Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa
From: ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Democratic Rights and Property :re to Tanenbaum
Message-ID: <1948@jhunix.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 19-Feb-86 22:37:33 EST
Article-I.D.: jhunix.1948
Posted: Wed Feb 19 22:37:33 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Feb-86 09:10:29 EST
References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP> <540@whuts.UUCP>
Reply-To: ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Ken Arromdee)
Organization: TARDIS Repairs, Inc.
Lines: 111

>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?

Sorry, but there is a great deal of difference between the freedom given
to Solidarity (or lack thereof) and the freedom given to US citizens, to
distribute literature.  The reason distribution of literature by Solidarity
is considered democratic is that the government of Poland controls, in 
general, all the people's sources of information.  Am independent source
of information, such as the literature, is therefore a move by Solidarity
towards democracy.  In the US, if the organizations prohibited from
distributing literature in the mall were also prohibited from distributing
their literature everywhere else, the situation would be analogous to that
in Poland.  But the US government does not have total control of the media,
and unlike Solidarity, the pamphlet distributers DO have ways to legally
give their pamphlets out.  Poland is controlling what can be distributed,
while the US is only controlling where it can be distributed.  

>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.

It is different because in the USSR, the state has a monopoly on ownership
of the property.  Privately owned property in the US is not all owned by
the same person--the pamphleteers can go somewhere else, to find someone who
will allow use of their property, and if they have property available to
them, they can use their own property.  In the USSR, the state is the only
game in town, and if the state says you can't do something, you can't try
to do it somewhere else.  And just because someone allows one group
(i.e. supporters of the Crime Prevention program) to use their property
doesn't mean they have to let everyone use their property--it's their
property, and they can decide what to do with it.

>Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or
>public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left?

Forcing the mall owners to allow pamphleteers to distribute material is
also depriving freedoms--the freedoms of the owners to not be forced into use
of their property for a cause that they do not support.

If you can't give out literature in one place, that doesn't mean your views
are being suppressed.  If there is "no public place", that would appear to
show that nobody is interested in your point of view, and you shouldn't
continue to proselytize to people who don't want to be proselytized to.
If enough people support your view, they can exert pressure on the mall owners;
in the USSR no such possibility exists.

Of course, if all the malls across the nation were owned by one company,
then the result would be significant restriction on the free speech of the
distributers of the literature.  But this is NOT the case in the US and IS
the case in the USSR--except the state is the "company" and it controls not
only malls, but radio, TV, books, newspapers, etc....

>Explain to me how having an exhibition glorifying military hardware
>brings more customers than an exhibition celebrating Peace.

You can't say that your exhibition is celebrating peace and someone else's
is not.  Rather, the other party believes peace can be achieved in one manner
and you believe peace must be achieved in a different manner.  The other
party may be wrong in thinking that military expenditures bring peace,
but that doesn't mean they don't support peace, just that they're wrong about
the methods necessary.

The reason the military exhibition brings more customers is that more customers
believe that the other people's methods will bring peace than believe that
yours do.

>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.  

Because the shoppers disagree with certain beliefs and don't want to be prosely-
tized.  The question here is not music or art, but politics.  And even in the
case of truly non-political artists, just because the mall owners and the 
townspeople decide that one should be allowed, that doesn't mean they have to
let everyone.   
>       tim sevener   whuxn!orb
-- 
"We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to
socialism, because socialism is defunct.  It dies all by iself.  The bad thing
is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro

Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET              ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa