[Peace-discuss] The mall

[C. G. Estabrook]

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004, Susan Davis wrote:

> ...free speech in the mall is the absolute minimum we should be asking
> for, since we're going to be paying for it twice -- or, even three
> times, if you think in terms of buying things in the mall, rebated
> taxes to provide services and upgrades for the mall, and figuring out
> how to fund our school system with money from elsewhere.

This seem to me quite right.

I suggested at Sunday's meeting that it would be a mistake to wait for
courts -- local, state, or federal -- to hand down free speech rights from
on high.  That's not the American way, from Daniel Shays on. American
"legal realism" suggests that reforms don't come from US courts without
substantial public demand.

We spent a good deal of time Sunday agreeing that political work on
legislation at the state and local level -- and making connections among
localities -- was necessary to defend civil rights and liberties and make
social progress in the present political situation.

Did I understand Danielle (a member of the Urbana city council) correctly
when she seemed to say that, if she had to choose between free speech
("24/7") and business interests in the new mall (because the developers
"wouldn't go for it"), she'd choose the latter?  That may be a general
opinion on the supposedly liberal Urbana council, which notoriously placed
business interests before those of its citizens in the Wal-Mart matter,
but it seems to me a serious mistake.  Perhaps that political work will
have to start at home for Urbana residents. --CGE