On Wed, Mar 05, 2003 at 10:58:06PM +0100, Anonymous wrote: > On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote: > > > > At 11:03 PM 3/4/03 -0500, Steve Furlong wrote: > > >From the article, New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen > > >Gottlieb says, "We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we > > >believe that protects the freedom to speak." How is Constitutionally- > > >protected freedom of speech imperiled when an agent of a private > > >corporation asks someone to leave because his speech is offensive? > > > > Steve is right. Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army" > > t-shirts [1] > > in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store. > > Not too fast. What about "nonobvious involvement of the state"? > Don't prematurely assume this is private, non-state conduct. > > What connections exist, if any, which link the state to that > mall? For example, was the construction of the mall, or the > awarding of the permit, or the environmental exceptions made, > etc., such that the state has a sufficient role in the existence > of the mall
Given the amount of projects that are done hereabouts with TIF (tax incremental financing) funds, I'd say the odds are pretty good most malls and even large housing units are not actually "private property". At least until they're paid off in full. -- Harmon Seaver CyberShamanix http://www.cybershamanix.com
