I happen to disagree with this premise, but the fact remains, this is the law.
Even in a publicly funded property, it is still
private property thanks to the incorporation of the UNITED STATES as a corporate entity. Explaining that subject area is too much for this article, but do some research on i
t, because that is the law of the land, in truth today.
MARTIAL LAW
An example though. I worked for a
private company, contracted to New York State, as a security officer. We housed sensitive material on engineering of bridges, buildings, and so forth. Blueprints and stuff. We even had a geological lab in the basement. Even though it was "public" property, photos were strictly forbidden, and other restrictions applied. And with good reason I might add. (When I worked at a nuke plant, we had license to kill.)
So even though this was technically "public" property, as a guard, I had the legal right to bar you from taking pics, and to confiscate your material if you violated the rules of the property. Short of that, I also had the right to eject you from the property, and to arrest you if you refused.
This is a premise that so many people fail to understand, even at their privately owned
local shopping mall, or even a publicly funded educational institution. This is also the same premise by which police claim the right to search your bags an the quasi-public subway system of NYC.
So while I whole-heartedly disagree with the intrusion of liberty here, the fact is, legally, the guard and the administrators reserved the right.
Now to put this on it's head a bit. What if that man was handing out bomb-making instructions? A lot of people would say "well, then the guard had a right to stop him."
I say bullcrap on that too tho. Free speech is free speech, after all.
The video that provoked my rant today:
Also see:
Mall Cop's Fight Highlights Public Misunderstanding of Authority
