Property Rights
One man’s pride in and loyalty to his Confederate flag has landed him in a free-speech fight with his employer, who doesn’t want it displayed on company property.
To which David opines:
We’ve had the discussion about gun in cars on company property. This appears to closely parallel the issues raised there.
For some, the Confederate flag is a sign of heritage–for others, a symbol of oppression. What if it’s something else–a different message?
It’s not really that close. In NC, if you had a gun in your car and your employer did not approve, that is a crime. Your employer cannot have you arrested for your Confederate flag unless you refused to leave the property when told to do so. Then, it would be mere trespassing. A bit different.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:10 am
another difference is that guns in cars tend to be locked up out of sight, in order to prevent theft; confederate flags, on the other hand, tend to be displayed as prominently as possible in order to send a message.
i suspect it’d be better to treat this as a speech issue, analogous to employers disapproving of certain bumper stickers in their parking lot. i’d note, also, that “employee parking” often tends to be along the very back edge of the lot, where customers are less likely to spot their cars — for any number of good reasons — which would also tend to reduce the visibility of such messages.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Felony trespassing? Since when?
May 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
That will teach me to go from memory. It’s NC, not Florida. And it’s criminal trespassing (not felony).
May 6th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Not arguing similar/dissimilar penalties, Uncle–the question is, if I own property, can I set the rules for people I allow access to it–assuming it is all voluntary association? Can I say “No Nazi flags” or “guns aren’t welcome” and enforce my property rights by compelling you to leave if you violate my rules?
It’s not even so much a legal question as a philosophical one–for instance, as much as I would disagree with him, I believe a store/restaurant owner should be able to “discriminate.” I also believe the marketplace is the best remedy for discouraging that by ensuring the prosperity of competitors who do not. And yes, I know there are laws against it. I’m looking at a different angle.
It boils down to coercion vs free association.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Yes and yes.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Should their be liability or an exemption from it for either banning or not banning firearms?
I am with you on the general principal, just wondering about lawsuits from those actually harmed by such policies. Should at some point an employer be liable for doing nothing about a situation that they knew could and eventually did lead to harm?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:08 am
“It’s not even so much a legal question as a philosophical one…”
I tried and tried to make that point, David. Uncle was always sensible about it, but he was very rare in that regard.
This whole issue is only opaque to people who’ve lost their principles. They are rife now. That’s a much bigger and far more dangerous issue.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:22 am
Not from a legal standpoint at all. regarding philosophical, well, I can go either way.