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: Shopping Malls: re to Tom Hill
Message-ID: <603@whuts.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 10:22:11 EST
Article-I.D.: whuts.603
Posted: Wed Mar 26 10:22:11 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:28:38 EST
References: <1048@whuxl.UUCP> <3630077@csd2.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 43

> >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 10:31 am  Mar 17, 1986 */
> 
> >I contend that the Consitution's guarantees of the
> >right to free speech requires that community and political and
> >religious groups be allowed to express their opinions in malls
> >which are community centers hosting community events.
> 
> Then the important question that you need to address are:
> 	a)  Precisely what is a "mall?"
> 	b)  Which malls are "community centers?"
> 	c)  Which events are "community events?"
> 
> Mike Sykora

I presume then that you haven't been following this debate, Mike.
Weeks ago I pointed out that the New Jersey Courts, in supporting
rights of free speech in malls, repeatedly made it a question of
*fact* as to whether a mall was indeed a community center which
had largely replaced the functions of the town square.
 
Neither the New Jersey Courts, California Courts, nor I, support
the notion that one has the right to go into *all* private property
carte blanche to distribute literature nor even to individual stores
*within* malls themselves.  In fact, I do not even insist in
the right to distribute literature *within* malls themselves -
I would be content to stand outside the outer doors and the parking
lot.  But campaign workers for a political candidate in New Jersey
were even arrested by Bergen Mall for placing literature on
car windshields in the parking lot.

To argue that respecting people's rights to freedom of speech and
expression in public places is the same as saying I have the
right to come and scream in anyone's bedroom is the same kind
of absurd argument as the arguments of opponents of the Equal Rights
Amendment claiming that it would require both sexes to use the same
bathroom.

Your position on free speech shows quite clearly how "libertarian"
propertarians like yourself really are, Mike.
               LIBERTY != PROPERTY
 
               tim sevener  whuxn!orb
"The price of lilberty is eternal vigilance!"