3 ms·

Even in the case of private property, if the public is generally invited in, some constitutional rights can still apply: ...ownership "does not always mean abs

Even in the case of private property, if the public is generally invited in, some constitutional rights can still apply: ...ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in. In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties. Incidentally, this judgment could be relevant to questions around freedom of speech on monopoly online platforms (e.g. google search, youtube, twitter & facebook): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

nybble41 8y ago
That was a horrible ruling. Upholding private property rights does not restrict anyone's "fundamental rights and liberties". The two are not in conflict: no one has any legitimate rights or liberties with respect to anyone else's private property to begin with, no matter how much the property owners may have opened up their property to the public. The Constitution guarantees freedom from government interference in the exercise of one's rights; it does not guarantee the availability of other's property for that purpose without their consent. However, the issue in this case is not restrictions imposed by property owners on the use of their own property, but rather restrictions imposed by the federal government, which is bound by the limitations on government power written into the Constitution.
- eesmith 8y ago
  Consider the Nordic "right to roam". Just because you own land doesn't mean you have the right to keep people off the land simply because you don't want them there. Or as the WP page quotes for this court case: 'ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion."' If it were otherwise, then what's to keep from having a company city, or company state? Sell off Seattle to Bill Gates, and make it his fiefdom.
  - nybble41 8y ago
    > Just because you own land doesn't mean you have the right to keep people off the land simply because you don't want them there. Sure it does. Entering someone's land when they've told you to stay out is known as "trespassing". > If it were otherwise, then what's to keep from having a company city, or company state? Assuming the land is legitimately homesteaded and purchased? Nothing. And there's nothing wrong with that.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      It is a US practice that property rights include the right to exclude others. That is not internationally held view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam That points out that "Ancient traces provide evidence of the freedom to roam in many European countries, suggesting such a freedom was once a common norm." It's also been noted that the freedom to roam is strongest in those areas which didn't have feudalism and serfdom. Just like feudalism and serfdom, company towns have a history of being controlling and exploitative .. and un-democratic. That's what's wrong with them.

nybble41 8y ago

That was a horrible ruling. Upholding private property rights does not restrict anyone's "fundamental rights and liberties". The two are not in conflict: no one has any legitimate rights or liberties with respect to anyone else's private property to begin with, no matter how much the property owners may have opened up their property to the public. The Constitution guarantees freedom from government interference in the exercise of one's rights; it does not guarantee the availability of other's property for that purpose without their consent. However, the issue in this case is not restrictions imposed by property owners on the use of their own property, but rather restrictions imposed by the federal government, which is bound by the limitations on government power written into the Constitution.

eesmith 8y ago
Consider the Nordic "right to roam". Just because you own land doesn't mean you have the right to keep people off the land simply because you don't want them there. Or as the WP page quotes for this court case: 'ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion."' If it were otherwise, then what's to keep from having a company city, or company state? Sell off Seattle to Bill Gates, and make it his fiefdom.
- nybble41 8y ago
  > Just because you own land doesn't mean you have the right to keep people off the land simply because you don't want them there. Sure it does. Entering someone's land when they've told you to stay out is known as "trespassing". > If it were otherwise, then what's to keep from having a company city, or company state? Assuming the land is legitimately homesteaded and purchased? Nothing. And there's nothing wrong with that.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    It is a US practice that property rights include the right to exclude others. That is not internationally held view. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam That points out that "Ancient traces provide evidence of the freedom to roam in many European countries, suggesting such a freedom was once a common norm." It's also been noted that the freedom to roam is strongest in those areas which didn't have feudalism and serfdom. Just like feudalism and serfdom, company towns have a history of being controlling and exploitative .. and un-democratic. That's what's wrong with them.