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: Re: Reply to Sevener on Property Rights
Message-ID: <551@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Feb-86 10:13:18 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.551
Posted: Wed Feb 19 10:13:18 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 09:04:20 EST
References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP> <540@whuts.UUCP> <1641@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 18


        > > From me         >Bill Tanenbaum
> > 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?
> -------
> It's very different, because there is only one state, but many mall owners.
> > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL  ihnp4!ihlpg!tan

I see. In order to have a right to free speech I have to own a mall.....
 
     tim sevener   whuxn!orb