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.
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.
Comment