Hawkeye 10 wrote:
The private property exclusion made some sense when companies were owned almost exclusively by individuals and partners, it does not make sense to call a corporate owned business private property. You also skate right by without acknowledging that this same hostility to free speech has been extended to government owned property such as schools, the free press, and everywhere else. The attack on free speech knows no boundaries. Besides I am pretty such that TKO made his attack on free speech talked about in this thread on public property, so your point is really irrelevant.
Hawkeye 10 wrote:
No way, a person can disavow and condemn what a another person says, but defend all free speech. I had a friend who would sometimes say to me " I hate what you just said, but I would defend to the death your right to say it"...as in defend the constitution. You folks who demand that all speech be evaluated for content on your personal moral value grid before you would defend it are weak defenders of freedom by comparison.
Om Sig David wrote:
1 Reply report Mon 15 Jun, 2009 06:02 pm Re: Diest TKO (Post 3678120)
Diest TKO wrote:
How did I stifle free speech? Specifically. Details.
OK, the specific details of how u stiffled free speech
are that u tried to get his boss (?) to threaten him
(directly and explicity, or indirectly and vaguely)
as to his economic well being if he exercised his natural right
and his constitutional right to think what he chose to think
and to express his thoughts freely.
Speaking to his boss was your technique of suppressing the victim 's speech.
THAT 's how.
I'm calling your bluff.
I 'm bluffing ??
I find humor in that.
The team member who made the comments had the exact ability
to say the same comments after I talked to the other team lead.
U successfully attempted to get him THREATENED by his boss (?)
into relinquishing his right of freedom of speech
because u did not like the speech.
Their rights: unaffected.
I wasn't trying to take away their speech rights.
TECHNICALLY, that is true,
the same way that if a robber robs u of your cash,
he does not and cannot rob u of the RIGHT to have the cash.
The victim still has the RIGHT to have that cash,
after the robber has taken the cash away,
and while the robber is out on the town spending it.
U are not capable of TAKING AWAY anyone 's rights,
but u are able to violate them, and that is what u successfully did.
I was bringing attention to the other team lead of what kind of
professionalism a member of his team was exhibiting, because
I thought he would care about how his team was perceived.
He did care. He agreed. He addressed it. done. End of story. All rights intact.
No. U successfully had him financially intimidated, qua loss of wages.
By scaring him out of the exercise of his rights,
u have violated those rights. Its the same as hiring goons
to stake out the polls at election time and having them THREATEN
your least favorite folks to go away, without actually laying hands on them
and then claiming: "End of story. All rights intact."
Thay have the right to vote and u scared them out of using that right.
Right to vote or right to speak freely = same principle.
From the Law School of the University of Missouri at Kansas City, this page discusses the issues of free speech on private property which is used for public purposes, or functions as a public commons. Please note that that does not describe the situation with which DTKO began this discussion. DTKO's situation is covered in this introductory paragraph:
As a general rule, the owner of private property is free to restrict expressive activitites of others on the property. You are under no First Amendment obligation to admit people into your living room and then listen to them blow off about any topic of their choice. Similarly, an owner of a restaurant has no duty to allow persons who dislike the food she serves into the restaurant so the person can annoy customers or discourage others from eating there.
I encourage people to go to that page and read about the exceptions, almost all of which relate to public uses of private property.