Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!inmet!nrh
From: nrh@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <28200015@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 16-Jun-85 13:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200015
Posted: Sun Jun 16 13:51:00 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Jun-85 02:36:58 EDT
References: <2380027@acf4.UUCP>
Lines: 33
Nf-ID: #R:acf4:-238002700:inmet:28200015:177600:1779
Nf-From: inmet!nrh    Jun 16 13:51:00 1985


>/**** inmet:net.politics.t / whuxl!orb /  9:32 am  Jun 10, 1985 ****/
> 
>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.

I notice you say "often more freedom" instead of "more often more freedom".
Perhaps the reason is the rather small degree of freedom that 
socialist-oriented societies allow dissenters?  Moscow may be 
"publicly" owned, but somehow one finds little freedom there.

As for the owners of malls, they exert no control over those
who hire halls and meet in private homes.   Governments, on the
other hand, make it illegal to joke about hijacking in airports.
At one point, it was illegal in France (under penalty of death!) to 
ask whether you were going to be paid in silver or in paper money.
Face it -- the government only protects freedom of speech when it 
can't get away with suppressing it.

Public ownership a safeguard for freedom?  No way.

By the way, your notion that the public has a right to free
assembly on private property deserves a little re-consideration: 
Mind if I hold a rock concert in your bedroom?  Surely, after all,
you support the "right of free assembly".....