He talks about the privatization of public property as if that somehow sensors free speech. I don’t understand the connection between the two. I understand that private companies can have speech codes. But they can’t throw you in the slammer for breaking them. And I don’t understand why the author is so interested in whether or not people have freedom of speech at a ball game. You’re not going to change the world by shouting at a brewers game.
But I kinda see his point. I mean, if the Brewers game was on public property, you could protest, and reach a wide audience. But I absolutely sympathize with the Brewers. I wouldn’t want people coming to games to make political statements. A baseball game is a time for all the problems of your world to go away, like skiing, or watching tv.
The article talks about how new laws and cases in law have blurred the lines between protections for political speech and protections for commercial speech. It is noted that the purpose of the first amendment was not to protect commercial speech but rather, to protect political speech. So this seems to be a case where the letter of the law and the spirit of the law do not align.
The article suggests there needs to be changes in the ethics of the law profession, because lawyers put their clients interests ahead of the public’s interests. I think that would be nice but it is simply not possible, in my opinion because there will always be someone willing to put their clients’ interests first, and those people will get more business for it.