You cannot have a house in a public space accessible worldwide, without doors or windows, and then randomly get to decide who can and can't visit, and have it enforced by courts.
Legally, it isn't.
"You cannot have a house in a public space accessible worldwide, without doors or windows, and then randomly get to decide who can and can't visit, and have it enforced by courts. "
Completely and totally false. Trespass to land, in fact, doesn't even require that you intend to trespass, only that you voluntarily traveled to the location. You do not need to know it's someone else's property or that you are trespassing to be liable.
Getting injunctive relief is more difficult for other reasons, but you would at least get nominal damages.
I think you will find trespass to land doctrines are not in your favor in this argument. You may want to try to argue it isn't like land at all :)
We had this discussion here on HN some days back when the ruling came down. Just because something is possible doesn't give you the right to do it.
If we're extrapolating from commercial property rights, then again, stores and merchants have the right to refuse entry to persons they choose as well, even though those buildings are in common areas, and their doors are commonly unlocked to allow free entry to all.
Further, it is not incumbent upon you to have doors, windows and locks to prevent entry from your property, as the property needn't be a house at all, but could simply be land. I have the right to expel trespassers from land I own, whether or not any dwellings or structures exist upon such property.
Even if you're assertion is just that I should have doors and locks to prevent them entering just my home, that is again a false claim. Whether or not my property is secure might be a matter of insurance liability, but does not obviate me from the expectation that others will respect my property rights. Even if I have no doors, windows, locks, or even walls, I have the right to expel others from my property.