Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says(wired.com)
wired.com
Be Careful What Your Bumper Sticker Says
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/bumper-sticker-speech/
4 comments
It's not a great result, but it was private property - I was thrown out of a friend's wedding at the Eagle's because my hair was too long! (collar length!)
Kind of pales next to people not being allowed to demonstrate unless they 1. have a permit and/or 2. are willing to stand inside a fenced-off area. Or to gather together on private property to attend a rave party (invaded by SWAT team, in Utah).
Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman
Kind of pales next to people not being allowed to demonstrate unless they 1. have a permit and/or 2. are willing to stand inside a fenced-off area. Or to gather together on private property to attend a rave party (invaded by SWAT team, in Utah).
Repent, Harlequin!' Said the Ticktockman
What about the freedom to peacefully assemble? That's in the first amendment as well.
If you want to see more of these rights violations, wait a couple weeks until people start protesting a particular sporting event in america's neighbor to the north. If you are carrying a sign in opposition to the rings, you'll be arrested!
If you want to see more of these rights violations, wait a couple weeks until people start protesting a particular sporting event in america's neighbor to the north. If you are carrying a sign in opposition to the rings, you'll be arrested!
Nobody has the right to assemble on someone else's private property. Moreover, even with public property, the right to peacefully assemble seems to be not without restraint. For instance, the courts have upheld laws creating "buffer zones" for abortion clinic protests. Likewise, a lot of cities require you to get a permit for demonstration purposes.
It was property rented by the government for the event and so it was therefore temporarily public property and a public event.
>What about the freedom to peacefully assemble? That's in the first amendment as well.
You want to extend the right to peaceful assembly to private property? So if your partners ex- doesn't like you they can picket your bed?!
You want to extend the right to peaceful assembly to private property? So if your partners ex- doesn't like you they can picket your bed?!
Your partner can't picket your bed because that would be trespassing.
The people in this article had the rights and invitation to be at the speech. There was no trespassing involved. They weren't even picketing before they were forced to leave.
The people in this article had the rights and invitation to be at the speech. There was no trespassing involved. They weren't even picketing before they were forced to leave.
Invitations are not permanent. If I invite you to my house and then ask you to leave, you still need to leave even though I had previously invited you. It's private property.
Of course they aren't permanent. However, in this case, the people who had those bumper stickers weren't doing anything warranting eviction.
How would you feel if someone denied you an "invitation" to a privately owned supermarket because you were black and you "might" say something about all the white people shopping there?
How would you feel if someone denied you an "invitation" to a privately owned supermarket because you were black and you "might" say something about all the white people shopping there?
It doesn't matter whether I do something warranting eviction. The owner of the private property I am on has final say over who is on his property. He can invite me onto his property for the sole purpose of evicting me to make me mad at him, if he likes. He does not need a reason to change his mind, because he can do what he likes with his property. Ownership of property is a major basis of common law, traced back to the dawn of civilization. Our entire society depends upon it.
You are wrong. It matters if you do something warranting eviction.
The supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka that racial segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment. This means you cannot evict people even from your privately owned businesses because of their race due to the commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
So if the people with the bumper stickers were black and asked to leave because they were black, it would be a slam dunk case against them.
Now we may see if this reaches the supreme court and whether they protect people from being discriminated for their political views.
The supreme court ruled in Brown v. Board of Eduction of Topeka that racial segregation is a violation of the 14th amendment. This means you cannot evict people even from your privately owned businesses because of their race due to the commerce clause: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause
So if the people with the bumper stickers were black and asked to leave because they were black, it would be a slam dunk case against them.
Now we may see if this reaches the supreme court and whether they protect people from being discriminated for their political views.
Race is the one exception the Supreme Court has made among an infinite list of possible exceptions. Their decision, I believe, has very little to do with the principles of common law and a great deal to do with our own history as a country.
Regardless of their reasoning, racial issues are a bit off point. You said it does matter if you do something warranting eviction, but that's not entirely true. The rule stands, just with a clause added: The owner of a piece of property may evict anyone for any reason or no reason at all, unless his actions are proven to be racially motivated.
Again, this rule has existed since man has formed social structures. It's a rather important issue, and the Founding Fathers took it very seriously, which is why the third amendment prohibits the quartering of troops on private property. I understand the Supreme Court has upheld one exception, but that does not destroy the rule. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court considered a man's opinions -- political or religious beliefs -- as worthy of as much protection as facts about himself that he cannot change, such as the color of his skin.
Regardless of their reasoning, racial issues are a bit off point. You said it does matter if you do something warranting eviction, but that's not entirely true. The rule stands, just with a clause added: The owner of a piece of property may evict anyone for any reason or no reason at all, unless his actions are proven to be racially motivated.
Again, this rule has existed since man has formed social structures. It's a rather important issue, and the Founding Fathers took it very seriously, which is why the third amendment prohibits the quartering of troops on private property. I understand the Supreme Court has upheld one exception, but that does not destroy the rule. I would be very surprised if the Supreme Court considered a man's opinions -- political or religious beliefs -- as worthy of as much protection as facts about himself that he cannot change, such as the color of his skin.
I am merely enlightening you to the fact that "private property" is not a catch-all excuse to discriminate and revoke "invitations" to people, which you seem to believe.
What's next? Maybe you'd like to include homosexuals and Muslims next because you can change your religion and sexual practices?
It's quite a dangerous precedent you are setting, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the 3rd amendment. The 3rd amendment deals with government troops and the right for troops to trespass on private property during war.
What's next? Maybe you'd like to include homosexuals and Muslims next because you can change your religion and sexual practices?
It's quite a dangerous precedent you are setting, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the 3rd amendment. The 3rd amendment deals with government troops and the right for troops to trespass on private property during war.
It appears we must agree to disagree. If I cannot choose who visits my property, I would hardly call it private.
Private property does not automatically make an event private.
In this case, this was a US government funded event (taxpayer money), with tickets handed out to the __public__. The only thing private about this was that the area was rented from a private owner.
http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-1085.pdf
If you think this is private, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you support restaurants, supermarkets, and businesses being able to discriminate based on whether someone wasn't Christian or white.
In this case, this was a US government funded event (taxpayer money), with tickets handed out to the __public__. The only thing private about this was that the area was rented from a private owner.
http://www.ck10.uscourts.gov/opinions/09/09-1085.pdf
If you think this is private, I don't know what to tell you. I guess you support restaurants, supermarkets, and businesses being able to discriminate based on whether someone wasn't Christian or white.
No, I would not label this event private. Yet you would apparently label no event as private, with your continued references to supermarkets, resteraunts, and the like. You can't frame the debate as bring about publicly-funded events and then use examples of privately-run ones for your arguments.
Anyway, in most areas, I actually am ok with "discrimination." What is morally reprehensible about running an event designed to disciple someone in their religion, then asking people of another religion to stay away? I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah. Nor would I be terribly thrilled if I was on a men's campout and we were forced to bring women along. Like it or not, we aren't all the same, and sometimes we need to hang out with people like us in a certain area. As long as you aren't terrorizing a certain group of people out of hatred, private property laws should allow you to decide who comes on your property.
If the government pays for an event, that's another matter entirely, but please choose which debate we are having and use relevant examples so I can be clear going forward.
Anyway, in most areas, I actually am ok with "discrimination." What is morally reprehensible about running an event designed to disciple someone in their religion, then asking people of another religion to stay away? I can't imagine a Muslim would be too happy about an atheist showing up at a Muslim retreat and yelling obscenities to Allah. Nor would I be terribly thrilled if I was on a men's campout and we were forced to bring women along. Like it or not, we aren't all the same, and sometimes we need to hang out with people like us in a certain area. As long as you aren't terrorizing a certain group of people out of hatred, private property laws should allow you to decide who comes on your property.
If the government pays for an event, that's another matter entirely, but please choose which debate we are having and use relevant examples so I can be clear going forward.
Why did you say "Christian or white" and not "[on someone's] religion or skin colour"?
You don't get to decide what warrants eviction. Neither do I, I would've let them stay. But it wasn't my call.
Freedom of speech can be used to say all sorts of foul, obnoxious, even indefensible things. In much the same way, common law property rights can be used in a witless way. Criticizing their behavior is the appropriate response, not abusing the concept of rights.
Freedom of speech can be used to say all sorts of foul, obnoxious, even indefensible things. In much the same way, common law property rights can be used in a witless way. Criticizing their behavior is the appropriate response, not abusing the concept of rights.
Is this museum a wholly private institution?
It seems so, but the link at the bottom of their page to SCFD (which seems like a state governmental body) confuses me. Does the museum get tax payer dollars?
It seems so, but the link at the bottom of their page to SCFD (which seems like a state governmental body) confuses me. Does the museum get tax payer dollars?
However disagreeable this may be, it seems that most people on HN would agree with the ruling as evidenced by highly voted comments such as this: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1068959