Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuts.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuts!orb From: orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Democratic Rights and Property :re to Tanenbaum Message-ID: <540@whuts.UUCP> Date: Mon, 17-Feb-86 10:48:57 EST Article-I.D.: whuts.540 Posted: Mon Feb 17 10:48:57 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 18-Feb-86 19:59:50 EST References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 106 Bill Tanenbaum says in response to my complaint about the threat of arrest for distributing literature in shopping malls: > There you go again, Tim. There is absolutely no relation between the > situations in the U. S. and the Soviet Union. Neither the U. S. > government, nor state or local governments, have attempted to curtail > your rights to distribute literature. The only question is whether > the owner of private property should be able to outlaw the distribution of > literature (political or otherwise) on their property. My opinion is that, > with only a few exceptions, they can. The US government most certainly *is* curtailing my right to distribute literature when its police authority is used to prevent my exercise of that right. Just as the governmental authorities in the past used their authority to shoot and kill strikers. Just as employees in the past were prevented from distributing union literature in the workplace. After a long struggle unions finally obtained both the legally recognized right to strike and the right to distribute literature in the workplace without retribution. When Solidarity tries to distribute literature in the workplace in Poland this is hailed as a movement towards democracy. Suddenly it is *not* a movement towards democracy to grant similar rights against private employers in the US? In the Soviet Union the argument is that all property, including Red Square, is "owned by the State". Since the State owns the property it has the right to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights. Tell me how this is any different than saying that simply because a public shopping mall which holds community events such as "Crime Prevention Day" or "Picatiny Arsenal Day" is privately owned, that therefore citizens lose all democratic rights. Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left? > The only question, then, is whether a shopping mall is analagous > to a store, or to a public thoroughfare. My personal opinion is that > it is more like a public thoroughfare and you should be able to distribute > literature. This is precisely how the courts have ruled that people have the right to distribute literature in a given case. The judgment according to numerous court rulings in New Jersey is that as long as it can be established as a "question of fact" that a mall is in fact a public place similar in function to the town square of the past then people have the right to distribute literature as you suggest. Moreover the mall must have become the major locus of community events. The mall in which I was threatened with arrest is quite explicit in its claims, its name is "Rockaway TOWN SQUARE Mall". This mall has an annual exhibition from the Picatinny Arsenal, which makes components for nuclear weapons. The next week there were such community events planned as a "Crime Prevention Day", a "Ladies Group" and so forth. If this mall can sponsor community events such as a massive exhibition of propaganda for the military industrial complex then surely the other side has the right to be heard. > However, this is a point upon which reasonable people can > disagree. I understand the mall owner's point of view. You make it > sound like "powerful economic interests" are trying to suppress dissent. > NO!!! They are just trying to maximize the number of customers who shop > in their mall. Must your rather peculiar political biases cloud > your judgment in everything? Explain to me how having an exhibition glorifying military hardware brings more customers than an exhibition celebrating Peace. Moreover please explain to me how the present rigidly controlled atmosphere of the shopping malls attracts more shoppers than would be attracted if shopping malls instead allowed the sort of freedoms of town squares for amateur musicians, puppeteers, and other artists to entertain people freely. The mentality of control by the corporate owners of shopping malls is no different than the ridiculous mentality of control demonstrated in "Russia- Love it or Leave it" in which harmless and creative acts by individuals are suppressed for no other reason than to exert control. It is not even a question of being a political threat, it is simply a matter of control for malls to suppress not only the circulation of petitions but the sort of free-spirited artistic creativity which used to be a normal part of the town square. I have taken some efforts to go to Greenwich Village many times to enjoy the street musicians and other creative artists. I deliberately avoid malls because they offer no such creativity or spontaneity- not only do they not offer such creativity they deliberately suppress it. Is this the sort of country we wish to become? > I'm not sure I would defend Prudential's right to arrest you > for distributing literature in a shopping mall, but I would strongly > support their right to do so in the Prudential Building. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I agree with you on that point except for the right of employees in the Prudential Building to distribute literature to their coworkers. I am not arguing that anyone has the right to barge in on private property under all circumstances. What I am arguing is precisely what the New Jersey courts have argued - that in cases in which shopping malls have replaced town squares as the locus of community events, in which shopping malls deliberately sponsor community events and seek to be seen as the major public place in a community (i.e. like Rockaway TOWN SQUARE Mall) that the protection of our democratic rights means that people must have the right to petition and distribute literature. If not we will wind up with a nation in which malls have replaced town squares but allowed for none of the democratic rights of such town squares. And so goes our democracy. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." tim sevener whuxn!orb