Freedom of speech means just that--you are free to say what you want without fear of arrest. It does not guarantee that you will be able to say it, or a medium on which to broadcast it, or an audience to hear it.
If it's private property, then the property owner has the moral and legal right to dictate what is and is not said on it. If you don't like it, no one's holding a gun to your head and telling you you can't leave.
I'm getting conflicting messages. From reading the linked article, I understand that the House voted to, in essence, keep the current rules in effect--that is, to nullify a plan by the FCC to relax rules on media outlet ownership. On the other hand, by reading the posts on/. (and taking into account the general attitude on/. in general), I get the impression that the House actually voted to allow the FCC to go ahead with its plan.
I'm going to go with what I read in the article--in which case, I hope this bill dies as soon as possible, and the FCC is allowed to go ahead with its plan. There is no valid reason to restrict how much one person or other private entity may own, period.
No, I'm just saying that giving something a certain legal name to not make it sound as bad when its rights are being abrogated does not eliminate those rights.
Just because something has such and such a legal status doesn't affect what it really is--and if it is a person or owned by individual people acting as themselves or through another business or other organization owned by individual people, then it is a private entity regardless of what the law says, and so has every right to set whatever rules it wishes for people who enter its private property.
I'm aware that society hasn't been as free as it should. But that doesn't justify continuing doing it. I'm aware that most companies have, being the socialists that they are when push comes to shove, accepted government money in the past. So what you do is eliminate government subsidies of companies (or anything else, for that matter). One can't change the past, but one CAN make a better future by changing the problems of the present. Eliminate corporate welfare, eliminate business regulation (other than things that apply to everyone, such as prohibitions against murder, theft, vandalism, fraud, and the like), and let's start anew, shall we?
You're operating under the following false assumptions:
1) That a company has an obligation to provide a service, or even to exist at all.
2) That a company exists for "the public good" rather than the profit of its owners.
3) That your convenience or need overrules the rights of another private entity
Let's say that there was no direct flight from Miami to Denver, and the fastest way to get there was to fly from Miami to New York, lay over for three hours, go from New York to Houston, wait another six hours, and go from Houston to Denver. Now, that'd still get you there faster than driving--but it still wouldn't get you there in time. So should you be able to demand that they institute a direct route between Miami and Denver just for your own convenience? Of course not. But by your reasoning, you should--after all, since the airline owns the airplanes and has the pilots, they obviously have the upper hand in any bargaining attempt you might try to make, and so government should step in.
You see, our world is one of trade-offs. That's how it works--it's called "reality". You can't always get what you want (apologies to Mick and Keith), and if someone is offering something you want then you've got to take it on their terms or not at all--after all, they're free to choose not to offer it under any terms or circumstances. You just have to decide what's more important to you and act accordingly. Government is not a tool to be used so you can avoid taking responsibility for your own decisions and agreements, however unpleasant their consequences may be.
First, the Constitution does not "grant" any rights. Read it carefully sometime.
Second, you are grossly misinterpreting either that clause or the rest of the Constitution--I'm not sure which. Yes, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. And the Supreme Law of the Land says that "Congress shall make no law..."--nothing about any private body is mentioned.
"An airline is a private organization."...whose right and privilege to fly is mandated by the FAA, which is a federal organization.
What is and what should be are not necessarily the same thing. Just because the FAA regulates aviation does not necessarily mean that it should. ANY government entity that attempts to abrogate the right of an individual or other private entity to do as he wishes with his property so long as he does not defraud or cause physical harm to anyone who does not willingly participate or consent should be eliminated.
Suppose that a business owner says that because his business is a private organization, and that no one has to work there if they don't want, he is putting a clause in the employment contract saying that the employees have to provide him with sexual services on demand. Obviously that is illegal, in the US anyway---should it be legal? Clearly not.
Yes, it should. You explained why yourself, right at the start of your post.
It contributes to a happy, well-functioning society for us to have a presumption in favor of letting people make whatever business arrangements they want between themselves, but freedom of contract isn't a sacred principle.
Really? So you and I shouldn't be able to make whatever agreement between us we want as long as it doesn't affect any third party who is not a willing participant?
Why can't we limit it where there is clear social benefit to doing so?
Because the individual is not subordinate to everyone else.
First, you are saying that because they're a private organisation we have no right to criticize them.
Umm...no, I'm not. Where do you see that?
Why not? We are the consumers and we are the citizens. We can criticize whoever we bloody well want.
No one's saying you can't...but you still have to follow their rules when you're on their property whether you like them or not--after all, you're always free to leave.
Second, you seem to be suggesting that because something is the law, that law is automatically correct and should also not be questioned.
Hardly. I'm just saying that an owner of a private company has every right to impose whatever rules it wants on people who are on its property--regardless of whether or not that right is recognized by law.
If we, the citizens, find that is should be illegal to do surveillance even on private property, then we can change that.
You can certainly try. And I would fight you every step of the way, because you would be wrong to do so.
Here, read some passages from the Constitution--I guarantee you that you will find a lot of phrases that say, "Congress shall make no law", and absolutely no phrases that say, "A private entity or business shall make no rule".
Exactly. It may not be a sound business decision, and a lot of people (myself included) may refuse to fly with them just to show our disgust, but it should be their prerogative nonetheless.
It's a public area, and when you're in public, you can be seen by others.
Actually, it's not. It's a private area--but it's someone else's private area. As such, they have the right to require you to follow whatever rules they wish in order to allow you onto their private property.
An airline is a private organization. You're free to choose whether or not you fly with them. If you're going to step on board their property, you've got to follow their rules--it's that simple.
So basically, Lexmark's not allowed to build its product the way it wants?
Sheesh, it's not like anyone's holding a gun to anyone's head forcing him to buy a Lexmark printer (or any printer, for that matter)!
Let Lexmark build its products the way it wants. Anyone's perfectly free to try to work around it and sell workarounds, as long as they don't misrepresent anything in the process.
If people don't like what Lexmark's doing, they simply won't buy Lexmark's product.
Second, no, it doesn't. A right to do something is not a guarantee that you will be able to do it. It just means that if you do manage to do it you won't get punished for it.
Aside from the obvious security concerns, do you really want to make it easier for people who can't be bothered to get up off their asses and drive three blocks once every two years to have a say in the way this country is headed?
People don't like spam. That's a given. But that in and of itself is not a valid reason to ban it. If network owners don't want spam then by all means they should be able to sue the spammer for unauthorized use of their networks. But a law banning spam outright would prevent network owners who don't mind having spam travel over their networks from allowing their network to be used for whatever purposes they desire.
I don't understand why people think that there's something wrong with two private entities getting together and deciding to act in concert. It's not like they're killing people--they're just trying to make money and hopefully stop people from stealing their stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
Freedom of speech means just that--you are free to say what you want without fear of arrest. It does not guarantee that you will be able to say it, or a medium on which to broadcast it, or an audience to hear it.
If it's private property, then the property owner has the moral and legal right to dictate what is and is not said on it. If you don't like it, no one's holding a gun to your head and telling you you can't leave.
"Freedom of speech" merely ensures that no one will arrest you for stating your opinion; it does not guarantee you a forum or an audience.
I'm getting conflicting messages. From reading the linked article, I understand that the House voted to, in essence, keep the current rules in effect--that is, to nullify a plan by the FCC to relax rules on media outlet ownership. On the other hand, by reading the posts on /. (and taking into account the general attitude on /. in general), I get the impression that the House actually voted to allow the FCC to go ahead with its plan.
I'm going to go with what I read in the article--in which case, I hope this bill dies as soon as possible, and the FCC is allowed to go ahead with its plan. There is no valid reason to restrict how much one person or other private entity may own, period.
Is the business model of many media companies not appropriate today? Perhaps--maybe even probably.
Do actors, musicians, etc. get quite a bit of money for what they do? Of course.
Will the studio or actor or director or stagehand miss the money from the relatively small number of pirated copies that are made? Of course not.
Does this make theft right? Never.
No, I'm just saying that giving something a certain legal name to not make it sound as bad when its rights are being abrogated does not eliminate those rights.
Just because something has such and such a legal status doesn't affect what it really is--and if it is a person or owned by individual people acting as themselves or through another business or other organization owned by individual people, then it is a private entity regardless of what the law says, and so has every right to set whatever rules it wishes for people who enter its private property.
I'm aware that society hasn't been as free as it should. But that doesn't justify continuing doing it. I'm aware that most companies have, being the socialists that they are when push comes to shove, accepted government money in the past. So what you do is eliminate government subsidies of companies (or anything else, for that matter). One can't change the past, but one CAN make a better future by changing the problems of the present. Eliminate corporate welfare, eliminate business regulation (other than things that apply to everyone, such as prohibitions against murder, theft, vandalism, fraud, and the like), and let's start anew, shall we?
I fail to see your point.
You're operating under the following false assumptions:
1) That a company has an obligation to provide a service, or even to exist at all.
2) That a company exists for "the public good" rather than the profit of its owners.
3) That your convenience or need overrules the rights of another private entity
Let's say that there was no direct flight from Miami to Denver, and the fastest way to get there was to fly from Miami to New York, lay over for three hours, go from New York to Houston, wait another six hours, and go from Houston to Denver. Now, that'd still get you there faster than driving--but it still wouldn't get you there in time. So should you be able to demand that they institute a direct route between Miami and Denver just for your own convenience? Of course not. But by your reasoning, you should--after all, since the airline owns the airplanes and has the pilots, they obviously have the upper hand in any bargaining attempt you might try to make, and so government should step in.
You see, our world is one of trade-offs. That's how it works--it's called "reality". You can't always get what you want (apologies to Mick and Keith), and if someone is offering something you want then you've got to take it on their terms or not at all--after all, they're free to choose not to offer it under any terms or circumstances. You just have to decide what's more important to you and act accordingly. Government is not a tool to be used so you can avoid taking responsibility for your own decisions and agreements, however unpleasant their consequences may be.
Two things.
First, the Constitution does not "grant" any rights. Read it carefully sometime.
Second, you are grossly misinterpreting either that clause or the rest of the Constitution--I'm not sure which. Yes, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. And the Supreme Law of the Land says that "Congress shall make no law..."--nothing about any private body is mentioned.
"An airline is a private organization." ...whose right and privilege to fly is mandated by the FAA, which is a federal organization.
What is and what should be are not necessarily the same thing. Just because the FAA regulates aviation does not necessarily mean that it should. ANY government entity that attempts to abrogate the right of an individual or other private entity to do as he wishes with his property so long as he does not defraud or cause physical harm to anyone who does not willingly participate or consent should be eliminated.
Suppose that a business owner says that because his business is a private organization, and that no one has to work there if they don't want, he is putting a clause in the employment contract saying that the employees have to provide him with sexual services on demand. Obviously that is illegal, in the US anyway---should it be legal? Clearly not.
Yes, it should. You explained why yourself, right at the start of your post.
It contributes to a happy, well-functioning society for us to have a presumption in favor of letting people make whatever business arrangements they want between themselves, but freedom of contract isn't a sacred principle.
Really? So you and I shouldn't be able to make whatever agreement between us we want as long as it doesn't affect any third party who is not a willing participant?
Why can't we limit it where there is clear social benefit to doing so?
Because the individual is not subordinate to everyone else.
First, you are saying that because they're a private organisation we have no right to criticize them.
Umm...no, I'm not. Where do you see that?
Why not? We are the consumers and we are the citizens. We can criticize whoever we bloody well want.
No one's saying you can't...but you still have to follow their rules when you're on their property whether you like them or not--after all, you're always free to leave.
Second, you seem to be suggesting that because something is the law, that law is automatically correct and should also not be questioned.
Hardly. I'm just saying that an owner of a private company has every right to impose whatever rules it wants on people who are on its property--regardless of whether or not that right is recognized by law.
If we, the citizens, find that is should be illegal to do surveillance even on private property, then we can change that.
You can certainly try. And I would fight you every step of the way, because you would be wrong to do so.
Really?
Here, read some passages from the Constitution--I guarantee you that you will find a lot of phrases that say, "Congress shall make no law", and absolutely no phrases that say, "A private entity or business shall make no rule".
I'm aware of the difference between "is" and "should", and laws are often wrong (invalid) and need to be changed or eliminated altogether.
Of course, just because something's illegal doesn't necessarily mean that it should be.
Constitution restricts government, not private entities.
Exactly. It may not be a sound business decision, and a lot of people (myself included) may refuse to fly with them just to show our disgust, but it should be their prerogative nonetheless.
It's a public area, and when you're in public, you can be seen by others.
Actually, it's not. It's a private area--but it's someone else's private area. As such, they have the right to require you to follow whatever rules they wish in order to allow you onto their private property.
An airline is a private organization. You're free to choose whether or not you fly with them. If you're going to step on board their property, you've got to follow their rules--it's that simple.
So basically, Lexmark's not allowed to build its product the way it wants?
Sheesh, it's not like anyone's holding a gun to anyone's head forcing him to buy a Lexmark printer (or any printer, for that matter)!
Let Lexmark build its products the way it wants. Anyone's perfectly free to try to work around it and sell workarounds, as long as they don't misrepresent anything in the process.
If people don't like what Lexmark's doing, they simply won't buy Lexmark's product.
Here's my answer to your questions (IANAL).
First, yes, of course.
Second, no, it doesn't. A right to do something is not a guarantee that you will be able to do it. It just means that if you do manage to do it you won't get punished for it.
Aside from the obvious security concerns, do you really want to make it easier for people who can't be bothered to get up off their asses and drive three blocks once every two years to have a say in the way this country is headed?
People don't like spam. That's a given. But that in and of itself is not a valid reason to ban it. If network owners don't want spam then by all means they should be able to sue the spammer for unauthorized use of their networks. But a law banning spam outright would prevent network owners who don't mind having spam travel over their networks from allowing their network to be used for whatever purposes they desire.
I don't understand why people think that there's something wrong with two private entities getting together and deciding to act in concert. It's not like they're killing people--they're just trying to make money and hopefully stop people from stealing their stuff.