Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Public vs Private Property
Message-ID: <656@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 18-Jun-85 08:52:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.656
Posted: Tue Jun 18 08:52:24 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 04:16:26 EDT
References: <449@qantel.UUCP> <652@whuxl.UUCP> <244@kontron.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 58

> >  
> > There is also often more *freedom* under public ownership.  For example:
> > shopping malls, since they are privately owned, have taken it as their
> > right to deny the public the right of free speech and assembly in such
> > malls.  Those advocating viewpoints which the mall's management disagrees
> > with have been kicked out - "we own the mall, we can kick anybody out
> > we choose, free speech or not".  On public streets there are no such
> > restrictions - since they are public, the rights of free speech and
> > assembly must be respected whether public officials like it or not.
> > Personally I am *very* glad there are still many such places left, as well
> > as public parks, public libraries, and public monuments and museums.
> >  
> >      "As I was walking I saw a sign up
> >       the sign said "No Trespassing"
> >       But the other side of the sign said Nothin'
> >       That sign was made for you and me!"
> >                 Woodrow Wilson Guthrie
> >  
> >        tim sevener  whuxl!orb
> 
> Mr. Sevener: I have decided that I have a right to free speech and assembly
> in your residence at any time --- your private ownership is interfering
> with my desire to hold protest demonstrations against the government.  Please
> let me know when my crowd can come in to a place that you have paid money
> to either rent or buy, and start using it any way we feel is fit.

These are two rather different things, although you raise a good point about
the implications of a totally anarchistic, propertyless society.
If there were no property then our current expectations would have to change
drastically.  Ursula LeGuin's excellent novel, "The Dispossessed", dealt with
some of  these problems  very well.
 
But my point was the implications of the opposite: what would happen if there
were *no* public property which some Libertarians seem to support?
What grounds would there be for rights to freedom of speech, freedom of
assembly and our other precious freedoms versus the sacred right of property?
 
The suggestion that the right to assembly is exactly the same for private
residences as it is for public shopping areas like malls is untenable and
obscures the basic point.  A private residence enjoys certain special
protections under the law which public places do not.  For example, protection
against illegal search and seizure.  This is a part of the general protection
of the right to privacy for private residences.
But a shopping mall is hardly a private place, it is a pre-eminently
public place which would have no existence and no function if the public
did not use it.  In fact, the shopping malls owner's
ejection of leafletters and others espousing viewpoints s/he doesn't like 
is simply a discriminatory ban of part of the public, not the public as 
a whole, nor the protection of any right of privacy.
 
In fact, fortunately some Courts in New Jersey have ruled that malls
can *not* ban free speech or leafletting since they are indeed
public places regardless of their nominal private ownership.
Libertarians should be glad for this protection of our vital liberties.
 
Notwithstanding these rulings I am glad that there are public places
owned by all of us in which we are guaranteed rights to expression.
                              tim sevener  whuxl!orb