Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mmm.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!mrgofor
From: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: "Russia: Love It Or Leave It"
Message-ID: <528@mmm.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Feb-86 16:21:23 EST
Article-I.D.: mmm.528
Posted: Wed Feb 19 16:21:23 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 09:06:07 EST
References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP> <1121@ihlpa.UUCP>
Reply-To: mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR)
Organization: none
Lines: 51
Summary: 

In article <1121@ihlpa.UUCP> doit@ihlpa.UUCP (Roeseler) writes:
>
>From tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum):
>
>>  [...] The only question, then, is whether a shopping mall is analogous
>>  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.  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.  [...]
>
>You grant permission to the owner of the shopping mall to control the right
>of free speech. The owner is not even forced to justify the dominion: "He
>owns the building and wants to maximize profit" -- that simple fact is
>enough for you to accept the domination.
>
>Your proposed union of freedom and servitude is dismanteling to human
>rights and cannot possibly be in the interest of a free society.
>
>If this is whats happening: The corporations that own places of public
>interest can judge at will which civil rights they allow the people to
>exercise and which not -- then there is something wrong with that kind
>of ownership and corporations should not be allowed to do so.
>
>We are not talking about some weired, radical or life threatening behavior
>on part of the public here. We are talking about something as simple
>as distributing flyers.
>
>If this, however, interferes with the interest of the owner of the
>shopping mall, then those interests are to be questioned -- not the
>civil rights!
>
>	Armin Roeseler		...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit

	I wish you would post in English, so we could understand what you
mean. Well, I think I get the gist... You're saying that if I want to come 
into your house uninvited during a party and hand out literature that you
find offensive, I should be allowed to do so. Would you also extend this
"free speech" concept to actual speech? If I wanted to enter your house and
harangue at the top of my lungs, should I be allowed to do so? At any time
of the day or night?

-- 
					--MKR

"I've heard you say many times that you're better than no one,
 And no one is better than you.
 If you really believe that you know you have nothing to win
 And nothing to lose."   - B. Dylan