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