rrizzo@bbncca.ARPA (Ron Rizzo) (02/10/86)
This week PBS' "Frontline" program features "Russia: Love It Or Leave It", a candid look at the USSR. Frontline's camera crews eluded official escorts and surveillance and shot footage of various activities the authorities didn't want filmed. In Boston it airs tomorrow, Tuesday (2/11/86), 9 pm, on channel 2. Ron Rizzo
orb@whuts.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/13/86)
> This week PBS' "Frontline" program features "Russia: Love It Or Leave It", > a candid look at the USSR. Frontline's camera crews eluded official > escorts and surveillance and shot footage of various activities the > authorities didn't want filmed. > > In Boston it airs tomorrow, Tuesday (2/11/86), 9 pm, on channel 2. > > Ron Rizzo It was an interesting show though I had the impression that "eluding the authorities" was more similar to smuggling joints into a rock concert than romantic views of "international espionage". One wonders why the Soviets would care whether such footage was filmed or not(!??) But that is the nature of control - to try to control everything whether it can be controlled or whether it makes any sense to control it or not. I found it most encouraging that the Peace activist who had been arrested for distributing literature in Red Square and the Russian who liked to befriend foreigners both had Nuclear Freeze posters in their apartments! Apparently sentiments for a Nuclear Freeze are more international than we might think. Finally, before we get holier-than-thou about Soviet peace activists being arrested for distributing literature we should remember that the New York Supreme Court just recently ruled that anti-nuclear activists distributing literature in malls in New York State could be arrested for trespassing. In New Jersey I have personally been threatened with arrest at several malls for distributing literature. Only after threatening a suit by an ACLU lawyer have the malls backed down because New Jersey courts, unlike New York, have supported people's rights to political expression in malls. So that, yes, we *do* have the rule of law in this country and protected political rights. But one must fight for them at every turn or powerful economic interests like Prudential who owned the mall in New York, will take those rights away in an instant. The ultimate irony for me, is hearing "libertarians" defend Prudential's "right" to arrest people for distributing political literature! See the Frontline, it is interesting! tim sevener whuxn!orb
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (02/14/86)
> [Tim Sevener] > Finally, before we get holier-than-thou about Soviet peace activists > being arrested for distributing literature we should remember that > the New York Supreme Court just recently ruled that anti-nuclear > activists distributing literature in malls in New York State could > be arrested for trespassing. > In New Jersey I have personally been threatened with arrest at several > malls for distributing literature. Only after threatening a > suit by an ACLU lawyer have the malls backed down because New Jersey > courts, unlike New York, have supported people's rights to political > expression in malls. So that, yes, we *do* have the rule of law > in this country and protected political rights. But one must fight > for them at every turn or powerful economic interests like Prudential > who owned the mall in New York, will take those rights away in > an instant. > The ultimate irony for me, is hearing "libertarians" defend Prudential's > "right" to arrest people for distributing political literature! ------- 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. Should you have the right to distribute literature in a hardware store or barber shop if the owner objects. No! If it were my hardware store, and you were disturbing customers, I would gladly call the cops. This has nothing to do with the content of your literature. In contrast, on a public street, you are perfectly free to distribute literature, provided you don't harass people or block streets or building entrances. 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. 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? 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
doit@ihlpa.UUCP (Roeseler) (02/18/86)
From tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum): > [...] The only question, then, is whether a shopping mall is analogous > 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. 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. [...] You grant permission to the owner of the shopping mall to control the right of free speech. The owner is not even forced to justify the dominion: "He owns the building and wants to maximize profit" -- that simple fact is enough for you to accept the domination. Your proposed union of freedom and servitude is dismanteling to human rights and cannot possibly be in the interest of a free society. If this is whats happening: The corporations that own places of public interest can judge at will which civil rights they allow the people to exercise and which not -- then there is something wrong with that kind of ownership and corporations should not be allowed to do so. We are not talking about some weired, radical or life threatening behavior on part of the public here. We are talking about something as simple as distributing flyers. If this, however, interferes with the interest of the owner of the shopping mall, then those interests are to be questioned -- not the civil rights! Armin Roeseler ...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (02/20/86)
In article <1121@ihlpa.UUCP> doit@ihlpa.UUCP (Roeseler) writes: > >From tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum): > >> [...] The only question, then, is whether a shopping mall is analogous >> 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. 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. [...] > >You grant permission to the owner of the shopping mall to control the right >of free speech. The owner is not even forced to justify the dominion: "He >owns the building and wants to maximize profit" -- that simple fact is >enough for you to accept the domination. > >Your proposed union of freedom and servitude is dismanteling to human >rights and cannot possibly be in the interest of a free society. > >If this is whats happening: The corporations that own places of public >interest can judge at will which civil rights they allow the people to >exercise and which not -- then there is something wrong with that kind >of ownership and corporations should not be allowed to do so. > >We are not talking about some weired, radical or life threatening behavior >on part of the public here. We are talking about something as simple >as distributing flyers. > >If this, however, interferes with the interest of the owner of the >shopping mall, then those interests are to be questioned -- not the >civil rights! > > Armin Roeseler ...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit I wish you would post in English, so we could understand what you 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? -- --MKR "I've heard you say many times that you're better than no one, And no one is better than you. If you really believe that you know you have nothing to win And nothing to lose." - B. Dylan
doit@ihlpa.UUCP (Roeseler) (02/20/86)
From mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR): > 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? --MKR Oh --MKR, what am I supposed to do with you ?!!! Let me try this: I really like open air concerts. This does not mean I have to like them in my back yard. > I wish you would post in English, so we could understand what you > mean. Well, I think I get the gist... --MKR I didn't know that it is easier for you to communicate in German. Let's do it then. Jawohl! Armin Roeseler ...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit
foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) (02/27/86)
In article <528@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > >>> [...] The only question, then, is whether a shopping mall is analogous >>> to a store, or to a public thoroughfare. My personal opinion is that >>You grant permission to the owner of the shopping mall to control the right >>of free speech. The owner is not even forced to justify the dominion: "He >>owns the building and wants to maximize profit" -- that simple fact is >>enough for you to accept the domination. >> >> Armin Roeseler ...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit > >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. Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of hard knocks. Thus they are my own.
alan@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Alan Algustyniak) (02/28/86)
I usually don't post to the net because of the time it takes to do the always-necessary follow-ups, but let me make a quick observation. In article <287@aero.ARPA> foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: >> >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. > >Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA Mr. Foy is here rebutting the idea that the owner of a mall should be able to refuse entrance to pests, just as the owner of a home can, since a corporation it subject to the same...[see above]. Note that Mr. Foy, who works for Aerospace Corporation, states, in effect, that Aerospace Corp. cannot refuse entrance to pests; that if it allows customers to come in and do business with it, then it must allow the general public to come in and distribute literature. Al Algustyniak <Now that net.bizarre is gone, i read Sevener's articles. :-) >
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/01/86)
>/* csd2:net.politics / foy@aero.ARPA (Richard Foy) / 12:14 pm Feb 27, 1986 */ >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. > >Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA Actually, a better response would be to eliminate laws that provide corporations with a special legal status and special legal privileges. If people wish to deal with a company under those terms that are currently in force for dealing with corporations, they should be free to agree with the company to do so, but there should not be any special priveliges granted to corporations by legal edict. Note, many of the terms under which corporations operate, such as limited liability, are dicounted by those who deal with them anyway. Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/02/86)
> In article <528@mmm.UUCP> mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) writes: > > > >>> [...] The only question, then, is whether a shopping mall is analogous > >>> to a store, or to a public thoroughfare. My personal opinion is that > > >>You grant permission to the owner of the shopping mall to control the right > >>of free speech. The owner is not even forced to justify the dominion: "He > >>owns the building and wants to maximize profit" -- that simple fact is > >>enough for you to accept the domination. > >> > >> Armin Roeseler ...ihnp4!ihlpa!doit > > > >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. > > Richard Foy, Redondo Beach, CA > The opinions I have expressed are the result of many years in the school of > hard knocks. Thus they are my own. So a mall owned by an individual, or a partnership, that wasn't a corporation, should have the right to refuse political leafletting?
desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (03/03/86)
In article <287@aero.ARPA> foy@aero.UUCP (Richard Foy) writes: >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. This seems a specious argument at best. Are you saying that you have the right to distribute literature in a mall owned by a corporation, but not in one owned by an individual? Why would this make a difference? I can't believe that you think this is a relevant distinction! -- David desJardins