Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dciem.UUCP Path: utzoo!dciem!mmt From: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Newsgroups: net.politics.theory,net.jokes Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech and Assembly in Public vs Private Property Message-ID: <1618@dciem.UUCP> Date: Sat, 6-Jul-85 12:53:40 EDT Article-I.D.: dciem.1618 Posted: Sat Jul 6 12:53:40 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 6-Jul-85 14:12:56 EDT References: <656@whuxl.UUCP>Reply-To: mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) Followup-To: net.politics.theory Organization: D.C.I.E.M., Toronto, Canada Lines: 47 Summary: The following, from net.politics.theory, must qualify as the best (unintentional) joke on the net in recent weeks. To justify keeping this followup in net.politics.theory as well as net.jokes, look at it in context of another posting that accused severner of misquoting Sykora's position, and saying at the same time "the truth shall set you free" or some such. Truth ... Hah! >=========== >>/* 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 In other words, as Severner originally said: When all property is privately owned and the owners control what can be said on that property, there can be no freedom of speech, even though Sykora will argue that if there had been any remaining public property, speech there would have been absolutely free, and therefore freedom of speech is not abridged. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt