Political Roundtable Part X

[dckingsfan]

Popper - the best way to understand this. You work for ABC company but say in a public forum that XYX company has a better product. You are fired. You have no recourse in the courts. You were able to say what you want. And they are able to fire you.

Same way in a private college - you can say what you want without being thrown in jail. They can throw you out of the college - your only remedy would be to try to get your tuition back.

[popper]

As I stated. I don't see any conflict in our positions.

[montestewart]

Popper - the best way to understand this. You work for ABC company but say in a public forum that XYX company has a better product. You are fired. You have no recourse in the courts. You were able to say what you want. And they are able to fire you.

Same way in a private college - you can say what you want without being thrown in jail. They can throw you out of the college - your only remedy would be to try to get your tuition back.

Expanding on this, I've read theories that private colleges' ties to the federal government--through tuition funded by student loans and grants, federal research grants, etc.--might be a hook through which you can apply 1st Amendment rights to private spheres. Similarly, I've heard arguments that public zoning and other laws have allowed and even encouraged private shopping malls to displace traditional public spaces (town squares, main streets, etc.) and thus 1st Amendment protections should be to some degree extended to these as "quasi-public" spheres. No really sure how much these arguments have moved beyond the theoretical.

[dckingsfan]

I would think those arguments wouldn't hold muster (although with the makeup of the court changing, who knows).

Everything has some tie back - but I think in the end a private business would have the right to fire someone for something they say (if it relates to the business) and to suppress demonstrations on their land.

I would think this would be applied until it was no longer theoretical

[montestewart]

I would think those arguments wouldn't hold muster (although with the makeup of the court changing, who knows).

Everything has some tie back - but I think in the end a private business would have the right to fire someone for something they say (if it relates to the business) and to suppress demonstrations on their land.

I would think this would be applied until it was no longer theoretical

Agreed, but it's not too hard to imagine business consolidation and the surrender of public lands to private interests creating a world where free speech can easily result in unemployment and there are few places left to exercise free speech anyway. I see a sci-fi movie starring a grizzled Colin Farrell, with Chiwetel Ejiofor, Cate Blanchett, Anthony Hopkins, Lady Gaga, and (why not?) Bruce Willis.

[montestewart]

Political Roundtable Part XI is here