No First Amendment if They Ban You

Remove all ads!

I don't believe I dodged the issue, and my argument had absolutely nothing to do with corporatism. A company owns their office space to the same extent that, if I as an individual went to buy office space, I would own it, and to the same extent that I own a bought house. If I let someone into my house and he start trashing the place I have every right to throw him out, just like Sony had every right to throw out someone who went into their place and started trashing it. This is not about corporatism because the situation would have been exactly the same if an individual owned the forum - many posters have already given you SP as an example, though I noticed you've pointedly ignored them. You seem to think that free speech trumps property rights and that you should be allowed to do anything you want, anywhere you want, and most of us just disagree. You're allowed to do anything you want on your own property. You're allowed to do most things you want on public property. On someone else's private property, whether "someone else" is an individual or a corporation, you do not have the right to do whatever you want. It's that simple. Sony have a right to kick out a forumgoer if he breaks their rules, just like you have a right to kick out a visitor to your house if he starts peeing on your sofa. It's your place, you decide who gets to come in and what they do or (more to the point) say in there.

And just in case someone argues that saying something offensive and peeing on the sofa are not the same thing - it doesn't matter. They're still something that the owner of the property doesn't want done, and he/she/it/they has/have the final say.

 

I'm not dodging anything. As I said, nobody has the freedom to express themselves unless somebody or something grants that freedom. Just like nobody has the freedom to drive, the freedom to carry a gun, the freedom to drink alcohol, etc. unless it is granted.

 

Whether or not a right is granted is not the question. The question is whether or not free speech is more important the property rights.

Ziad at least has told us his views on this. I happen to disagree with him on that, as it smacks of facism and corporatism.

 

OK, then my answer is no. If I own something, I should be able to dictate what is said within that piece of property. Not about it, but within it. You want to complain about my property, do it somewhere else.

 

Bingo!

 

Bang freaking on. Walk into your job and call the boss an <expletiving expletive> and then try to hide behind a free speech shield. You'll be laughed out of court. Freedom of expression is limited by the rights of others, just as all rights are limited by the rights of others.

 

My point is that they don't come into conflict. If you are speaking on someone else's property, there is no freedom of speech. Freedom of speech only exists with relation to the Government.

I'm not dodging the issue, I just don't see a medium for comparison. It's like asking which is more important: eating talking or walking? They don't interfere with each other, so there's no basis by which to compare their priorities.

 

Actially that's not what you said. You said that someone is not free to express themselves if they are on your property. Guess what, that's a conflict.

 

Nope. What NOG said was that freedom of speech doesn't apply if they are on your property (not that "freedom of expession" is any different from "freedom of speech"). And freedom of speech is defined under the constitution as applying to government restricitons only. Freedom of speech doesn't exist in relation to private property, so there is no conflict.

 

I'm not referring to the constitution. I'm referring to the general principle.

---------- Added 0 hours, 3 minutes and 56 seconds later... ----------

Can you prove this?

 

So the right to live is less important than owning property?

 

Ah, well then the answer to your question is: both. What I mean by that is that neither should ever absolutely over-rule the other, but rather the situation should determine which rules. When you are on someone else's property, their property rights over-rule your right to speak. In cases like malls, where private property has become an open forum and gathering place, then freedom of speech should rule over property rights. This case is the former, not the latter.

 

I wouldn't include one's life in the same category as material (or intellectual) property rights. And neither would Locke. Like Locke, I don't think property rights are equal to the right of life. He believed that rights to life and liberty were more important than property rights, and I do as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights#John_Locke

 

Liberty is freedom, including the freedom of free speech. And Locke held liberty above property as do I.

It's a sad day when people think that materialistic rights are more important than rights to life and liberty.