[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: A problem with comparing Intel and a mall



At 08:16 AM 01/04/2000 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>It occurs to me that the comparison of allowing the passing out of printed
>materials in a private mall as equivalent to sending email to Intel
>employees on Intel equipment is flawed.
...
>One doesn't lose ones freedom of speech when on private property (assuming
>it isn't ones own private property) but you do lose the right to stay there
>if the rightful owner objects because it damages them in some way. Clearly
>theft of services is damage.

I agree with you that Pruneyard doesn't apply to the Intel v. Hamidi case. 
  (Pruneyard was a terrible mistake by the Supremes, and it says that
  Jim's wrong, the mall can't kick people out for political petitioning
  even though, IMHO, they certainly ought to be able to do so.)

On the other hand, there are all sorts of labor-union laws that may
cover Hamidi's right, as a disgruntled ex-employee, to try to 
organize the current workers at Intel, at least if he says 
correct union-like words while encouraging them to be disgruntled also.
Except for actions covered by those laws, Intel should be able to
bit-bucket any email from Hamidi to its employees'work email addresses.

But I don't see Intel having a case to sue Hamidi.

				Thanks! 
					Bill
Bill Stewart, [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint D454 E202 CBC8 40BF  3C85 B884 0ABE 4639