g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (03/03/86)
[..... Truncated quoted material follows .......] >> >mean. Well, I think I get the gist... You're saying that if I want to come >> >into your house uninvited during a party and hand out literature that you >> >find offensive, I should be allowed to do so. Would you also extend this >> >"free speech" concept to actual speech? If I wanted to enter your house and >> >harangue at the top of my lungs, should I be allowed to do so? At any time >> >of the day or night? >> > >> There is a very important distiction between a private citizen's house and >> a corporate mall. A corporation is an artificial entity the owners of which >> (shareholders) are protected from any legal action from private people. >> The corporation is a creation of the state, it has a charter from the state, >> therefore it should be subject to the same cival rights requirements that >> apply to the state. >> > >So a mall owned by an individual, or a partnership, that wasn't a >corporation, should have the right to refuse political leafletting? The real distinction is this: There are (for the sake of simplification) two types of property. The first type is private property controlled by an individual. By this I mean things like my car, my house, my personal tools, etc, that I actually use. It also includes my means of production if I am an individual producer. For example, it would include my dental tools and office equipment if I were a dentist. In a very real sense I can be said to own and operate this property personally. The second type is what I will call social property. A good example is a steel mill. I can't operate a steel mill all by myself. A steel mill has value and utility only if there is an organization to operate it. The same is true of a shopping mall. No one "owns" a shopping mall in the sense that they "own" their house. The important thing about social property is that there must be organizations to operate it, and, in all but very primitive societies, the rules under which these organizations operate and exist are defined by the society as a whole. The debate between the proponents of classical capitalism and those of socialism can be viewed as one about the "best" approach towards regulating the control and operation of social property. In my opinion it is an error to confuse the two. Claims that forced permission of leaflet distribution in shopping malls are the same kind of thing as giving the general public the right to enter my house without my permission are misleading, nor is the issue one of the formal ownership of the mall. Mind you, I am not taking a position on either side. I am simply trying to dispose of some strawmen and red herrings. Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/04/86)
> [..... Truncated quoted material follows .......] > >> >mean. Well, I think I get the gist... You're saying that if I want to come > >> >into your house uninvited during a party and hand out literature that you > >> >find offensive, I should be allowed to do so. Would you also extend this > >> >"free speech" concept to actual speech? If I wanted to enter your house and > >> >harangue at the top of my lungs, should I be allowed to do so? At any time > >> >of the day or night? > >> > > >> There is a very important distiction between a private citizen's house and > >> a corporate mall. A corporation is an artificial entity the owners of which > >> (shareholders) are protected from any legal action from private people. > >> The corporation is a creation of the state, it has a charter from the state, > >> therefore it should be subject to the same cival rights requirements that > >> apply to the state. > >> > > > >So a mall owned by an individual, or a partnership, that wasn't a > >corporation, should have the right to refuse political leafletting? > > The real distinction is this: There are (for the sake of simplification) > two types of property. The first type is private property controlled by > an individual. By this I mean things like my car, my house, my personal > tools, etc, that I actually use. It also includes my means of production > if I am an individual producer. For example, it would include my dental > tools and office equipment if I were a dentist. In a very real sense I > can be said to own and operate this property personally. > > The second type is what I will call social property. A good example is > a steel mill. I can't operate a steel mill all by myself. A steel mill > has value and utility only if there is an organization to operate it. > The same is true of a shopping mall. No one "owns" a shopping mall in > the sense that they "own" their house. The important thing about social > property is that there must be organizations to operate it, and, in all > but very primitive societies, the rules under which these organizations > operate and exist are defined by the society as a whole. The debate > between the proponents of classical capitalism and those of socialism > can be viewed as one about the "best" approach towards regulating the > control and operation of social property. > Why distinguish between "social property" and "personal property" based on whether one person can operate it or not? Why not make the distinction based on whether one person can *build* it? This seems just as valid, perhaps more so, since an automated steel mill MIGHT be operable by one person, but would certainly require many people to build it. This distinction seems designed to justify the status quo concerning leafletting, rather than a realistic basis for treating a mall differently than a church or home. > Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. Clayton Cramer
g-rh@cca.UUCP (Richard Harter) (03/06/86)
In article <> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >Why distinguish between "social property" and "personal property" based >on whether one person can operate it or not? Why not make the distinction >based on whether one person can *build* it? This seems just as valid, >perhaps more so, since an automated steel mill MIGHT be operable by one >person, but would certainly require many people to build it. This >distinction seems designed to justify the status quo concerning leafletting, >rather than a realistic basis for treating a mall differently than a >church or home. > Point well taken. [Actually I don't give a damn about leafletting in malls one way or another.] "Personal property" normally has the char- acteristic that the labor cost of bringing into existence is less than a single persons lifetime. However I did mean "operate" in a more general sense. Even if the steel mill is completely automated somebody has to market the steel, somebody has to negotiate contracts for delivery of ore to the mill and steel to the customers, etc. Most property has the characteristic that it has an associated function. The distinguishing feature of "social property" is that the exercise of its function requires an organization and that its principal value is to an organization. For example, an office building is "social property". Granted that people could take shelter in it; however it was not designed for that and does not serve that purpose very well. [Obvious question -- how does one classify an apartment building? An army barracks?] One important feature of "social property" is that there must be an institution associated with it -- it may be a company, a church, a government, a club, a university, whatever. [Yes, churches are different from homes.] Richard Harter, SMDS Inc.
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (03/06/86)
There are pretty obviously a number of types of property; I will list some below, as they come to me -- others may well think of still more types, or sub-divisions of these types, as this is by no means exhaustive. "Proper" or allowable or tolerable behavior may well be different on theses different types of property. (What is "proper" is, of course, determined by those with the greatest power -- usually those that have the guns. This usually equates to those controlling the police or army.) Public property: The traditional city street and sidewalks. Note that behavior on this is already restrained by ordinances regarding traffic-blocking, permits required to set up a stand and sell goods, etc. Municipal (public) funds pay to maintain these areas. Public/private property: The private street, where the owners' funds pay for the maintenance rather than municipal funds being used. Security is provided by private guards, etc., though the municipality is called in for serious police work or fire-fighting, etc. [I really am unsure as to the legal status of public access to such areas. Anyone have facts on this?] Personal private property: Owner-occupied real estate; your home. Note that "a man's home is his castle" is no longer true -- occupancy permits, laws about such things as pet ownership and smoke-alarm installation already restrict what you do in the privacy of your own home, even if you own the building and land. Condo association or subdivision regulations or deed restrictions may also apply. Rented personal private property: A home location rented from some other person, as an apartment. Rights of occupant further restricted by lease (either explicit or common-law). Private business property: A factory or plant, for example, where the general public does not have access, but which is open to the owners and to those they have hired to work there, or contracted with for services, or allowed access for business-related reasons (utility company people coming in to read a meter, for example). Limited-access public business property: A wholesale-to-the-trade showroom, for example, to which access is granted to those persons meeting some standard of group membership, such as "buyer for a retail outlet" or "purchaser in some quantity". The nature of the restriction must be posted or otherwise publicly proclaimed. Quasi-public business property: A retail outlet, store, or service site, where members of the public are allowed or encouraged to enter to shop or to purchase services or inquire about such. If you enter, but do not buy, browse, or engage in some form of trade relationship with the proprietor, you may be legitimately requested to leave. Your presence in this area is predicated on the presumption that you are there to trade. Fully-public business property: The prime example is the mall, where all this discussion originated. This is NOT the individual store or shop in the mall, which falls under the preceeding category, but the area outside the stores, to which access is granted the general public, in the hope that they will in turn enter the stores to spend money. Note that there is no requirement or contract to the effect that, once you enter the mall, you *must* subsequently enter a mall shop to buy or browse or otherwise interact with the actual retailer; you have a legal right to enter this mall, even if it is private property, because it is held out as available for access by members of the general public. You can go and just sit, and it is legitimate. In the light of the above, I would equate "public property" with the "fully-public business property", in that legitimate free-speech political actions should be allowed in both. Even though I probably would violently disagree with everything Tim would say or the leaflets he would distribute, I agree with him that access to this sort of area should be allowed, despite that some person or organization happens to own it. Will
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (03/08/86)
This whole discussion is getting rather ridiculous. The critical factor which makes a mall a public place is that anybody is let in, and allowed to remain, whether they have any business there or not. (This is, in general, only true during the hours they are open; the right of the mall owners to close the place at night is unassailable.) This is quite different from a home, where the public may not enter, or a church, which is likely to let anyone enter, but is likely to require that they participate in the service. The right to free speech in a public place, so long as it doesn't interfere with the owner's intended uses, is quite properly guaranteed by the courts on the basis of the first amendment. (The interference clause would rule out blocking access, or setting up a loudspeaker system which interferes with the ability of those in the stores to conduct business.) Mr. Sevener is thus quite right to be outraged about having been denied access to a mall for leafletting. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (03/11/86)
> This whole discussion is getting rather ridiculous. The critical factor > which makes a mall a public place is that anybody is let in, and allowed to > remain, whether they have any business there or not. Ah, I see. Mall owners have to let anyone do whatever what they want because a mall is a public place, and a mall is a public place because the owners let anyone in. That explains everything!
rb@ccivax.UUCP (rex ballard) (03/13/86)
In article <1589@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: >There are pretty obviously a number of types of property; I will list >some below, as they come to me -- others may well think of still more >types, or sub-divisions of these types, as this is by no means >exhaustive. "Proper" or allowable or tolerable behavior may well be >different on theses different types of property. (What is "proper" is, >of course, determined by those with the greatest power -- usually those >that have the guns. This usually equates to those controlling the police >or army.) > >Public property: The traditional city street and sidewalks. Note that >behavior on this is already restrained by ordinances regarding >traffic-blocking, permits required to set up a stand and sell goods, etc. >Municipal (public) funds pay to maintain these areas. > >Fully-public business property: The prime example is the mall, where all >this discussion originated. This is NOT the individual store or shop in >the mall, which falls under the preceeding category, but the area >outside the stores, to which access is granted the general public, in >the hope that they will in turn enter the stores to spend money. Note >that there is no requirement or contract to the effect that, once you >enter the mall, you *must* subsequently enter a mall shop to buy or >browse or otherwise interact with the actual retailer; you have a legal >right to enter this mall, even if it is private property, because it is >held out as available for access by members of the general public. You >can go and just sit, and it is legitimate. > >In the light of the above, I would equate "public property" with the >"fully-public business property", in that legitimate free-speech >political actions should be allowed in both. Even though I probably >would violently disagree with everything Tim would say or the leaflets >he would distribute, I agree with him that access to this sort of area >should be allowed, despite that some person or organization happens to >own it. Unless you propose using tax money to pay for the support and maintenance of the mall (rather than charging the stores rent), the stores and the mall management (acting on behalf of the owner) are the only ones who have a legitimate "right" to determine what can and cannot be done in the mall. In fact, when malls became a gathering place for teen-age gangs, the police were called in to eject them, even though they were not patronizing the store. If Tim really wants to distribute leaflets on the mall, he can approach a few of the merchants, show them what he wants to distribute, and ask the merchant to bring it up at the next "tenants meeting". Charities and non-profit organizations frequently do this, and are given permission to leaflet for a specific period of time. For example: Easter Seals can have various fund raising events during the week or two preceding the telethon. Ecology groups and the forest service people are invited during RV exibition week. The main concern of mall management is control of any activity which might be percieved by the tenants as driving customers away. If you can convince the tenants that your activities will ATTRACT people to the mall, you might be able to get the whole mall for a 'Theme exibit'. Also, find out what the themes will be, and who is running them. You may be able to get a booth and distribute leaflets from there. From the original posting, it sounds like you were ejected because you didn't go through channels.
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (03/13/86)
In article <5113@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >> This whole discussion is getting rather ridiculous. The critical factor >> which makes a mall a public place is that anybody is let in, and allowed to >> remain, whether they have any business there or not. > >Ah, I see. Mall owners have to let anyone do whatever what they want >because a mall is a public place, and a mall is a public place because >the owners let anyone in. That explains everything! The mall owner's *do*, in fact, let anyone in. And they *don't*, in fact, require them to do anything in particular there. Furthermore, as I noted in text Andrew saw fit to ignore, the owners don't have to let anyone do *anything* they want; they have a perfect right to prevent activities which interfere with their intended uses. Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/14/86)
>/* franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) / 12:25 am Mar 8, 1986 */ >The critical factor >which makes a mall a public place is that anybody is let in, and allowed to >remain, whether they have any business there or not. Clearly, this is not true of the mall Sevener talked about, as he was not allowed to remain. >This is quite different from a >home, where the public may not enter, or a church, which is likely to let >anyone enter, but is likely to require that they participate in the service. More likely, a church would allow someone to stay if either they participated or they merely observed, i.e., they didn't disturb the service in any way. Similarly, mall owners may allow people into the mall on the condition that they don't disturb any of the (other) shoppers there. >The right to free speech in a public place, so long as it doesn't interfere >with the owner's intended uses, is quite properly guaranteed by the courts >on the basis of the first amendment. If customers claim to be disturbed by disseminaters of literature, does that not constitute interference with the owner's intended uses. >Frank Adams ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Mike Sykora
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/15/86)
> In article <1589@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes: > >There are pretty obviously a number of types of property; I will list > >some below, as they come to me .......... > > > >Public property: The traditional city street and sidewalks. ........ > > > >Fully-public business property: The prime example is the mall, where all > >this discussion originated. This is NOT the individual store or shop in > >the mall, which falls under the preceeding category, but the area > >outside the stores, to which access is granted the general public, in > >the hope that they will in turn enter the stores to spend money. Note > >that there is no requirement or contract to the effect that, once you > >enter the mall, you *must* subsequently enter a mall shop to buy ...... > > > >In the light of the above, I would equate "public property" with the > >"fully-public business property", in that legitimate free-speech > >political actions should be allowed in both............... > > Unless you propose using tax money to pay for the support and maintenance > of the mall (rather than charging the stores rent), the stores and > the mall management (acting on behalf of the owner) are the only ones > who have a legitimate "right" to determine what can and cannot be done > in the mall. In fact, when malls became a gathering place for teen-age > gangs, the police were called in to eject them, even though they were > not patronizing the store. > > If Tim really wants to distribute leaflets on the mall, he can approach > a few of the merchants, .............................. > ask the merchant to bring it up at the next "tenants meeting". > Charities and non-profit organizations frequently do this, and are > given permission to leaflet for a specific period of time. For example: > Easter Seals can ..................................... > > The main concern of mall management is control of any activity which > might be percieved by the tenants as driving customers away...... I fully agree that there are differences between types of property. It is not much questioned that if you run a bissness on a property, than you cannot limit access to it in an arbitrary way. For example, it is not legal to refuse leasing an appartment solely because the applicant is black. Access to a store cannot be limited in this fashion as well. What is being proposed here is censorship by mall management (whatever the form of this management is). If driving customers away is a legitimate concern, then simple rule concerning the behavior of leaflet distributors would suffice. I already ask why airports or downtown shopping alleys can put up with them. Imagine that Tim is not a peacenik but a Trotskyist who wants to distribute his leaflets. Do you think that many merchants would find it a cute idea to let him do it in the week around anniversary of Trotsky's death? Scary for shoppers? Indeed, but why shoppers in Cambridge Central Square do not avoid the stores? If anything makes peoples to go to a mall instead, it is prices, selection and availability of parking. The ancient democracies had to have the meeting places for the people, be it Greek agora or Roman forum. It seems that suburban communities suffer a kind of agorafobia: a fear against a place where the most of the public can meet freely. Res publica, common wealth, turns into a constellation of carefully insulated communities. In this circumstances I agree more with the decision of NJ courts, which view malls as equivalent to public places than NY courts, which do not. Piotr Berman