orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/17/86)
Bill Tanenbaum says in response to my complaint about the threat of arrest for distributing literature in shopping malls: > There you go again, Tim. There is absolutely no relation between the > situations in the U. S. and the Soviet Union. Neither the U. S. > government, nor state or local governments, have attempted to curtail > your rights to distribute literature. The only question is whether > the owner of private property should be able to outlaw the distribution of > literature (political or otherwise) on their property. My opinion is that, > with only a few exceptions, they can. The US government most certainly *is* curtailing my right to distribute literature when its police authority is used to prevent my exercise of that right. Just as the governmental authorities in the past used their authority to shoot and kill strikers. Just as employees in the past were prevented from distributing union literature in the workplace. After a long struggle unions finally obtained both the legally recognized right to strike and the right to distribute literature in the workplace without retribution. When Solidarity tries to distribute literature in the workplace in Poland this is hailed as a movement towards democracy. Suddenly it is *not* a movement towards democracy to grant similar rights against private employers in the US? In the Soviet Union the argument is that all property, including Red Square, is "owned by the State". Since the State owns the property it has the right to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights. Tell me how this is any different than saying that simply because a public shopping mall which holds community events such as "Crime Prevention Day" or "Picatiny Arsenal Day" is privately owned, that therefore citizens lose all democratic rights. Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left? > The only question, then, is whether a shopping mall is analagous > to a store, or to a public thoroughfare. My personal opinion is that > it is more like a public thoroughfare and you should be able to distribute > literature. This is precisely how the courts have ruled that people have the right to distribute literature in a given case. The judgment according to numerous court rulings in New Jersey is that as long as it can be established as a "question of fact" that a mall is in fact a public place similar in function to the town square of the past then people have the right to distribute literature as you suggest. Moreover the mall must have become the major locus of community events. The mall in which I was threatened with arrest is quite explicit in its claims, its name is "Rockaway TOWN SQUARE Mall". This mall has an annual exhibition from the Picatinny Arsenal, which makes components for nuclear weapons. The next week there were such community events planned as a "Crime Prevention Day", a "Ladies Group" and so forth. If this mall can sponsor community events such as a massive exhibition of propaganda for the military industrial complex then surely the other side has the right to be heard. > However, this is a point upon which reasonable people can > disagree. I understand the mall owner's point of view. You make it > sound like "powerful economic interests" are trying to suppress dissent. > NO!!! They are just trying to maximize the number of customers who shop > in their mall. Must your rather peculiar political biases cloud > your judgment in everything? Explain to me how having an exhibition glorifying military hardware brings more customers than an exhibition celebrating Peace. Moreover please explain to me how the present rigidly controlled atmosphere of the shopping malls attracts more shoppers than would be attracted if shopping malls instead allowed the sort of freedoms of town squares for amateur musicians, puppeteers, and other artists to entertain people freely. The mentality of control by the corporate owners of shopping malls is no different than the ridiculous mentality of control demonstrated in "Russia- Love it or Leave it" in which harmless and creative acts by individuals are suppressed for no other reason than to exert control. It is not even a question of being a political threat, it is simply a matter of control for malls to suppress not only the circulation of petitions but the sort of free-spirited artistic creativity which used to be a normal part of the town square. I have taken some efforts to go to Greenwich Village many times to enjoy the street musicians and other creative artists. I deliberately avoid malls because they offer no such creativity or spontaneity- not only do they not offer such creativity they deliberately suppress it. Is this the sort of country we wish to become? > I'm not sure I would defend Prudential's right to arrest you > for distributing literature in a shopping mall, but I would strongly > support their right to do so in the Prudential Building. > -- > Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan I agree with you on that point except for the right of employees in the Prudential Building to distribute literature to their coworkers. I am not arguing that anyone has the right to barge in on private property under all circumstances. What I am arguing is precisely what the New Jersey courts have argued - that in cases in which shopping malls have replaced town squares as the locus of community events, in which shopping malls deliberately sponsor community events and seek to be seen as the major public place in a community (i.e. like Rockaway TOWN SQUARE Mall) that the protection of our democratic rights means that people must have the right to petition and distribute literature. If not we will wind up with a nation in which malls have replaced town squares but allowed for none of the democratic rights of such town squares. And so goes our democracy. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." tim sevener whuxn!orb
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (02/20/86)
>Bill Tanenbaum says in response to my complaint about the >threat of arrest for distributing literature in shopping malls: >> There you go again, Tim. There is absolutely no relation between the >> situations in the U. S. and the Soviet Union. Neither the U. S. >> government, nor state or local governments, have attempted to curtail >> your rights to distribute literature. The only question is whether >> the owner of private property should be able to outlaw the distribution of >> literature (political or otherwise) on their property. My opinion is that, >> with only a few exceptions, they can. > >The US government most certainly *is* curtailing my right to distribute >literature when its police authority is used to prevent my >exercise of that right. Just as the governmental authorities in the >past used their authority to shoot and kill strikers. Just as >employees in the past were prevented from distributing union literature >in the workplace. After a long struggle unions finally obtained both >the legally recognized right to strike and the right to distribute >literature in the workplace without retribution. When Solidarity >tries to distribute literature in the workplace in Poland this is >hailed as a movement towards democracy. Suddenly it is *not* a movement >towards democracy to grant similar rights against private employers >in the US? Sorry, but there is a great deal of difference between the freedom given to Solidarity (or lack thereof) and the freedom given to US citizens, to distribute literature. The reason distribution of literature by Solidarity is considered democratic is that the government of Poland controls, in general, all the people's sources of information. Am independent source of information, such as the literature, is therefore a move by Solidarity towards democracy. In the US, if the organizations prohibited from distributing literature in the mall were also prohibited from distributing their literature everywhere else, the situation would be analogous to that in Poland. But the US government does not have total control of the media, and unlike Solidarity, the pamphlet distributers DO have ways to legally give their pamphlets out. Poland is controlling what can be distributed, while the US is only controlling where it can be distributed. >In the Soviet Union the argument is that all property, including Red Square, >is "owned by the State". Since the State owns the property it has the >right to prevent people from exercising their democratic rights. >Tell me how this is any different than saying that simply because >a public shopping mall which holds community events such as >"Crime Prevention Day" or "Picatiny Arsenal Day" is privately owned, >that therefore citizens lose all democratic rights. It is different because in the USSR, the state has a monopoly on ownership of the property. Privately owned property in the US is not all owned by the same person--the pamphleteers can go somewhere else, to find someone who will allow use of their property, and if they have property available to them, they can use their own property. In the USSR, the state is the only game in town, and if the state says you can't do something, you can't try to do it somewhere else. And just because someone allows one group (i.e. supporters of the Crime Prevention program) to use their property doesn't mean they have to let everyone use their property--it's their property, and they can decide what to do with it. >Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or >public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left? Forcing the mall owners to allow pamphleteers to distribute material is also depriving freedoms--the freedoms of the owners to not be forced into use of their property for a cause that they do not support. If you can't give out literature in one place, that doesn't mean your views are being suppressed. If there is "no public place", that would appear to show that nobody is interested in your point of view, and you shouldn't continue to proselytize to people who don't want to be proselytized to. If enough people support your view, they can exert pressure on the mall owners; in the USSR no such possibility exists. Of course, if all the malls across the nation were owned by one company, then the result would be significant restriction on the free speech of the distributers of the literature. But this is NOT the case in the US and IS the case in the USSR--except the state is the "company" and it controls not only malls, but radio, TV, books, newspapers, etc.... >Explain to me how having an exhibition glorifying military hardware >brings more customers than an exhibition celebrating Peace. You can't say that your exhibition is celebrating peace and someone else's is not. Rather, the other party believes peace can be achieved in one manner and you believe peace must be achieved in a different manner. The other party may be wrong in thinking that military expenditures bring peace, but that doesn't mean they don't support peace, just that they're wrong about the methods necessary. The reason the military exhibition brings more customers is that more customers believe that the other people's methods will bring peace than believe that yours do. >Moreover please explain to me how the present rigidly controlled >atmosphere of the shopping malls attracts more shoppers than would be >attracted if shopping malls instead allowed the sort of freedoms of >town squares for amateur musicians, puppeteers, and other artists >to entertain people freely. Because the shoppers disagree with certain beliefs and don't want to be prosely- tized. The question here is not music or art, but politics. And even in the case of truly non-political artists, just because the mall owners and the townspeople decide that one should be allowed, that doesn't mean they have to let everyone. > tim sevener whuxn!orb -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) (02/21/86)
In article <540@whuts.UUCP> orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Explain to me how having an exhibition glorifying military hardware >brings more customers than an exhibition celebrating Peace. Is this question supposed to be serious or rhetorical? After all, it is pretty obvious that exhibits of militaria attract a lot of people. Kids love to clamber over tanks and play with artillery and sit in cockpits and vehicles. This brings along their parents, who are potential customers, as are the kids themselves and anybody else who came to see the exhibits. Maybe other exhibits would attract more than these; it is now up to you to design and produce one, and make it available to the mall owners. If it does attract more, they'll be happy to provide space. What *are* you going to exhibit to "celebrate Peace", though? Reproductions of famous treaties? A mess of doves? A blacksmith beating swords into plowshares? For what it's worth, though, I agree that malls should be treated like public streets, in terms of political access. Just because they are under a roof, and the trash collection is handled by a private party instead of a municipality, doesn't change their essential character, which is a direct descendent of the community "shopping district" or "business district", and whose roles the mall has usurped. Will
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/04/86)
In article <2004@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: >> >Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or >> >public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left? >> Forcing the mall owners to allow pamphleteers to distribute material is >> also depriving freedoms--the freedoms of the owners to not be forced into use >> of their property for a cause that they do not support. >> If you can't give out literature in one place, that doesn't mean your views >> are being suppressed. If there is "no public place", that would appear to >> show that nobody is interested in your point of view, and you shouldn't >> continue to proselytize to people who don't want to be proselytized to. >> If enough people support your view, they can exert pressure on the mall >> owners; in the USSR no such possibility exists. >It is all to easy to argue that USA is better place than USRR. >However, one must notice a power of moneyed interests to manipulate >the public opinion not by shutting up the opposing views but by >controlling the dominant channels of communication. Oh no, those evil capitalists are at it again! Really, one organization doesn't own all the channels of communication, at least in the US. (In the USSR, the situation is, of course, exactly that--the state has a monopoly on information sources.) Even if there are so many "moneyed interests" who "control the channels of communi- cation", they don't all agree with one another, so different opinions do get expressed. >One of such channels is distributing literature in the places >frequented by majority of local population... What Tim Sevener exhibited was a >flagrant confluence between private interests (mall owners) and the law >enforcement (local police). Police expelled pamphleteers even when shown >court decisions that it is unlawful. >The argument "you should not proselite to people who don't want it" >is a fallacy, because Tim was not proseliting the mall manager, but >the shoppers. The second argument "if enough people support your >view" is almost equally ridiculus. How people can support my views >if they do not know them? --Piotr Berman The point was that the mall managers have to respond to the shoppers' desires. If they do not, the shoppers can shop somewhere else. As for people supporting the views if they don't know them, obviously they DO know at least enough about themto not want to be exposed to them in the mall, and their desires about this are widely enough known that the mall managers know this also. >> Because the shoppers disagree with certain beliefs and don't want to be >> proselytized. The question here is not music or art, but politics. >Bulshit. Any supermarket in my area has a rack with free copies of >"Plain Truth", a proseliting right-wing/religious propaganda. It is possible for shoppers to dislike some types of proselytization more than they dislike others. That is the shoppers' right. >I cannot imagine a shopper who refrains from going to a mall because >he/she may be handed in a leaflet. You yorself worried about >> the freedoms of the owners to not be forced into use >> of their property for a cause that they do not support. OK, let me clarify: The owners don't want such use of their property because it alienates shoppers. Being forced to allow their property's being used in such a manner reduces their profits from shoppers, thus making them lose money. I cannot imagine a shopper who buys one product in preference to another because the product is advertised with an advertisement that says nothing about the product itself or the product's price. Yet such ads obviously are effective. Other shoppers often do things for reasons that you or I might not. -- Kenneth Arromdee | | BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM, INS_AKAA at JHUVMS -|------|- CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET -|------|- ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA -|------|- UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} -|------|- !jhunix!ins_akaa | |
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/06/86)
> OK, let me clarify: The owners don't want such use of their property > because it alienates shoppers. Being forced to allow their property's > being used in such a manner reduces their profits from shoppers, thus > making them lose money. > > I cannot imagine a shopper who buys one product in preference to another > because the product is advertised with an advertisement that says nothing > about the product itself or the product's price. Yet such ads obviously > are effective. Other shoppers often do things for reasons that you or I > might not. > -- > Kenneth Arromdee | | 1)I may not agree with the American Nazi party as they march through Skokie. Does this give me the right to censor their opinions? Freedom of speech involves some amount of irritation. If this becomes excessive or obnoxious then some control may be needed. In the New York Supreme Court case banning leafletting in New York malls, the court itself agreed that leafletters were unobtrusive. 2)Please present some evidence that leafletting in malls is either disliked or reduces profits for the mall. My own personal experience was that several people commended me for concern about the arms race. You will have to counter this evidence. As I mentioned previously a discussion with one person who disagreed with my position ended with his support for everyone's right to express their views in America, regardless of what they were. I support the right of Nazis as well as all groups to disseminate their views. That is what freedom of speech is all about! 3)Shopping mall managers seem to have no qualms about stores distributing advertising leaflets on cars or within the malls themselves. Are advertising leaflets somehow "less obtrusive" or less detracting to customers? I cannot believe so. It still baffles me how supposed "Libertarians" "propertarians" "Objectivists" or whatever can be so eager to deny basic Constitutional rights! tim sevener whuxn!orb
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/08/86)
> In article <2004@psuvax1.UUCP> berman@psuvax1.UUCP writes: > >> >Moreover imagine what happens when there *is no town square* or > >> >public place except for the mall - what freedoms are left? > >>Forcing the mall owners to allow pamphleteers to distribute material is also > >> depriving freedoms--the freedoms of the owners to not be forced into use > >> of their property for a cause that they do not support. > >> If you can't give out literature in one place, that doesn't mean your views > >> are being suppressed. If there is "no public place", that would appear to > >> show that nobody is interested in your point of view, and you shouldn't > >> continue to proselytize to people who don't want to be proselytized to. > >> If enough people support your view, they can exert pressure on the mall > >> owners; in the USSR no such possibility exists. > >It is all to easy to argue that USA is better place than USRR. > >However, one must notice a power of moneyed interests to manipulate > >the public opinion not by shutting up the opposing views but by > >controlling the dominant channels of communication. > > Oh no, those evil capitalists are at it again! > Really, one organization doesn't own all the channels of communication, > at least in the US. (In the USSR, the situation is, of course........ I did not claim that there exist a "capitalistic conspiracy". However, there are poll results which exhibit that corporate officers have in average political opinions which are much to the right of the average of the public as a whole. Thus the distribution of propaganda trash like "Plain Truth", interprets the Bible in a way which "shows" that the welfare "against the God's law" is much easier than the distribution of "peace literature". > >One of such channels is distributing literature in the places frequented > >by majority of local population... What Tim Sevener exhibited was a > >flagrant confluence between private interests (mall owners) and the law > >enforcement (local police). Police expelled pamphleteers even when shown > >court decisions that it is unlawful. > >The argument "you should not proselite to people who don't want it" > >is a fallacy, because Tim was not proseliting the mall manager, but > >the shoppers. The second argument "if enough people support your > >view" is almost equally ridiculus. How people can support my views > >if they do not know them? --Piotr Berman > > The point was that the mall managers have to respond to the shoppers' desires. > If they do not, the shoppers can shop somewhere else. As for people supporting > the views if they don't know them, obviously they DO know at least enough > about them to not want to be exposed to them in the mall, and their desires > about this are widely enough known that the mall managers know this also. > Sorry, but this is a peace of bullshit. I NEVER heard about somebody who prefers mall shopping over down-town shopping BECAUSE in a mall one is not exposed to pamphleteers. (Did anyone avoid some airports because of the presence of Hare Krishna?) > OK, let me clarify: The owners don't want such use of their property > because it alienates shoppers. Being forced to allow their property's > being used in such a manner reduces their profits from shoppers, thus > making them lose money. > > I cannot imagine a shopper who buys one product in preference to another > because the product is advertised with an advertisement that says nothing > about the product itself or the product's price. Yet such ads obviously > are effective. Other shoppers often do things for reasons that you or I > might not. > > Kenneth Arromdee As I see it, the mall management should be allowed to expell people who dicourage shoppers with their behavior. I disagree that quiet, well-dressed, unobtrusive pamphleteers are in this cathegory any more than people handing-out restaurant ads. Piotr Berman
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee) (03/09/86)
>> OK, let me clarify: The owners don't want such use of their property >> because it alienates shoppers. Being forced to allow their property's >> being used in such a manner reduces their profits from shoppers, thus >> making them lose money. >> >> I cannot imagine a shopper who buys one product in preference to another >> because the product is advertised with an advertisement that says nothing >> about the product itself or the product's price. Yet such ads obviously >> are effective. Other shoppers often do things for reasons that you or I >> might not. >> Kenneth Arromdee >1)I may not agree with the American Nazi party... Does this give me the right >to censor their opinions?... the court itself agreed that leafletters >were unobtrusive. It's not "censoring opinions"--you can express those opinions elsewhere. In the USSR, this is not possible. >2)Please present some evidence that leafletting in malls is either > disliked or reduces profits for the mall. My own personal > experience was that several people commended me for concern > about the arms race. You will have to counter this evidence. First, people who don't like the leafletting are not likely to complain about it. (Who are they going to complain to? And about what?) And the owners of the mall have made the judgement that in general, shoppers will not go to the mall as much if the leaflets are given out. If the owners are mistaken about this, their mistake will result in loss of money by them, and eventually they will have to change their policy. Yes, I am saying to trust the owners in their judgement of shopkeepers' preferences--after all, if they're wrong, they'll feel it in their pocketbook. >3)Shopping mall managers seem to have no qualms about stores > distributing advertising leaflets on cars or within the malls > themselves. Are advertising leaflets somehow "less obtrusive" > or less detracting to customers? I cannot believe so. It's quite possible customers might dislike advertising leaflets less than they do political pamphlets. As I have pointed out before, customers may do things for illogical reasons, and this is not even that illogical, since the customer preference is based upon the type of content of the leaflets-- advertising vs. politics. > tim sevener whuxn!orb -- "We are going to give a little something, a few little years more, to socialism, because socialism is defunct. It dies all by iself. The bad thing is that socialism, being a victim of its... Did I say socialism?" -Fidel Castro Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa