Xref: utzoo talk.politics.misc:71020 comp.org.eff.talk:2624 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!altitude!elevia!alain From: alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,comp.org.eff.talk Subject: Re: Growing MJ (Advice sought) Message-ID: <1991Jun12.125109.18073@elevia.UUCP> Date: 12 Jun 91 12:51:09 GMT References: <1991Jun2.091410.23785@spool.cs.wisc.edu> <20369@cs.utexas.edu> <16801@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1991Jun4.184604.27133@rodan.acs.syr.edu> <1991Jun7.102950.1658@elevia.UUCP> Organization: The W.A.Simon Wild Life Fund Lines: 21 In stanton@lurch.stanford.edu (Scott Stanton) writes: >In article <1991Jun7.102950.1658@elevia.UUCP> alain@elevia.UUCP (W.A.Simon) writes: > Why should there be a distinction between speech > and the printed word? Isn't it an artificial split? > Does it correspond to an objective difference? >The distinction is more between "press" and "speech". I think it >originally was a valid distinction since the printed word had a much >greater reach than the spoken word. Even today, the press often has a >greater perceived validity than speech. But I'm not sure the >distinction is as easy to make now that we have radio, tv, >audio-visual recordings, and most recently, electronic mail and >bulletin boards. Now that desktop publishing makes "press" just as >easy as "speech", there may not be as much difference. And if you have indulged in a bit of NeXT-Mail or explored virtual universes, then the fine line simply disappears. >--Scott Stanton (stanton@cs.stanford.edu) -- William "Alain" Simon UUCP: alain@elevia.UUCP