The 1st Amendment and Private Property - contradictory?

[Dracon II]

In a world where communications between people, information provision, and where physical space for public discussion and interaction is becoming increasingly owned and mediated by private property and enterprise, is it acceptable that these enterprises be able to restrict speech and assembly within their jurisdiction, or does the first amendment override the rights of private property to regulate what is said by their clients?

If, for example, the street network of a city, or its public square, was privatized, is it the right of the company that bought it to restrict free speech and assembly on those streets and in that square?

The principle being that it is logically acceptable that I can control who enters my house and what can be said in my house, does this principle extend to major companies whose facilities are used as de facto public space?

This is not so problematic in countries without provisions for free speech, but in America I would suggest it is an issue that should be discussed, if it isn't already.

[connorkimbro]

Private property is private, the owners should be able to restrict (or allow) whatever they like, almost without limit. (provided of course, they do not violate an *individuals* rights, the most important rights of all, life, liberty, property) . . .

Public property is public, that is "belonging to all" (all = all member of that public entity, be it a city, a county, a state, whatever) . . .

It's termed public property, but it's really more like (in my view) "joint ownership" . . . it still "belongs" to the public, and thus the public has the right to determine what is allowed there or not. Providing of course, that does not violate the "fundamental" and superceding all individual rights of life, liberty, and property.

[Dracon II]

For the record, this question refers to major companies that own de facto public space.... not small websites like Apolyton. ACS did provide the inspiration for this question... but they're not the target.

[connorkimbro]

if it's the company's "public" space, it still belongs to the company, and subject to whatever decisions the company wants.

[Dracon II]

So if the phone companies have the right to regulate what people say using their services, even if it would be a violation of the 1st amendment had the US Government tried to do the same thing?

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Define "defacto public space" as I think that is the point of confusion. Provide some examples please.

[Mr. Harley]

What about private companies that have purchased rights to public resources, i.e. broadcast companies? In the US they are solely private entities, and can censor however they wish. Just ask the Dixie Chicks about Clear Channel Communications (for you non-US types they own about 1000 radio stations, are allied with the Bush administration, and when on of the Dixie Chicks made a statement against Bush started pulling their music due to pseudo-protests orchestrated by the management of - drum roll - Clear Channel Communications).

[JohnT]

is it acceptable that these enterprises be able to restrict speech and assembly within their jurisdiction

Yes.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Dracon II
For the record, this question refers to major companies that own de facto public space.... not small websites like Apolyton. ACS did provide the inspiration for this question... but they're not the target.

And why not? Why shouldn't ACS be a target if they're committing the same "wrong" you're accusing a larger entity of committing?

[Ming]

Actually, ACS shouldn't be considered de facto public space. It's more a private club, because "membership" is required to post. As a member, you agree to follow the rules of the site or lose the privilege. Even though membership doesn't cost anything, you are agreeing to follow the rules in return for your membership.

[JohnT]

In the US they are solely private entities, and can censor however they wish. Just ask the Dixie Chicks about Clear Channel Communications (for you non-US types they own about 1000 radio stations, are allied with the Bush administration, and when on of the Dixie Chicks made a statement against Bush started pulling their music due to pseudo-protests orchestrated by the management of - drum roll - Clear Channel Communications).

Not wanting to dig up a non-issue, but Clear Channel couldn't do a thing about the 93%+ of US radio stations it doesn't own. So what if they didn't play the DC? For a group that's averaged $20,000,000 in US earnings since 2000 on years that they've released albums, one can hardly claimed that they were monetarily damaged by Clear Channel's decision.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by JohnT


And why not? Why shouldn't ACS be a target if they're committing the same "wrong" you're accusing a larger entity of committing?

Its a question of scale. I'd rather not pose this question as an absolute... because if I were to propose that freedom of speech and assembly should be extended to all forms and proportions of private property the debate would most likely become focused on relatively silly questions like whether or not anti-abortion activists have the right to protest in one's front yard... which would detract from the thrust of my question.

It is quite evident that the focus of public life and intercourse is becoming increasingly situated within the infrastructure of private property. For example, if (when) the Australian Government privatizes Telstra all telephone communication will take place using private facilities. I assume this is the case in the USA. Given that telecommunication has become an essential part of our life, and one of the most effective means of direct communication between citizens, should the citizen's right to free speech be protected even if that speech is carried out using privately owned infrastructure? It is a hypothetical, and I would say that freedom of speech over the telephone is not restricted (beyond the dictates of law, of course), but should Telcos be able to determine what can or cannot be said superfluous to the dictates of the law, bearing in mind the importance of telecommunication?

[JohnT]

They don't have that right/power anyway. Since the phone system of the US has alway been private, the issues you're worried about have been dealt with since, oh, 1930 or so.

There are thousands upon thousands of relevant laws, regulatory rulings, and other decisions that control what the telco's can and cannot do - and that's just at the Federal level. At the state level, where the Telco's are actually granted monopolies, the number of rules and regulations exponentially increase.

Given that ATT, SBC, etc. barely even control their own infrastructure, how do you propose they use it to control speech?

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Ming
Actually, ACS shouldn't be considered de facto public space. It's more a private club, because "membership" is required to post. As a member, you agree to follow the rules of the site or lose the privilege. Even though membership doesn't cost anything, you are agreeing to follow the rules in return for your membership.

Agreed. ACS is not in a position to significantly control access to and the flow of information. In the OT for example, it serves as a forum for people to discuss the information they've accessed from other sources. It's neither a primary source of information nor a primary mode of communication.

[Dracon II]

There are thousands upon thousands of relevant laws, regulatory rulings, and other decisions that control what the telco's can and cannot do - and that's just at the Federal level. At the state level, where the Telco's are actually granted monopolies, the number of rules and regulations exponentially increase.

Ah, I see... so there is a recognition that, if a private enterprise does serve an essential purpose on a large scale, then it is not necessarily free to regulate itself and its clients as it pleases.

A good precedent