The Robbins v. Pruneyard decision essentially decided that since the "shopping
mall"
is the new "village green", that petitioners could get their signatures
there,
even though these shopping malls are private property.
Well, yes, they are. They're owned by the developers who got their land
USUALLY (admittedly not always) by eminent domain. In other words,
the local municipality or county board of supervisors stole the underlying
land
from its rightful owner to give to someone who would generate more taxes for
the government. So the shopping malls probably have become "government"
property.
Regards,
Edward
Brian Holtz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Starchild wrote:
SC) Like the recent decision I posted about where a court ruled shopping
malls have to allow free speech access, some libertarians may question the
morality of this move (SC
You betcha.
SC) but I think it is a victory that we should welcome. (SC
If you're trying to prove to me your recurring point that even the most
dedicated Libertarian can be corrupted by the idea of the ends justifying the
means, you're doing a good job. :-)
SC) These media events serve as a de facto part of the nominating process
(SC
Yes -- of a private voluntary association.
SC) via which candidates are elected to public office (SC
That proviso can justify arbitrary regulation of political speech. Where do
you draw the line?
SC) not to mention specific pro-establishment and anti-libertarian
attitudes among media decision-makers. (SC
If we already know those attitudes are wrong, why bother letting it be legal
for the media to act on them?
Brian Holtz
http://LibertarianIntelligence.com
Signal Intelligence About The LP
