Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Or, in more practical terms, why is "no anti-war protesters in the [private] park" any different from "no black people in the [private] park?"

In even more practical terms, where do you find private parks, and who would want to hold a protest there? The exclusion of blacks would violate laws against racism, I guess.

If your trade union holds an assembly in a location they own or rent, they can kick out people who want to voice dissent. If they hold an assembly in a public place, they must tolerate dissenting political speech, but not attempts to disturb the assembly by violence. Why is the difference so difficult for you to get?

by Katrin on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 09:16:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]
If your trade union holds an assembly in a location they own or rent, they can kick out people who want to voice dissent. If they hold an assembly in a public place, they must tolerate dissenting political speech, but not attempts to disturb the assembly by violence. Why is the difference so difficult for you to get?

It's not difficult for me to get.

I just don't agree that political activism should enjoy fewer protections just because it takes place on "private property."

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 09:52:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
So you don't want different degrees of openness to the public? How would you protect the trade union assembly in a rented room against being hijacked by a busload of speakers for an employers' organisation then?

And don't try to claim that your idea would remove an advantage of the rich: it's not true. Every organisation can afford to rent a room.

by Katrin on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 10:02:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Are you talking about an assembly open to the public, open to any company employee, or open to a card-carrying member of the union?

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 10:09:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
open to the public that is interested in enhancing the right to strike
by Katrin on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 10:18:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then no, there is no reason to expect State-enforced protection against entryism.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 10:22:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
C'mon. We are not that far down the road yet.
by Katrin on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 01:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Are we talking "in principle"? In principle if you organise a public meeting open to all, you cannot then complain if the opposition outnumbers you at your own meeting. If it's members-only then it's not a private meeting.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 02:03:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, there is also something in between: I can invite members and people who have sympathies for my cause. I can organise a meeting with an agenda and invite debate how the agenda can be achieved. I can expel people who come only to sabotage this agenda. The rationale then would not be numbers of supporters or dissenters, but property rights: if I own or rent a room I can ultimately decide who speaks in there.
by Katrin on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 02:15:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought you objected to property rights because they were the basis of neoliberalism.

If you are not convinced, try it on someone who has not been entirely debauched by economics. — Piero Sraffa
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 02:52:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I object to private property of the means of production, not to any property. And I am living now and using the laws and rules that exist, even if I want them changed.
by Katrin on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 03:02:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Where did I say that you had to provide a microphone to protesters? Or, for that matter, that protesters were allowed to disturb the gathering? (But then, protesters aren't allowed to disturb public gatherings in public either.)

But if someone wants to, say, hand out leaflets against striking at such a meeting, or stand in front of the podium with a banner against striking, I would be hard pressed to find any solid grounds for prohibiting that.

Now, I could very easily find a solid argument that people who were being paid to do that could be excluded. "Open to all non-commercial activities" is a perfectly valid restriction, and astroturfing is a commercial activity.

But then, I don't believe in protecting paid speech anyway.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Fri Aug 31st, 2012 at 10:28:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series