[Newspoetry] When veils of privacy ought to fall...

[emerick at chorus.net]

When veils of privacy ought to fall...

Back in July, Mark H Wilson, in a copyrighted statement, published at www.newspoetry.com, remarked that a casino in Vegas, was not bound to honor Article 1 of the Amendments to the US Constitution -- in its phrasing that states that Congress shall make no abridging free speech.

Mark apparently observes some kind of distinction between private and public.  A Constitution says "no law, enacted from Congress, shall be regarded, by the Courts, as legally enforceable when it abridges free speech."

But, can a Congress then pass a law that assists, in any way, someone else -- say a "private property owner" -- who decides to abridge your free speech rights?  For example, may Congress authorize the use of riot police to put down free speech practitioners on "private property"?  May Congress authorize, sanction, endorse the use of extensive public powers to create islands of private property -- such as shopping malls -- as safe havens from political discourse?

Where, in the Constitution, does it say that "you have a right to be free from disturbing political messages"?  As nearly as I can sensibly tell, such a right as that truly is a limited and personal right, belonging to any resident when he is within the confines of his own residency.  (And, extends beyond the residency, in that person's right to be free from arbitrary seizures of his person, his papers, and his effects in any "public" place, outside the wals of that residency.

Any place is public, by this eliminative definition process, when no one lives there, in the enclosed area.

So, there would be no such "privacy right" of the casino operator to bar (political) free speech, in the name of protecting said establishment's right to engage in unlimited "commercial free speech."  (See "oxymoron" -- if you need a definition to judge why there is no such thing as "commercial free speech".)  (*And my remarks apply most to an establishment when it not a sole proprietorship, held in the owner's own name, being and person -- where within said owner personally resides.)

In my opinion -- and this means that few lawyers, almost no judges, and about everyone else disagrees, to some extent with me (ie, my opinion) -- free speech is greatly abridged by the structure of the laws, the definitions that have been woven into concepts of privacy and private property -- an abridgement so vast that we no longer can see the reason that bridges the chasm between reason and desire (that we call the purpose of the laws).

In my opinion, Ronstadt was wronged.  The veils of privacy ought not to fall -- the patrons of a place can choose to agree or not, even to leave or not, when an entertainer chooses to warble songs possibly offending them -- and no one should expect any legal aid to suppress free speech -- nor to expect that that acts of suppression shall go unpunished -- for Congress may, inversing the Article 1 stricture, do much to extend the bridge of free speech, without ever running over any prohibition on its power.

Hence, in judging a Congress (and Executive), as to its inverse duties << not to abridge Free Speech -- or to do all that it can to extend the exercise of Free Speech >>, I have to pronounce judgment that this present Congress has stampeded past the Constitution's bounds, broken down the fences of law, and roams -- like a wild bull and bully -- terrorizing the people.

Sincerely,
Donald L Emerick