Anon wrote quoting Tim: > > Does my right to control my own property vanish when I > become a shop > > or restaurant? How about when I get larger? > > Renowned cypherpunk Dave Del Torto thinks it does. This is > the argument that he was using to try to gain admittance to > CodeCon this year, after being blacklisted by the producers > due to disturbances at the previous year's CodeCon. Do you > mean to say DDT could be wrong about his rights as a member > of the public wishing to attend an event "open to the public" > on private property?
Renowned Cypherpunk? Some would consider deleterious to be a more appropriate word choice. At any rate, it is undisputed that the producers of CodeCon made it abundantly clear, in particular to DDT, that CodeCon was not "open to the public," but open only to those that the producers had no reason to believe would act disruptively. CodeCon was held in a location licensed to sell alcoholic beverages and there is a reason why many bars have bouncers. I am not a lawyer, but I predict that the odds of anybody recovering damages for being 86'ed from a bar are slim indeed. Having attended CodeCon both last year and this year, I can say the following: last year, DDT repeatedly abused the Q&A periods of the highly-technical presentations not to ask questions about the technology, as was the purpose of the Q&A periods, but to deliver repeated, unwelcome, and frankly, annoying rants on the supposed merits of the Cryptorights Foundation. As was observed by others, DDT's inappropriate behavior cut into, and for some sessions absorbed virtually entirely, the time available for technical Q&A. I am grateful that the organizers of CodeCon had the courage to refuse admission to a potential attendee known to have been disruptive in the past. The technical Q&A sections of the program were all the more useful to the bona fide attendees because of it. Countless other attendees have expressed the same gratitude in private conversations. --Lucky
