Property rights imperative to free speech

Comments (3)
  1. Anonymous says:

    You said: “In a free society, there is a nearly unlimited ability to chalk as many presidential slogans as one wishes in one’s own house, that is, on one’s own property”

    City of SLO says: “It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation that owns, occupies, or controls property in the City of San Luis Obispo to construct, maintain, display or alter or cause to be constructed, maintained, displayed or altered, a sign within the City except in conformance with this chapter.”

    Now, I’m no lawyer, but I don’t see an exception for any sort of political sign. Before someone says chalk isn’t a sign, murals fall under this regulation as well. It’s really quite funny, libertarians are fighting for a country that never really existed– or at least hasn’t for a century. Not that I disagree with their aims.

  2. William says:

    I believe that rule only applies to municipal government maintained things such as sidewalks. Besides, even if i am wrong, it is still coinciding what he is talking about. The government says they own something (San Luis Obispo) and you cant do as you please. That isnt your personal property then because someone else tells you what to do even if you \"own\" it. The whole system is FUBAR.

    Just my $0.02

  3. Fred says:

    Further, while the author makes no explicit distinction between the two, I don’t believe he intended to lump SLO in the same category as a “free society.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *