| Leadified said: Free speech under the First Amendment, you do not have any right to go inside a resturant for example and to defame the place and to insult the staff as such, they can kick you out. But they are entitled to kick you out for pretty much any reason if they want you because it is their property and in return you can do the same. On the other hand if you want maximum freedom of speech then you have to curtail and restrict property rights so bascially people can say whatever they want where ever they want and no one can do anything about it, except of course enforce your own right to freedom of speech. Or you could violate both of them and say people can say mostly what they want with exceptions and people have all the rights to their property with exceptions. In the 1976 case of Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, the US Supreme Court did rule that the First Amendment does not apply to private property. Some state constitutions do give free speech a priority over private property but most do not. |
free speech does not mean you are free to speak where ever you want, it means you are free to say what you want. You can support freedom of speech, and protection of property rights with out issue. Its not a choice between the two, like redistribution of wealth (socailism) and property rights are, as to have one you must sacrifice the other.
