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!cbosgd!ihnp4!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: <665@whuxl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 12:57:21 EDT Article-I.D.: whuxl.665 Posted: Mon Jun 24 12:57:21 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 03:29:17 EDT References: <656@whuxl.UUCP> <2380041@acf4.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany Lines: 37 > >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 8:52 am Jun 18, 1985 */ > > >In fact, the shopping malls owner's > >ejection of leafletters and others espousing viewpoints s/he doesn't like > >is simply a discriminatory ban of part of the public, not the public as > >a whole, nor the protection of any right of privacy. > > Do you exclude the public as a whole from your place of residence, or > only a part of it? > I exclude the public as a whole from my home as it is a private place. I do not make money from inviting the public at large to buy or sell goods or services in my home. Therefore my right to privacy is protected. > >In fact, fortunately some Courts in New Jersey have ruled that malls > >can *not* ban free speech or leafletting since they are indeed > >public places regardless of their nominal private ownership. > > Will you think it fortunate when the courts declare that 1+1=3? > > > tim sevener whuxl!orb > > Mike Sykoa Would you think it fortunate if all property now publicly held were placed in private hands and the Courts ruled that there was no freedom of speech or assembly in *any* private property? Tis a curious liberty the "Libert"atians defend! Is the true color of "Libert"arians "liberty" now revealed? tim sevener whuxl!orb