The 1st Amendment and Private Property - contradictory?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Dracon II


So if someone exercizes their right to free speech and you don't like it you can kick them off the property? Doesn't sound like free speech to me. But I'm not talking about people's private housing anyway.

Let's say I already own my own, first house.


Let's say a homophobic bastard decides to take a megaphone, and blare out all kinds of obscene, twisted statements about ******s.

I will exercise my right to kick his ****ing ass off of my property.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, the "censorship" Dracon worries about already exists - you don't see ANY big networks agreeing to let neonazis proclaim their philosophies on national TV.

[David Floyd]

This is, honestly, a dumb topic, in the sense that it ignores everything we know about rights.

Yes, you have a right to free speech. What that means, is that the government can't punish you for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to speak your mind on other people's property, if they don't want you to.

Likewise, you have the right to own property. On your property, you have the right to set your own rules, provided you don't restrict the rights of other people.

Now, you might argue that free speech is a right, and you are correct, but it is a right that only applies against the government (and until 1920, by the way, the federal government). When I say that you can't violate my rights on your property, I mean that you can't kill me or rob me on your property. Now, if I invade your property against your will - for example, break into your house - you of course have the right to use whatever force is necessary to kick me out.

But the topic at hand has nothing to do with this. The question is simply one of whether or not corporation can restrict your speech on their property, and the answer is that of COURSE they can. The 1st Amendment simply states that CONGRESS shall make no law....it doesn't give you an unlimited protection of free speech on other people's property.

[MrFun]

David is starting to make coherent arguments that actually make sense, given that he is a libertarian.



I think this means that I should go to bed before more freakish phenomena occurs.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd
This is, honestly, a dumb topic, in the sense that it ignores everything we know about rights.

You mean we don't accept the libertarian POV

[Lawrence of Arabia]

FCC is a load of **** - just another government agency to get rid of.

[David Floyd]

You mean we don't accept the libertarian POV

No, it means that you don't accept a consistent definition of liberty. And you certainly do not.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by David Floyd


No, it means that you don't accept a consistent definition of liberty. And you certainly do not.

And neither do you. You just said that the govt can't prevent you from speaking freely, but private citizens can. That's inconsistent.

[Kuciwalker]

[Kidlicious]

Justice is using reason to balance liberties, not using absolutes. It's consistent to context only, not universal.

[Dracon II]

Yes, you have a right to free speech. What that means, is that the government can't punish you for speaking your mind. It doesn't mean that you are allowed to speak your mind on other people's property, if they don't want you to.

Likewise, you have the right to own property. On your property, you have the right to set your own rules, provided you don't restrict the rights of other people.

Ah I see... so the distribution of freedom of speech & assembly is as unequal as the distribution of property.

Now, you might argue that free speech is a right, and you are correct, but it is a right that only applies against the government.

If you are, as people say, a Libertarian... then you believe in the rollback of Government, and the privatization of as much of the nation's services and institutions as possible (my understanding of Libertarianism). And yet you say that the right to free speech is only applied to that which is of direct Government concern. Therefore, despite your recognition of the right to free speech as a "right", you are nevertheless arguing for its maximum limitation, its fragmentation, and its unequal distribution.

But the topic at hand has nothing to do with this. The question is simply one of whether or not corporation can restrict your speech on their property, and the answer is that of COURSE they can. The 1st Amendment simply states that CONGRESS shall make no law....it doesn't give you an unlimited protection of free speech on other people's property.

In a Libertarian world, corporations would be the paramount and Congress would be making as few laws as it could, if it still existed. I'm beginning to suspect that Libertarian should be renamed "Limitarian"...

[Kuciwalker]

If you are, as people say, a Libertarian... then you believe in the rollback of Government, and the privatization of as much of the nation's services and institutions as possible (my understanding of Libertarianism). And yet you say that the right to free speech is only applied to that which is of direct Government concern. Therefore, despite your recognition of the right to free speech as a "right", you are nevertheless arguing for its maximum limitation, its fragmentation, and its unequal distribution.

It's negative freedom vs positive freedom. His free speech means freedom from constraints in using your property for your speech; your free speech means freedom to use anything to spread your message, and can lead to conflict of rights (which is the problem with positive freedom in general).

[Dracon II]

I'm an advocate of mixing both. If your free speech is limited by the property you own, then you have terrible inequality and a patrician domination of information. I will concede that bloggerism and such is a (perhaps modest) challenge to this, and an example of small private property challenging big private property without Government.

I'm going to take a dialectical spin on this argument and say that neither my thesis nor the anti-thesis presented (Floyd) present useful solutions in maximising the variables free speech & assembly. Communitarianism and Libertarianism both limit freedom in different ways. Communitarian values limit freedom by prescribing what one is free to do, and libertarian values ignore what one is free to do and simply focus on what one is free from.
A healthy society should equate freedom with a synthesis of private and public institutions by ameliorating inequality by providing public goods and public space, and by ameliorating excessive egalitarianism (the excessive stifling of private initiative).

I should probably abdicate my position in the CPA for saying something like.... I'm far too conciliatory to be a member, methinks.

[Dracon II]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Justice is using reason to balance liberties, not using absolutes. It's consistent to context only, not universal.

What he said.

[JohnT]

so the distribution of freedom of speech & assembly is as unequal as the distribution of property.

Look, the original statute is quite clear about this:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

It doesn't say anything about the States. It doesn't say anything about individuals. It doesn't say anything about corporations. It just says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.

Repeat three times for imprinting purposes: Congress. Congress. Congress.

See, it's not the distribution of free speech that's the issue, it's the distribution of the power to censor. The Constitution says that Congress can't censor. It doesn't say squat about other entities, because it's their individual or collective right to censor what they want to hear (or speak: let's not forget that the lack of coercion is as much a feature of the 1st amendment as the freedom to choose) as they make their way through the Republic.

Your church doesn't want to teach or speak about Satanism? No problem. The state wants to vote against Satanism? Again, no problem according to the US Constitution (However, many States have adopted the Bill of Rights in their own Constitutions, fyi.) Congress wants to ban Satanism? Big problem.