CDR: Re: Why Free Speech Matters

[Bill Stewart]

At 07:33 AM 9/28/00 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
>On Thu, 28 Sep 2000, Duncan Frissell wrote:
>> To hold otherwise would mean that property didn't exist.  I want the right 
>> to exclude anyone from my property (government agents for example).
>
>If it's a business and it's 'public' access then the ONLY reason you would
>have a right to exclude anyone would be if they interfered with your
>freedom to execute the business.
>
>See the comments I made about the difference between a 'private' and
>'public' business.

I didn't see them, but I assume you define a public business as
one you want to be able to boss around, and a private business to be
one you don't care about bossing around?

There are several layers of activity and ownership in this ballpark case.

If the ballpark were owned and managed by an individual or partnership,
and the owner(s) told the women to leave, they've got a problem because
they sold them a ticket to the game.  On the other hand, the women could
have engaged in behavior that was sufficiently disruptive that 
throwing them out would have been appropriate (e.g. kissing on home plate
while the game was going on, instead of in the stands), and most courts
would side with the ballpark in that case.  However, the owners would
have the moral right to refuse to sell them tickets in the future -
that's part of the owners' personal freedom, just as either refusing
to watch ballgames at that stadium or leading a boycott
against major-league assholes is part of the women's personal freedom.

Whether the owners _should_ do something like that is a separate issue
(get real - that'd be inappropriate in Redneckville, let alone 
SF or LA).  But if it's their park, Darwin will take care of them.
Some liberals like Choate think that the public can't be trusted
_as individuals_ not to do business with bigots, so the public 
needs to hire legislators to harass bigots for them.  It's a mistake -
if the public are bigoted enough that that's a problem, they typically 
elect legislators who make laws mandating separate bathrooms for nonwhites
and separate but equal government-funded schools and
mandatory school uniforms and bans on gang colors or clan tartans, and
keeping colored immigants out of the country even if they're
refugees from US-funded military dictatorships.
The only time it's safe to trust the legislature with moral issues 
is after the people become moral, at which point you don't need legislation.

But the women weren't thrown out by the owner, they were thrown out
by an employee.  The owner has some responsibility for the employee's
actions, because the employee is acting for the owner, 
but unlike an owner, the employee has a responsibility not to be stupid.
(As noted above, stupid owners are at their own risk...)
The appropriate thing for the owner to do is damage control,
whether that's instituting sensitivity training for employees or
profuse apologies for the rude behavior of his ex-employee.
Presumably the employee acted because of a complaint from
other customers, rather than thinking it up on his own,
but he should have had the sense to do something else,
like offer the complainers or the lesbians a better seat,
or tell the complainers that yelling "Ewwww, Grossss!!!"
is annoying to the other customers and makes them look like rubes.

Corporations are a special case - almost everything is done by
employees, though some employees are also stockholders,
but unlike businesses operated by their owners,
they're a legal fiction created by the government,
so if the government wants to attach strings to the favors it grants,
they're not violating the rights of the recipients.
If the government bans or regulates businesses from operating except
in return for accepting the strings, that's a different problem,
and the favors that it grants may not be legitimate for it to grant,
but in general, if you don't like corporate regulations,
don't be a corporation, be a proprietor.

Most of this is moot in San Francisco - with Socialized Baseball,
the city government kicked in a lot of money to the ball teams
to help build the stadium and encourage the team to stay in town.
The whole thing's a crock, and the sports team have a great scam
going by threatening to leave town if they're not bribed to stay,
but the city should have some say over how the place is run
(regardless of whether the local version of the scam leaves them
owning the stadium like some cities or just lending to the team's
building project like other cities.)
				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, bill.stewart at pobox.com
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639