Here's something that's been bugging me for ages, but I never thought of discussing it here until now. In my opinion, I've felt that this term has been applied to places and concepts where it shouldn't be.

For example, I don't understand why a privately-owned business that allows potential customers to enter their doors should be considered a "public" place, and some of the regulations that result. A prime example are the state-level smoking bans in such places. A business should have the right whether or not to allow smoking in its premises, just as its customers should have the right whether or not to give them business due to smoking or whatever other issues the business has.

Obviously, I have no problem with regulations that protect truly public places (roads, parks, the air, the waterways) from any problems the business may impose, such as pollution restrictions, traffic implications, etc.

The "public airwaves" is another phrase that strikes me wrong at times. When I hear that phrase, I think of stations like PBS or NPR, not CBS, FOX, etc. I don't believe the FCC should be in the content-regulation business on a privately controlled entity. Let their consumers and advertisers decide what's proper to air.

Then we have "public company". Again, I think of something like the US Postal Service as a public company, not when a private company starts selling shares of its company to private investors.

Obviously, I realize the law disagrees with me here (though I might be curious how it reached these points). I just wanted to make a statement, and maybe get some discussion going (we've had far more "reaction to the news" type threads in here than discussion threads).

I think public is often interpreted as "place where people gather", be it a park, restaurant, or adult bookstore.

I think the public in your first two examples has to do with the fact that both restaurants and broadcast stations are providing a limited public good - namely jobs, and programming. There are only a certain amount of jobs in an economy, and regulations on things like smoking were brought about mainly for those working such jobs, not the patrons. Same with broadcasters - there are only certain frequencies the government licenses for TV and radio, hence the FCC's ability to regulate what is aired over those frequencies, and why the FCC should stay out of cable and satellite programming.

I think you may have given to many definitions of "public" here.

1.) public places - The imperial federal government and it's corrupt state government dependants do not actually consider any place to be "private" as in beyond their ability to regulate. The modern purpose of government is to ensure continued government. It does this by protecting the public from themselves.... nationalized healthcare anyone?

2.) public airwaves - the RF spectrum is public, so it can be regulated by the federal government as no other body has legal authority over state-to-state commerce (ad sponsered TV). The are implied constitutional limits to free speech and I think someone should be watching out for this.

3.)public companies - they are "owned" by the stockhodlers and can be dissolved by them.

"Public" and "government owned/operated" are not always the same. It's easy to confuse if you think the government acts solely in the public's interests, when in fact it acts solely in it's own.

On a side note, on the front page of the Boulder newspaper states that Pueblo, CO is experiencing a decrease of heart attacks by 30% since the smoking ban.

Carry on...

Correlation not causation.

How recently did they enact a smoking ban? And there better be some extremely strong supportive evidence for that claim, without 3rd party interference.

The claims came from the local hospitals. I'm not sure about when the ban took place. I was in Pueblo last January and smoking was not allowed in bars.

Now I guess I need to read the whole article...

I don't think 18 months is enough time for a public smoking ban to have any effect on heart attack rates in a community, do you? I mean, seriously. Terrible headline.

Quiting smoking has an immediate impact on your health. I think this is an article where you just have to take it or leave it.

If "public" is truly limited to apply simply to "non-private" entities, enterprises, businesses, or organizations, you're going to have a lot of people in wheelchairs having trouble gaining access to places . . .

I'll leave it. And you said initially that the decrease in heart attacks was a reflection of a public smoking ban, not people quitting smoking.

Right, but studies have shown that in cities with public smoking bans the average smoker sees a drop of about 15% in the number of cigs smoked per week. This would likely lead to a difference in heart attacks within a period of months, based on the speed at which it effects health.

The funny thing about the FCC regulations at the broadcasters providing some sort of public benefit is that the major networks as well as many of the cable networks broadcast by in large mindless rubbish. So what public good is being done other than promoting consumerish and boosting the economy? A bare minimum of informational or decent childrens programming is evident in the major networks, so how are showing boobies going to detract from anything. The only way for networks to go is up from here I would hope. I don't feel that there'd be any reduction to the public benefit of the radio and television if censorship was loosened.

I believe that part of the problem is determining in a concise manner what is public and what is private. There also seems to be an argument about the reach of what is considered public. Those who have posted thusfar have made an argument for a more definitive, yet moderate definition of what is public. For example, many (if not most) would agree that what is done on private property should be largely at the discretion of the owner. However, as we all know, what happens on private land can effect the surrounding population (such as pollution). Does the ownership of property allow an individual to alter the state of the propriety to the point where it effects those who either do not use or visit this private space? Does it then become a public issue?

Where the issue obviously becomes obscured is in the case of smoking on private property. Patrons and workers who do not wish to inhale second hand smoke do not have to. They simply can avoid the business altogether. On the other hand, does the government have the responsibility to ensure that the air and environment is healthy for its citizens? What is the definition of "public air"? Does it include air enclosed in private spaces? If it does, should it? An argument can be made either way. Obviously, if the majority of the populace does not smoke and wishes to avoid it, a business owner would be foolish to allow it as it might hurt business. This would be a more libertarian approach to the issue. On the other hand, a more liberal approach would embrace a government taking responsibility on behalf of the people to keep them safe and healthy.

One thing Chris_H_2 brought up is accessibility for handicapped individuals. Here is where what is public and what is good for the citizentry pushes into private domain. Does a business owner have the right not to service handicapped people? If so, what about disallowing people of different race, culture or creed? One answer is certainly yes. By allowing capitalism to occur naturally, the business owner may find it economically damaging to limit his or her clientelle, and may change the policy as a result. On the other hand, it may be a rousing success to that individual despite poor business results. Does the rights and freedoms granted by the United States government extend into private property? This now becomes an issue of an entirely different scale. By disallowing individuals to discriminate, do we take away their rights to do so with their own private property for the greater good? Or, do we allow people to believe what they wish to believe, and allow the population to make up its mind on its own?

Perhaps the answer lies in between. A total cop-out, I'm sure, but it will take much more than my opinion and the opinion of a handful of others to find enough common ground to more properly define what is public and what is private. Maybe, as this thread has shown, it is important not to make blanket statements and definitions of public domain and instead approach it issue by issue.

:lights up:

I agree with Green Habit 100%.

As for those claiming that smoking bans have curbed cig smoking by 15%, I ask you if you're happy with the way this was achieved. To ban smoking in a truly public place (courthouses, post offices, etc..) is fine, but not a private business. These laws are intrusive. If an establishment is not funded by tax dollars, it is not public.

Whoa, blast from the past. Welcome back Sandler.

I don't know if it's that clear cut. If I wanted to fuck my wife on the counter at the hardware store, and the owner didn't have a problem with that, does that mean I can't be arrested for public indecency?

Heh, I wonder what that would do for the hardware store's business.