I find it unfortunate that Tim finds the discussion
over the use of public land "abstract" and Guy decrys
our "litigious society" over the public /private use
of public land.

Looking back on the three cases I was involved with:
1. The exclusion of two 13 year old girls from a
"boys" bicycle race in Louisville;
2. The exclusion of men from a race using Minneapolis
Park land, and
3. The exclusion of the Pro-Life Protesters from the
sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood,
the common thread in these three cases was that a
private entity was given use of public land and then
promptly excluded a given group, violating someone's
rights.

If you were one of those whose rights were violated,
you would not find these discussions "abstract", and
the litigation would never have occurred, if the
public entities involved and those who were given the
right to use the public land had exercised some common
sense in the first place.

I fear that Guy wants to blame the victims, (those who
were excluded and had their rights violated), rather
than those who perpetrated the exclusion and
discrimination.

If we can resolve these issues in advance, in public
forums like this, there would be a lot less need for
litigation. Litigation arises because there is not a
common understanding.

Dan Dobson
Summit Hill




--- Guy Western <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> 
> > [Original Message]
> > From: List Manager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: St. Paul Issues Forum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: 7/15/04 1:30:04 AM
> > Subject: [StPaul] Free Speech Discussion
> >
> > Just a note to remind folks that the "FREE SPEECH"
> discussion is 
> > getting a little too abstract for this forum. 
> 
> Precisely.  At this point I hope that the discussion
> has served to
> demonstrate in a practical way that there IS a real
> difference between a
> commercial sales pitch and politically-oriented free
> speech (even when
> including a solicitation) and that any reasonable
> mind can recognize that
> difference without reducing it to the Supreme
> Court's abstractions. 
> Constitutional litigation also generates a kind wind
> power, but if you're
> looking for something that will actually turn your
> windmill. . . you'll
> have to keep looking.
> 
> In a larger sense, I think this says a lot about why
> we have a proverbial
> "litigious society" when proponents so readily
> abandon common sense for the
> sake of ideologically prevailing in political
> discussion.
> 
> Are we really going to step on the right of citizens
> in a democracy to
> conduct politics of any stripe in public just
> because it intrudes on my
> right to shop in an atmosphere of consumeristic
> euphoria because, if I
> close my good eye, I can convince myself there's no
> difference between a
> political advocate, who may or may not accept
> campaign donations, and a
> vendor required to rent stall space?  I don't think
> so.
> 
> - Guy Western
> the West Side
> 
> _____________________________________________
> To Join:   St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
> Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> 
> _____________________________________________
> NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>  
> To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your
> password - visit:
> http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
> 
> Archive Address:
>    http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
> 

_____________________________________________
To Join:   St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion
Email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED] 

_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST:     [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul

Archive Address:
   http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/

Reply via email to