Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
that is beside the point.
the argument is that private property claims operate inside the existing legal system, which is an extension of the political system. the point was that opposition to the political system cannot be limited based on elements that are created within that system. it's just a logical point aimed at undercutting the rationale for "free speech zones"---even as we all know that the real rationale for them is to limit dissent by keeping it off camera. but to defend it, another argument has to be used, and it's generally one or another property right-based one.
|
Private property is very much at the root of the issue. If you agree the private property rights are legitimate, then you must believe in certain restrictions to "free speech". If people have a right to use their private property without being unduly interfered with then it is reasonable to strike a balance between property rights and free speech through the use of "free speech zones".
If protesters are motivated by access to "the camera", they still have the freedoms of alternative strategies to get their message out.