Comment 70588

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted October 14, 2011 at 16:48:21

Brookfield has a responsibility to allow peaceful assembly?

You seem to cite the constitituion as authority for this, although the constitituion generally applies to actions between the state and private actors, not between two private actors (i.e. brookfield and the protestors).

While some decisions out of Canada discuss the potential that a mall is the "new city square" and that protesting should therefore be allowed even thought it's technically private property, I'm unfamiliar with US law in this area.

Generally speaking though, to say that one person has the responsibility to permit another person to protest on their property seems generally wrong to me. I can't come and picket in your front yard, and you can't choose to picket inside an exclusive club. I just don't think people should be able to impose on your private property like that, not even for the purposes of freedom of speech or assembly.

Freedom of assembly and freedom of speech are valuable, and I will defend them, but I think they should take place on public land (municipal, federal, provincial, etc.) and not on private property.

I think that all people, police, government officials, etc. should work together to ensure that protesting happens freely on public land, but I don't think private landowners like brookfield should have to accomdoate protestors on their property.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools