Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Constitutionalist Conservative

“Do you feel like you have the inalienable right to tell a guest in your house to shut his mouth if you are offended by what he’s saying?”

Feel? I’m not looking for feelings.

But in answer, I do “feel” I have the inalienable right to tell a guest in my house to shut his mouth if I am offended by what he’s saying.

I also “feel” a guest in my house has an inalienable right to say “Take your hand off my butt” if she’s offended by my placing it there, regardless of whether or not it offends me for her to say it.

Try again if you want to.

Try explaining why I have that inalienable right in my house and don’t just write “because of property rights”. That’s too vague, too subject to interpretation through “feelings”, and too unfounded as it stands.


30 posted on 12/18/2009 2:15:06 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle
Feel? I’m not looking for feelings.

Sorry, poor choice of words -- substitute "Do you believe you have...", or simply "Do you have...". Whatever it takes to get you to focus on my main point.

Try explaining why I have that inalienable right in my house and don’t just write “because of property rights”.

Ever heard of the "castle doctrine"? Within certain specific legal boundaries, a property owner has rights while on his property (e.g. order someone to leave, shoot at an intruder, refuse to let police in if they don't have a warrant) that he has no where else. Your right to order unwelcome visitors off of your property implies your right to regulate their speech as a condition of remaining on the property. If they want to continue in their offensive speech -- fine, but they should get off of my property first.

Property rights, of course, do not imply the right to commit criminal offenses on your property, so your sexual assault example is not really relevant to my point.

Back to the news article, the fact that the mall owner may end up fining the tenant implies that there was a provision in the lease contract granting the owner the right to exercise veto power over a tenant's decision to sell offensive merchandise. In this case, the tenant has two choices: either pay the fine or sue the owner. Nothing complicated here.

35 posted on 12/18/2009 2:51:33 PM PST by Constitutionalist Conservative (Two blogs for the price of none!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson