orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/17/86)
I don't think much has been gained in recent articles on rights to distribute literature *unobtrusively* in cases in which shopping malls have replaced downtown public squares or in which there were no such public squares to begin with. Bill Tanenbaum summarized the issues fairly well: either one accepts that the right to public expression applies to malls which have usurped public squares as community centers or one does not. I contend that the Consitution's guarantees of the right to free speech requires that community and political and religious groups be allowed to express their opinions in malls which are community centers hosting community events. It is unfortunate that local boards in their zeal to promote shopping malls and their possibility of raising taxes did *not* consider before hand the possible effects of such privately owned public places on people's civil liberties. They should have allowed zoning for such malls contingent on their guarantees of freedom of speech with the proviso that the city would provide police and other services provided in public parks. Otherwise, Tom Hill's statement: > Further it has been shown that there are may be > 1 or 2 spots left in the United States that would be able to handle such > a mall. is prima facie, absurd. I know of at least one mall being built in my own local area, I am sure that practically everyone on the net can name another mall being built in their area. For Tom's information I suggest that everyone on the net who knows of a mall being built in their area send him mail so he will see that such is indeed the case. What most disappoints me personally is the many "libertarians" on the net who seem totally unwilling to support civil liberties when it comes down to the crunch. That should be informative. tim sevener whuxn!orb
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/24/86)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 10:31 am Mar 17, 1986 */ >I contend that the Consitution's guarantees of the >right to free speech requires that community and political and >religious groups be allowed to express their opinions in malls >which are community centers hosting community events. Then the important question that you need to address are: a) Precisely what is a "mall?" b) Which malls are "community centers?" c) Which events are "community events?" >It is unfortunate that local boards in their zeal to promote >shopping malls and their possibility of raising taxes did *not* >consider before hand the possible effects of such privately owned >public places on people's civil liberties. How can the mere creation of such entities affect people's civil liberties? Are they not free to ignore any malls they choose to? >What most disappoints me personally is the many "libertarians" >on the net who seem totally unwilling to support civil liberties >when it comes down to the crunch. That should be informative. Can you say "scheister," Tim? > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mike Sykora
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/26/86)
> >/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 10:31 am Mar 17, 1986 */ > > >I contend that the Consitution's guarantees of the > >right to free speech requires that community and political and > >religious groups be allowed to express their opinions in malls > >which are community centers hosting community events. > > Then the important question that you need to address are: > a) Precisely what is a "mall?" > b) Which malls are "community centers?" > c) Which events are "community events?" > > Mike Sykora I presume then that you haven't been following this debate, Mike. Weeks ago I pointed out that the New Jersey Courts, in supporting rights of free speech in malls, repeatedly made it a question of *fact* as to whether a mall was indeed a community center which had largely replaced the functions of the town square. Neither the New Jersey Courts, California Courts, nor I, support the notion that one has the right to go into *all* private property carte blanche to distribute literature nor even to individual stores *within* malls themselves. In fact, I do not even insist in the right to distribute literature *within* malls themselves - I would be content to stand outside the outer doors and the parking lot. But campaign workers for a political candidate in New Jersey were even arrested by Bergen Mall for placing literature on car windshields in the parking lot. To argue that respecting people's rights to freedom of speech and expression in public places is the same as saying I have the right to come and scream in anyone's bedroom is the same kind of absurd argument as the arguments of opponents of the Equal Rights Amendment claiming that it would require both sexes to use the same bathroom. Your position on free speech shows quite clearly how "libertarian" propertarians like yourself really are, Mike. LIBERTY != PROPERTY tim sevener whuxn!orb "The price of lilberty is eternal vigilance!"