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