing about Chelsea. In another situation, a student paper was
DH> essentially shut down by the student government because the government
DH> disagreed with the papers editorial stance.
DH> My question is simple. Are these not situations in which the first
DH> amendment rights of those involved are being violated? Comments are
DH> appreciated.
Who owns the paper?
Where is it in the Constitution that says others are obligated to
provide a platform for an individual's speech?  If you can find it,
maybe I need to get in the faces of the owners of the Washington Post
and insist they abide by that and publish my stuff, or face legal
action - think I'll insist on the front page while I'm at it.  Heck,
maybe I'll go to the major networks too, and insist on my own segment
during their newscasts.  |-)
When an individual hires on to perform work for another, including
newspapers, he effectively enters into a contract to perform his duties
in accordance with his employer's wishes.  If he disagrees, he shouldn't
hire on to begin with, or should leave.  If he's a student, he abides by
the school rules he effectively agreed to follow when he enrolled, or
finds himself another school.
If that student wanted to write about Chelsea, he was free to do so and
publish himself.  The same goes for that other newspaper's staff.  In
neither case were First Amendment rights violated.
Bob     /\-/\   - proud Ilk   homebody@galstar.com
C.A.T. ( o o ) Chapter Ilks
       == ^ ==
Green Country - Oklahoma      http://www.galstar.com/~homebody/
 * SLMR 2.1a * LIbErals want only their own speech to be free.
---------------