You’ve actually agreed that the mall is right, you just don’t know it. Right here: “A book company declining to publish someone’s work doesn’t stop someone from publishing it elsewhere or doing it themselves if they can.” It’s the same thing that’s going on with the mall, the store can go somewhere that doesn’t mind those t-shirts being sold.
See the reality is that as long as it’s not an act of Congress nobody is really abridging anybody else’s speech rights. All they’re doing is saying “not on my watch”, you can’t do it on their property, or while you’re on their payroll, or something similar to that. Like I said before, the key is that all of our relationships with anything but our government are voluntary, you can take your book/ business/ employment/ friendship elsewhere.
Did I say otherwise? If so, cut and paste my words.
Go back to my post 24 and see that what I questioned was the statement: “...the government is not involved and it is instead a property rights issue.”, which is from post 9.
I haven't been trying to discuss whether or not the mall is right. I'm trying to discuss whether or not the government is involved and discuss property rights in more detail.
Towards the end of post 24 I wrote:
” Arguably, Freedom of Speech is among the Rights Governments are instituted to secure therefore arguably the government (which includes Federal, State and Local levels) is (or should be) involved.
Now, please provide a similar position regarding your statement “it is instead a property rights issue” using similarly authoritative sources, and addressing property rights from both the “real property” and “personal property” aspects.
Also, please explain why government should not be involved in securing real and personal property rights. “
Nobody has met my request for a position and an explanation. Instead they go off topic.