*continued from Animal Liberation Front thread*

We went off on a tangent in another thread, but basically we were discussing the increasing priority of private property, corporate dominance in public space, and police protection of said private property sometimes to the detriment of public protest. (anyone familiar with Naomi Klein's "No Logo" should be up to speed on these issues, and if you haven't read it BUY IT NOW! Wonderful read)

I believe that the encroachment on public space by corporately owned and operated venues (and through advertising endorsements) is having an effect on the growth of our culture. When we let one group have dominance over deciding what events happen, what bands play, what art is shown, it leaves the majority of the population without real choice.

Our downtown areas are becoming devoid of small shops, owned and operated by locals, and the sprawl of suburbia has contributed to the growth of shopping centres which mimic the public space (town square) idea, but are privately owned. Ever seend a Gap protest at the mall? Nope b/c even though we are encouraged to spend our weekends, and our money at the mall, we are not allowed to voice our political opinioins in the same venue.

I live in Ottawa, and when the G8 summit was held here 2 years ago the riot police were all over the downtown core, strategically near Gap, McD's, and other well known corporate locations. It was definitely a situation of fear and intimidation against a group of people who are opposed to the deals its government may be entering. I felt that the police were more interested in protecting a corporations private property, above upholding the individual's right to protest.

Anyhoo... there was interest in continuing this discussion in the proper forum... so here it is! Discuss away.

Are you defining public space different than everyone else? You are saying if I buy a privately owned building and open a McDonalds in it, that is an encroachment on public space? I don't understand.

Ever seend a Gap protest at the mall? Nope b/c even though we are encouraged to spend our weekends, and our money at the mall, we are not allowed to voice our political opinioins in the same venue.


Because the people who do want to spend their money at the mall don't want to be harrassed.

* Ever seend a Gap protest at the mall? Nope b/c even though we are encouraged to spend our weekends, and our money at the mall, we are not allowed to voice our political opinioins in the same venue.



A mall is not public property. It is privately owned, property taxes are paid on the ground, and if you are disruptive, the owner has the right to ask you to leave. It is a place of business, not a plcae for some muddle-headed whiners to aggravate those who wish to do business there.

I will answer the rest of your silliness later.

I'm saying that the spaces that our society functions around are becoming less public space and more private space.

I will answer the rest of your silliness later.


Don't bother if you're not going to be constructive.

I'm saying that the spaces that our society functions around are becoming less public space and more private space.

That happened when we overthrew the communist government, oh wait, that was Russia.

I'm saying that the spaces that our society functions around are becoming less public space and more private space.

I think you are right, and I see your point. But this has been going on since the early '70s, and I don't see any way to stop it.

In addition to what you mentioned, we are seeing the very agressive enforcement of criminal trespass laws. I know a guy, a peace activist, who stood on the sidewalk under an awning outside the building where Senator Frist's Nashville office is. He was protesting Frist's support of the Iraq war. A cop or security guard asked him to move along. Since it was pouring rain, he didn't move. Result: he spends three months in jail for trespassing. BTW, the prosecution was brought by the building manager. Frist didn't have to get involved.

I wonder, when I see streets with names like, 3-M Blvd. and Rand McNally Way. I wonder who's greasing who's palm. Or is that whom's palm?

I'm saying that the spaces that our society functions around are becoming less public space and more private space.
Yes and it's getting worse with privatization. They are trying to privatize water now too.

I wonder, when I see streets with names like, 3-M Blvd. and Rand McNally Way. I wonder who's greasing who's palm. Or is that whom's palm?

streets like that are on private land! The companies own that land and name the streets that they themselves maintain.

That's like if I named my driveway "OregonAmy Way"... it's the same thing.


ETA: and it's "whose palm" :p

Some people will never be happy until they wait in line for 6 hours with their toilet paper voucher.

streets like that are on private land! The companies own that land and name the streets that they themselves maintain.

That's like if I named my driveway "OregonAmy Way"... it's the same thing.


ETA: and it's "whose palm" :p
Are you sure about that, the streets, I mean?

I'm saying that the spaces that our society functions around are becoming less public space and more private space.


First, I would disagree. The myth of the town square is just that for most areas - a myth.

Society has typically revolved around markets, churches, and taverns. All are private property.

First, I would disagree. The myth of the town square is just that for most areas - a myth.

Society has typically revolved around markets, churches, and taverns. All are private property.

Well, I don't agree that the town square is a myth exactly, but more that it's being defined incorrectly. The t.s. is what you just described..stores, churches, restaurants. Aside from maybe a library or a govt. office, most town squares are privately owned.

There does seem to be a bit of a trend toward big spaces being named not after the benefactors (who are often owners of corporations), but after the corporations themselves. Think of the names of recently built ballparks for example, or exhibitions at museums.

Are you sure about that, the streets, I mean?

I've never seen a corporation-named street that wasn't on private property.

One might exist somewhere; I haven't done a survey of all of the US streets. But usually the streets named "Intel Drive" etc are streets that turn off a government-maintained street (main street, etc) and are on company-owned land, going into the company's parking lot.

There does seem to be a bit of a trend toward big spaces being named not after the benefactors (who are often owners of corporations), but after the corporations themselves. Think of the names of recently built ballparks for example, or exhibitions at museums.

But that has to do with who is funding development/expansion/maintenance/etc of teh facility. The owners of companies, as private parties, aren't funding that. Corporate funds are.

Not to say I like the trend. Just that.. corporations seem to be the ones coughing up the dough to fund and support certain things like ballparks that might otherwise go bellyup.

So which is better -- allowing corporations to fund facilities like ballparks, or having those facilities go bankrupt & disappear b/c the city can't afford to maintain them?

But that has to do with who is funding development/expansion/maintenance/etc of teh facility. The owners of companies, as private parties, aren't funding that. Corporate funds are.

True. That's even sadder. :(

But that has to do with who is funding development/expansion/maintenance/etc of teh facility. The owners of companies, as private parties, aren't funding that. Corporate funds are.

Corporations are private parties :)

:rolleyes:

you know what I meant. Individuals separate from the corporation. whatever. :p

Yes and it's getting worse with privatization. They are trying to privatize water now too.


When Bechtel privatized water in Columbia (God thinking Columbia is wrong, I'll reconfirm) the people were fined for collecting rain water in barrels. Bechtel claimed dominance even over the rain falling from the frickin sky!

But the people staged a mass protest which sent their pseudo-government into hiding, and water was forced to become a publically owned utility again.

I'm saying that the spaces that our society functions around are becoming less public space and more private space.

One other thought about this thread. There was a US Supreme Court case for the '30s or '40s, as I recall, about Jehovah's Witnesses passing out literature in a public square. The town authorities tried to suppress this, but the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment rights of citizens outweighed any of the competing rights of those who would suppress the speech. Unfortunately, I don't remember tha name of the case.

I think the discussion in this thread is sort of an implied reference to this case. But it would be better if someone could look it up so it could be discussed explicitly.

I am not saying that the current situation expressly contradicts the ruling in the case. We have gone from a "public square" to a "private square" with the attendant loss of First Amendment rights. I don't think that was necessarily the intention of those who built malls, but that is one of the effects.

Joe, I was not aware of that case (being Canadian and all). But fascinating stuff! When I dig up some more time I will definitely Google it!

I was also wondering if people consider large billboards (or even building size) advertisements to be an invasion of public space.

I was also wondering if people consider large billboards (or even building size) advertisements to be an invasion of public space.

Not when they are in privately owned space, no.