In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Kurt Ullman writes:

Nope. I can kick you off my property at will even if you are OWS and
are occupying. No repercussions because there is no requirement that I
give you freedom of speech.

These actions do not generally conflict with the Constitution. However, if you
attempt to prevent a person from voting, or if you attempt to punish him for
exercising his Constitutional right to freedom of speech (as by firing him for
endorsing a political candidate, for example), you run into conflict with the
Constitution.
Actually, I can fire a person in many states for endorsing a
candidate. If you are in an at-will state and have no other contractural
agreements (such as union or employment contracts), I don't even need a
reason to fire you. Even if I do get in trouble (legally) it won't be
because of first amendment issues, but because of employment law issues.
Laws only say I have to give you an opportunity to vote. If, for
instance, the polls don't close until 6 and you get off at four, I
usually don't have to give you any time off during work hours. So, I
probably could legally fire you for taking off early to vote.


The first amendment, for instance, says specifically that Government
shall not, etc.

In general, and by extension, things forbidden to the government by the
Constitution are also forbidden to private entities. The government cannot
seize property under certain conditions, and by extention, this restriction
also applies to private entities such as corporations.
The US government constitutionally can take anything they want
for any purpose with only requirement being they pay for it (the taking
clause). The limits are placed by laws. What state and local governments
can do is limited by paying for it AND whatever their constitutions
allow (since states may place limits on emminent domain).
The restriction on corps (unless assisted by a governmental entity)
is related to theft, contract, and other laws. There is no
constitutional issue.



The reason corporations are not always required to guarantee freedom of speech
is that they do not have a monopoly over the means of expression--you can
express yourself outside the company even if the company prohibits this on its
premises. But if, for some reason, you do not have other options available to
you, the restrictions applied by a corporation might be unconstitutional.

But then you have violated (techically anyway) violated federal law
and you could be subject (technically anyway) to criminal prosecution.

Yes. But sometimes that's the only way to get the law changed. It would be an
interesting case, and could set useful precedents.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz