CDR: Re: Why Free Speech Matters

[Riad S. Wahby]

Jim Choate <ravage at ssz.com> wrote:
> Bottem line, within the context of 'freedom' (for the dykes or business
> alike) unless it can be shown that the act will directly
> interfere with that place of business then the business has no say in it.
> In other words, the personal likes and dislikes of the owner are NOT
> expresible through the actions of the business.

Except if the action is taking place on the property of the business,
it is the owner's perogative to ask the people involved to leave.
Property rights are just as important to the ballpark owner as
personally expressive rights are to the lesbians at the baseball game.

> Simply running a business does NOT increase ones ability to manage others
> actions. Simply wanting to buy an item does not require that I surrender
> one iota of my personal liberty.

Except inasmuch as you are now one someone else's property and must
obey commands from them to leave.

> Demonstrate that the two dykes infringed the right of the owner to try to
> make a profit. Then, and only then, will you have a case to infringe their
> right to express their beliefs.

Wrong.  I don't have to justify throwing you off of land that I own.

When I buy a ticket to a ballgame it is subject to the owner letting
me in the ballpark.  I understand that when I buy the ticket, I take a
risk in doing so; the owner can decide he doesn't want me on his
property and throw me out.  The fact that I bought a ticket doesn't
assure me that I'll be allowed to stay in the ballpark, it only
assures me that I won't be turned away at the door.  The owner can
still decide to throw me out at any time.

> Would it have mattered if it was a guy and his girlfriend? If so, why?
> Why is a man and a woman kissing not infringing or damaging but two
> women/men is?

Because in the owner's eyes this won't be acceptable to the majority
of the fans at the game.  I personally say let them do whatever they
want, but if there's some tightass bible banger sitting next to the
two lesbians who decides that such a display is unacceptable and stops
taking his three kids to the game, the owner has a problem.

> As usual, more 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. Typical
> anarcho-capital-crypto-libertarian bullshit.

It seems to me that you're the one taking rights away, or perhaps you
genuinely don't believe that property rights are valid.  In that case,
we have no common ground from which to even begin to discuss
constructively.

--
Riad Wahby
rsw at mit.edu
MIT VI-2/A 2002

5105
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 2149 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20000928/5f754cef/attachment.sig>