[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A problem with comparing Intel and a mall (fwd)
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 00:04:11 -0800
From: Bill Stewart <[email protected]>
Subject: CDR: Re: A problem with comparing Intel and a mall
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.)
[ I appreciate Bill's fervor for private property rights. ]
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.
[ Ooops, now we find that Bill doesn't believe in private property
rights. ]
[ Freedom of speech is inalienable. So long as you advertise your private
property as public access then I don't see you have the privilige of
asking people to leave because they don't belong to the same political
party as you do. Rights are inalienable.
It amazes me that so many people who claim to be Cypherpunks and so
pro- individual rights are one of the first to trivialize and ignore
those same rights.
It's like you go out of your way to find twisted rationales to
eliminate them. Very strange. ]
____________________________________________________________________
The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?
O[rphan] D[rift>]
Cyber Positive
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [email protected]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------