Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Public vs Private Property
Message-ID: <678@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 15:22:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: whuxl.678
Posted: Fri Jul  5 15:22:23 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 10:46:17 EDT
References: <656@whuxl.UUCP> <2380070@acf4.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany
Lines: 45

> From Michael Sykora: 
> I disagree, since I believe "freedom of speech" means that neither the
> government nor private individuals can shcoerce one to stop speaking,
> unless such speaking violate someone's right to life, liberty and
> justly-acquired property.
 
So in other words, workers cannot be fired for attempting to organize
a union or in other ways expressing their opinions. A commendable
stand.
> 
> >Demonstrations typically take place on public streets and public parks.
> >Where will they occur if all such property is privately owned and
> >the owners don't like such dissent?
> 
> I suppose they won't.  I don't see this as necessarily bad.

Then where will people (the minority whose rights Libertarians claim to be
so eager to defend) voice their opinions?  Shouting in closets, while
beneficial to the powers that be, has never been a very effective way
to challenge existing policies whether the government be a democratic one
or not.  The Women's Suffrage Movement, the Union Movement, the Civil
Rights Movement, the anti-Vietnam War Movement would have had quite a
difficult time without the right to *public* dissent.  
Indeed our own Revolution had its own public demonstrations which helped
to bring this free and democratic country into existence.
 
I agree with the Civil Liberties Union (which has always promoted
*true* civil liberties and not just those of property-holders) that
even groups like the Nazis have every right to march in public.
This is one of our precious freedoms as U.S. citizens.
> 
> >Is this really promoting either freedom or liberty?
> 
> Absolutely.  It is impossible for everyone to be completely free and
> at the same time have rights.  A system based on rights to life, liberty
> and justly-acquired property seems best able to maximize freedom
> without anarchy.
> 						Mike Sykora

Ah, I am glad that you begin to see that there is some need to balance
individuals' rights.  But I find it curious that you are so willing to
take away a basic right of citizens in this country since its inception
in order to protect the rights of "justly acquired property".
Curious, but hardly surprising.....
               tim sevener whuxl!orb