Why shouldn't the Bill of Rights apply to organizations aside from the gov

[kcr]

Been wondering about this for a bit, ever since I saw the story about the man who is going to lose his house because he put up a small flag on his yard that the home owners association did not approve of. The government, obviously, could never do something like that: that would be abridging the person's freedom of speech. The homeowner's association, being a private organization, could do whatever it could get people to agree to allow. Why should this be?

One argument, favored by libertarians, is that the home owner entered into a contract willingly, and thus knowingly traded his rights away for the ability to live in a homogenized community. But should rights be sellable? We don't allow the selling of organs, for example, in part because that could create a set of market pressures that could result in poor people selling their organs, regardless of the health risks to themselves. By enabling people to sell their rights, do we not create a society that encourages those with money and influence to create a system that creates incentives for selling their rights? In most parts of this country, I can be fired for my political views. Do we not have a system that discourages political activism in exchange for employment? how is that good for democracy?

A second, implicit, argument, is that the rights belong to citizens, not to human beings. In other words, private organizations can act as they like because you have no rights with that organization, since its not a government organization. By that runs counter to most of our political theory. "All men are created equal" very obviously implies that rights stem from the individual, not the organization. Our whole history, indeed, the history of western political liberal thought, is based upon the notion that rights are inherent to people and that they trade some rights to a government in exchange for a stable society. To argue that rights are a function of membership in the society instead of inherent to the person makes freedom a gift form the government, not a right. I seriously doubt that anyone would argue that freedom is a gif from the government.

That leaves the freedom of association, also guaranteed by the Constitution. But we balance rights all the time: why shout the right of association trump freedom of religion or freedom of speech in every situation? Particularly in the case of public organizations, such as businesses. Those organizations operate under the protection of the society. There is no reason that organizations that operate in the public sphere, and have been formed for limited reasons, should have their right of association trump the all the rights of all their members all of the time.

So: why shouldn't the bill of rights apply to organizations other than the government?

[Brucey]

1. It's news to me that it doesn't apply.

The Bill of Rights is for everyone in the US, even non-citizens. It applies all the time, so far as I know.

[maha]

2. Do you hve a link to the story?

I'm not sure what the story is about. Did a homeowner association take a member to court because of a flag?

[Keithpotkin]

3. nahhhh, couldnt happen

it would undermine the corporate structure. i believe.

how would a corporation survive if the freedom of speech applied to it. what about insider trading and all that. 'free association' as well, cant be allowed to happen when u are working for a privately owned tyranny...i mean corporation.

religion would also basically have to be abolished...it would become a paradox.

if the bill of rights applied to the nation...saying religions must be respected equally, and then the bill of rights applies ot those religions as well, telling them they cant descriminate or whatever they do...then...the religions will basically cease to be.

[Keithpotkin]

4. for those of u who are confused

the bill of rights begins..."Congress shall make no law" which has been expanded over time to include all acts of the government, and recently states as well.

if the bill of rights applied to all organizations alot of journalists could sue their newspapers for being fired and alot of KKK type organizations would be gone. golf clubs wouldnt be allowed to descriminate and so on.

[Silverhair]

5. In every tranaction you make you exchange rights.

You don't own property. You one rights to that property. When you pay rent you purchase certain rights to that property in exchange for giving up certain rights to your money.

Theory aside, many of the homeowners associations are extremely abusive of their vaguely worded contracts and have often used very minor infractions as ways of taking property by legal action. On famous case involved an 85 year old lady who lost her home over a trivial infraction. Legislation is needed to curb the abuse of those associations. They often functions as defacto local governments.

I am fortunate. My home is not part of an association, nor would I ever buy a home that is in an association.

[MartinAmbroseForan]

6. The answer is in the last line of your post

[QC]

7. Should DU have to respect the free speech rights of Freepers?

[kcr]

8. Thtas a case of balanced rights

The purpose of Du is too associate withg progressives. Thus, it is appropriate for the right of association to take precedenxe over the right of free speech.

[kodi]

9. the bill of rights defines government power, not interpersonal behavior

the bill of rights refers to the limitations, obligations and responsibilites between party A, the government, and party B, the people.

the first 10 amendments was intended to regulate the behavior of the government not people.