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