dChan
Anonymous ID: 8d5952 Sept. 22, 2018, 2:49 p.m. No.3142768   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2784 >>2804 >>2868

>>3142677

i`m just as fucked in the head as you fredrick. only I am on the right side of history. in the years to come, a history book will record freddy b as the most faggoted faggot that ever faggoted. and the reason for his suicide was because of faggotry. did i tell you i like you in a sick way?

Anonymous ID: 8d5952 Sept. 22, 2018, 3:05 p.m. No.3142954   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>3142886

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

 

This is relevant

 

The town of Chickasaw, Alabama, was predominately a company town near Mobile, Alabama, that was owned and operated by the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation ("Gulf"). The town exhibited the general characteristics of a more traditional settlement. The town's policeman was a deputy from the Mobile County Sheriff's Department who was paid by Gulf. The town was surrounded by a number of adjacent neighborhoods which were not located on Gulf property. The Court noted that the residents of these non-Gulf neighborhoods were freely allowed to use the company-owned streets and sidewalks to access the town's businesses and facilities.

 

Decision

In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled in favor of Marsh. The opinion, joined by three justices, was authored by Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Felix Frankfurter writing a concurrence, and Justice Stanley Forman Reed writing a dissent.

 

The Court initially noted that it would be an easy case if the town were a more traditional, publicly administered, municipality. Then, there would be a clear violation of the right to free speech for the government to bar the sidewalk distribution of such material. The question became, therefore, whether or not constitutional freedom of speech protections could be denied simply because a single company held title to the town.

 

The State attempted to analogize the town's rights to the rights of homeowners to regulate the conduct of guests in their home. The Court rejected that contention, noting that ownership "does not always mean absolute dominion." The court pointed out that the more an owner opens his property up to the public in general, the more his rights are circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who are invited in.

 

In its conclusion, the Court stated that it was essentially weighing the rights of property owners against the rights of citizens to enjoy freedom of press and religion. The Court noted that the rights of citizens under the Bill of Rights occupy a preferred position. Accordingly, the Court held that the property rights of a private entity are not sufficient to justify the restriction of a community of citizens' fundamental rights and liberties.