> It is a curtailment of someone’s freedom of speech.
The right to a venue and the right to speak are two entirely different things.
The right to a venue and the right to speak are two entirely different things.
They’re both components of the freedom of speech.
The origin of our modern tradition of free speech is tied to Parliament, where the right to speak and venue were inextricably intertwined [1].
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Right,_1689 No. 9
They are not components of the freedom of speech when talking about private property.
I agree.
> not components of the freedom of speech when talking about private property
Of course it is. We don’t have an absolute right to freedom of speech. That doesn’t change the fact that we are curtailing one person’s freedom of speech in favour of your property rights.
Sure, I wasn’t taking it to say that. My point was just that venue has been at the heart of freedom of speech since its modern invention.
The philosophy of freedom of speech applies to both public and private spheres. The First Amendment does not.