3 ms·
There might be certain expectation in society that certain kind of property is public, which usually means, that you can use it within certain limits, even if y
by a-saleh 9y ago
There might be certain expectation in society that certain kind of property is public, which usually means, that you can use it within certain limits, even if you don't own it.
Often this is because the property would be owned by i.e. state/city, and that would provide citizens certain freedoms, such as freedom to gather on a public square.
- weberc2 9y agoI understand that many people might see a park and assume it's public because frequently parks are publicly commissioned, but that doesn't explain why I should feel afraid or oppressed. Even if I thought a park was public and then escorted away with the explanation that the park was private, I wouldn't (and shouldn't, contrary to the Guardian's implication) feel like my rights were infringed upon.
- a-saleh 9y agoWell, in my country, there is this a "Freedom to roam" that guarantees me the ability to travel through private parcels (with some exemptions, i.e. you can walk through the middle of somebody's pasture, unless there are animals you could disturb). Same thing applies for forests (as long as I am not logging, or driving off-road). If somebody would want to escort me from forest while I am foraging berries, or hiking or something, I would (according to our civil code, should) feel like my rights were infringed upon. Based on this experience, I would like, if there is similar right given for things in cities that appear as public spaces, even if they are a privately owned parcels. I understand that if you i.e. live in the US, this might see m weird, because the right of owner to restrict access to their land seems to be stronger there.