Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version nyu B notes v1.5 12/10/84; site acf4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!cmcl2!acf4!mms1646
From: mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Public vs Private Property
Message-ID: <2380070@acf4.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 3-Jul-85 02:52:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: acf4.2380070
Posted: Wed Jul  3 02:52:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:19:13 EDT
References: <656@whuxl.UUCP>
Organization: New York University
Lines: 26

>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) /  9:10 am  Jul  2, 1985 */

>from these two statements I conclude that there would be no freedom of
>speech left.

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.

>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.

>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.
  
>              tim sevener whuxl!orb

						Mike Sykora