ScottDLS wrote:The government doesn't HAVE to grant you the "privilege" of excluding people with force of law from carrying on your publicly open property by using a sign... In fact in Texas they don't, if you're a cop, or employee carrying in your vehicle. I'm also still not convinced that a "no Trump hats" sign in your publicly open business (say Grapevine Mills Mall) invokes criminal trespass if someone ignores it.srothstein wrote:I know that you wrote this sentence with your tongue firmly implanted in your cheek, but it is really an accurate statement and we should all think about it. The Second Amendment does not apply to my private property if I, as the owner, says it does not. It is solely a restriction on the government, which is also why the government cannot legally post 30.06 signs.ScottDLS wrote:The first and second amendment are only limited to protecting you from the government, and are therefore invalid on private property.
The First Amendment also does not apply on private property (except in a few very rare cases). I do not have to allow you on my property to post any sign I do not want there. I do not have to allow you to post anything I want on an Internet web site that I own. You have full freedom of speech when the government does not do anything to restrict you, but certainly may censor you on my page. And as a quite simple proof that we all recognize this, I will point out how many people have been banned from this forum. I know that Charles is very tolerant of dissenting opinions, but banning people for the way they express that opinion (for example profanity or personal attacks) is still a form of censorship that we all accept, and possibly even request. I the lack of personal attacks and courtesy shown are some of the reasons I like the forum.
Common carriers like the phone and internet company are forced to accept all payers regardless of the content of the traffic, unless such traffic is illegal (like child porn or communication in furtherance of a crime).
A private forum like this one may post conduct rules and edit, delete, ban users or posts, but it's doubtful whether criminal trespass could be invoked (under the concept of trespass to chattel) in advance for someone breaking the rules....Maybe if they hacked into the board AFTER being warned off.
The newspaper doesn't HAVE to take your gun ad because of the 1st amendment, but if you sneak it in the classifieds, the paper can't use the government to prosecute you criminally for posting it...can they?
The government doesn't HAVE to do much, but there is a difference between requiring it to do something (have to) and allowing it to. The fact that they do not have to pass laws to enforce my personal property rights does not mean that they cannot or should not do so. Carried to its extreme, your argument could be extended to saying the government does not have to make criminal trespass a crime at all under any circumstances. I think it is reasonable to do so and should be done, but you may feel free to disagree. I also happen to disagree with the exceptions to criminal trespass for both cops and LTC in the parking lot. If it is my property, I get to say who or what comes on it, period. Obviously, I have not yet convinced the legislature or the courts of this position.
As for the forum rules, it can be argued that if you break them knowingly, you can be prosecuted. The specific law would be section 33.02 of the Penal Code, Breach of Computer Security. The concept is the exact same as for criminal trespass. It says you have committed the offense if you access my system without my effective consent. Since my consent was based on your obeying the forum rules, as acknowledged by you when you created the login, it is then posting without my effective consent and becomes a crime the same way.
And yes, posting a no Trump hat sign would mean that a person is guilty of criminal trespass when they enter with one. I am unaware of any specific case of a Trump hat, but I am aware of several bars and restaurants with very specific dress codes (or even vaguer ones like no biker gear or no gang clothing) that have had successful prosecutions for criminal trespass when the dress code is violated.
Better look again at the common carrier side of things. That was part of what the whole "net neutrality" controversy was all about. It is still winding its way through courts to see if the regulations are legal or not.
But I will admit that the newspaper issue is an interesting case. I am unaware of any laws on it, if only done in print. But they can certainly sue you for the violation of their policies.