jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/18/86)
In article <2860@teddy.UUCP> mxc@teddy.UUCP (Marc Campos) writes: >Of course, all individuals have the right to free speech. But that >doesn't mean that they have the right to use SOMEONE ELSE'S property as >a podium. The owners of those shopping malls have a right to determine >how their malls will be used. They choose to allow the general public >to shop there, but that doesn't mean those malls are a "public" place. > >I think someone has already mentioned this argument, but suppose a group >decided that your own front yard was public property, and staged rallies >there. Oh, you let the "general public" knock on your door, so >therefore your home is open to the public, right? The "civil liberties" >of these folks overrides your "right to property", correct? Of course >not. The right to free speech doesn't mean that you have to provide >them with a podium, just like freedom of the press doesn't imply that >you have to offer them a printing press. The fatal flaw in this analogy, and the one which keeps the controversy alive, is this: Owners of shopping malls don't "choose to allow" the general public on their property. They *require* the general public to use their property in order for it to fulfill its function. On the other hand, your home has no such need for the attention of the general public. Put it another way: A shopping mall is a place that's privately owned, but commonly used by the public (unlike your home). It's not hard to see why the issue of free speech in an area that to all appearances is no different than a street or a park is such a thorny legal problem. By the way, I hope the occurrence of this discussion in net.women doesn't mean you guys think women should be doing all the shopping! :-) Jeff Winslow
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (07/20/86)
Jeff Winslow says: "It's not hard to see why the issue of free speech in an area that to all appearances is no different than a street or a park is such a thorny legal problem." My answer is simple: the shopping malls I've seen are very different in appearance from a street or a park. For example, they tend to be locked up when their owners aren't around.
jeffw@midas.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/21/86)
In article <5819@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >Jeff Winslow says: "It's not hard to see why the issue of free speech in >an area that to all appearances is no different than a street or a park >is such a thorny legal problem." > >My answer is simple: the shopping malls I've seen are very different >in appearance from a street or a park. For example, they tend to >be locked up when their owners aren't around. Locked parking lots? That's a neat trick. Sorry, Matthew, Jeff Winslow
keen@inuxd.UUCP (D Keen) (07/23/86)
> Jeff Winslow says: "It's not hard to see why the issue of free speech in > an area that to all appearances is no different than a street or a park > is such a thorny legal problem." > > My answer is simple: the shopping malls I've seen are very different > in appearance from a street or a park. For example, they tend to > be locked up when their owners aren't around. Just as a point of information I know of several parks that are also locked during non-visiting hours. Try again. Don Keen AT&T - which should be locked during all hours.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (07/23/86)
> In article <5819@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >Jeff Winslow says: "It's not hard to see why the issue of free speech in > >an area that to all appearances is no different than a street or a park > >is such a thorny legal problem." > > > >My answer is simple: the shopping malls I've seen are very different > >in appearance from a street or a park. For example, they tend to > >be locked up when their owners aren't around. > > Locked parking lots? That's a neat trick. > > Sorry, Matthew, > Jeff Winslow I've seen locked parking lots. Maybe you need to see more of the real world. Clayton E. Cramer
biagioni@unc.UUCP (Edoardo Biagioni) (07/24/86)
In article <5819@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: >Jeff Winslow says: "It's not hard to see why the issue of free speech in >an area that to all appearances is no different than a street or a park >is such a thorny legal problem." > >My answer is simple: the shopping malls I've seen are very different >in appearance from a street or a park. For example, they tend to >be locked up when their owners aren't around. Actually parks often do get locked up at night. And malls are locked up when customers are no longer there. The presence of the managers and police is more significant than that of the owners, just as for parks.