12 votes

Newsflash: You Don't Have Freedom of Speech on Someone Else's Property

I thought I'd simply be stating the obvious, but apparently some libertarians do not understand the concept of private property. Newsflash, if you come into my home, that is a privilege, not a right.

Now, where were we?

___




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Libertarians? On this site?

We don't really talk about liberty on this site anymore. Most of the folks here are the former Obama supporters who somehow came to Ron Paul because of some sort of conspiracy theory, not because they believe in or even understand liberty. I don't think property rights are really a priority for most DPers. The only property people here care about is Building 7.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

So, is it really not supposed

So, is it really not supposed to list a message saying the content isnt available in the US because of a complaint by the government?

The original page says this under it: This post has been found in violation of H.R. 3523, #CISPA and has been removed.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

Can we get a transcript, mirror site or an overview

of the content? Since CISPA has been used by the government to shut it down, I'm really curious as to how it offended them so badly.

Also, I wasn't aware that CISPA had actually passed both houses and the POTUS. Is this true already?

The image I attached is to create awareness...

I made it for y'all to share. It's not real at this time.

It passed the house and has moved on to the senate:

https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KE...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/04/18/cispa-p...

http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/cispa-passes-hou...

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

Important-free speech does not apply here

The Daily Paul is the property of Michael. Therefore he can boot anyone off the site and refuse to publish anything he wants.

The first amendment was meant to prevent government from shutting you up, not to prevent private persons from doing so.

If you are making offensive comments (or yelling fire when there isnt one) on someone's private property you are infringing on their property and you are in effect stealing from its value.The first amendment does not protect that type of speech.

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

By definition, ALL humans

By definition, ALL humans have ALL of their rights at ALL times...

...however, those rights might not be acknowledged, respected, and protected by sociopaths.

"I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

You have the right to say anything you want on private property

You don't have the right to stay when you have been asked to leave.

Leges sine moribus vanae

I understand your sentiment,

I understand your sentiment, but it is not at all accurate to say that "you don't have freedom of speech on private property". It would be more accurate to say that the Constitutional protection of free speech does not apply to a person who is on property which is not his or her own property, or rather "you don't NECESSARILY have freedom of speech on private property."

On my property my free speech IS (supposedly) protected by the Constitution. (As an aside: to claim the validity of this right, rather than referencing Constitutional law which is a product of fallible men, I would prefer that my free speech on my property be protected by a mutual understanding of natural law, which precedes the laws of men; law should be found, not made)

Anyhow, it is even possible for one to have freedom of speech on private property which is NOT one's own property. In other words, if he or she wishes, a property owner can grant the right to free speech to anyone who is within that owner's property. (Channeling Judge Napolitano) Stated differently, one shall govern one's own property.

So, in short, there IS the right to free speech on private property. I would go so far as to say that private property is the most important place in which the right to free speech should be upheld. It should be noted, though, that censorship on a private property, if exercised by the owner of that property, is not a violation of freedom; such an act is, rather, an expression of freedom.

That's what I intended it to mean...

I updated the title to be a more accurate. Thanks for the comment!

The point was, if you're in my home, and I don't like what you're saying, I can ask or tell you to leave. If I own a magazine, I choose who and what I want to be published. If I own a website, I can choose who and what gets published.

The readership has a right to be upset, and they're free to stop reading too if they don't like my decisions. But it's not censorship, and the property owner can do what he pleases.

Granted, he will have to "deal" with the business decision, and there is really no way to make all sides happy and/or satisfied.

I'm a serial entrepreneur and liberty activist from Texas!

www.RevolutionCarBadges.com
www.NonNetwork.com

I had figured that you

I had figured that you understood but had just used a clumsy title originally. I definitely share your frustration with the widespread misunderstanding of property rights. I actually think, or at least I hope, that most regular visitors to this site probably do understand the concept, but the few who don't really stand out.

The real problem is the general population. Imagine if children were actually taught about property rights as a part of a standard education. I guess such education would be dangerous, though, because then we would risk the realization of scary things like social harmony and increased productivity.

And I'm going to be a stickler about something: if the moderators of this site block a user or delete content, such behavior is indeed censorship according to the definition of the word. I understand the hesitation before calling the editing of private property "censorship" because the word seems to carry with it such a negative connotation, but as I mentioned above, not all censorship is wrong.

NEWSFLASH:

You sound like an immature buttkissing jerk.

NEWSFLASH:

People with private property are not gods who automatically deserve to be liked and respected.

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

Bump

..

Michael Nystrom's picture

Thank you Rob

.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.