Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!caip!sri-spam!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!hplabs!tektronix!teklds!midas!jeffw
From: jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Newsgroups: net.women,net.sci,net.politics
Subject: Re: Libertarianism, Objectivism and Shopping Malls
Message-ID: <512@midas.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jul-86 03:00:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: midas.512
Posted: Fri Jul 18 03:00:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jul-86 04:04:41 EDT
References: <2165@brl-smoke.ARPA> <860@whuts.UUCP> <2860@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow)
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton, OR.
Lines: 34
Xref: watmath net.women:11443 net.sci:1306 net.politics:17503

In article <2860@teddy.UUCP> mxc@teddy.UUCP (Marc Campos) writes:

>Of course, all individuals have the right to free speech.  But that
>doesn't mean that they have the right to use SOMEONE ELSE'S property as
>a podium.  The owners of those shopping malls have a right to determine
>how their malls will be used.  They choose to allow the general public
>to shop there, but that doesn't mean those malls are a "public" place.
>
>I think someone has already mentioned this argument, but suppose a group
>decided that your own front yard was public property, and staged rallies
>there.  Oh, you let the "general public" knock on your door, so
>therefore your home is open to the public, right?  The "civil liberties"
>of these folks overrides your "right to property", correct?  Of course
>not.  The right to free speech doesn't mean that you have to provide
>them with a podium, just like freedom of the press doesn't imply that
>you have to offer them a printing press.

The fatal flaw in this analogy, and the one which keeps the controversy
alive, is this:

Owners of shopping malls don't "choose to allow" the general public on 
their property. They *require* the general public to use their property
in order for it to fulfill its function. On the other hand, your home
has no such need for the attention of the general public.

Put it another way: A shopping mall is a place that's privately owned,
but commonly used by the public (unlike your home). It's not hard
to see why the issue of free speech in an area that to all appearances
is no different than a street or a park is such a thorny legal problem.

By the way, I hope the occurrence of this discussion in net.women doesn't
mean you guys think women should be doing all the shopping! :-)

						Jeff Winslow