Ni horizontales ni verticales. Los deberes mediatos prima facie y su aplicación a los casos de la doctrina del public forum en el derecho norteamericano

• Espinoza Rausseo, Alexander P. ^[1] ; Rivas Alberti, Jhenny de Fátima ^[2]
  1. [1] Doctor Iuris por la Universidad de Passau, Alemania. Académico Investigador de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Las Américas,
  2. [2] Doctora en Derecho por la Universidad de Zaragoza, España. Académica Investigadora de la Facultad de Derecho de la Universidad de Las Américas
• Localización: Revista de Derecho Político, ISSN 0211-979X, Nº 121, 2024, págs. 235-269
• Idioma: español
• DOI: 10.5944/rdp.121.2024.43075
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Neither horizontal nor vertical. Prima facie mediate duties and their applicability to cases of the public forum doctrine in US law
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo
• Dialnet Métricas: 1 Cita
• Resumen
  • español

    El presente artículo abordará el conflicto entre el individuo que pretende hacer uso de un espacio de propiedad privada como un foro para la expresión de ideas, para participar en un debate de relevancia pública y el propietario del establecimiento de libre acceso al público. Nos preguntamos si los derechos de comunicación habilitan la facultad del orador de usar los espacios de libre acceso público o si el derecho de propiedad faculta a su titular para prohibir tales actividades expresivas.Una vez planteada brevemente la evolución jurisprudencial del conflicto entre el orador y el propietario del espacio físico o virtual, observaremos en primer lugar, la contradicción entre la doctrina de la state action y la línea trazada por la propia jurisprudencia, que muestra grandes coincidencias, en lugar de distintas facultades del Estado y del propietario privado. Propondremos por ello, la distinción basada en el modelo de las esferas de la vida social y el reconocimiento de los deberes mediatos prima facie de los ciudadanos en la esfera pública. Finalmente, aplicaremos tales teorías a las relaciones entre particulares en el foro público.

  • English

    This article will addresses the conflict between the individual who intends to use a privately owned space as a forum for the expression of ideas, to participate in a debate of public relevance, and the owner of the establishment with free access to the public. We ask whether the right of communication gives the speaker the power to use freely accessible public spaces or whether the property right empowers its owner to prohibit such expressive activities.Having briefly outlined the jurisprudential evolution of the conflict between the speaker and the owner of the physical or virtual space, we will first observe the contradiction between the doctrine of state action and the line drawn by the jurisprudence itself, which shows great coincidences, rather than different powers of the state and the private owner. Therefore, we will propose the distinction based on the model of the spheres of social life and the recognition of prima facie indirect duties of citizens in the public sphere. Finally, we will apply these theories to the relations between private individuals in the public forum.

    Summary:1. THE PUBLIC FORUM IN PRIVATE SPACES 2. THE END OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE PUBLIC FORUM IN PRIVATE SPACES 2.1. Broadcasting media 2.2. Providers of internet services and social networks 3. ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM. 3.1. The doctrine of state action and the public-private distinction 3.2. Public interests and prima facie mediate duties 3.3. The effect on property rights 4. CONCLUSIONS

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Ackerman, B. (1991). We the people, Volume 1: Foundations. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press (Edición digital Epub).
  • Aime, G. J. (2018). «Navigating the Troubled Waters of the Public Forum: The Public Trust Doctrine as a Life Jacket», Arizona State Law Journal,...
  • Anderson, J. L. (2006). «Comparative Perspectives on Property Rights: The Right to Exclude». Journal of Legal Education, 56(4), 539–550. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42893993.
  • Arendt, H. (1959). «Reflections on Little Rock». Dissent, 6(1), 45-56, p. 53. Disponible en https://www.normfriesen.info/forgotten/little_rock1.pdf....
  • Barendt, E. (2007). Freedom of speech. Oxford University Press, 2 nd Edition.
  • Brennan, William J. (1965). «The Supreme Court and the Meiklejohn Interpretation of the First Amendment». Harvard Law Review, vol. 79, no....
  • Dagan, H. (1999). «The Distributive Foundation of Corrective Justice». Michigan Law Review, 98(1), 138–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/1290197
  • Dagan, H. (2008). «The Limited Autonomy of Private Law», The American Journal of Comparative Law, 56(3), 809–833. Disponible en http://www.jstor.org/stable/20454642....
  • Dagan, H., & Dorfman, A. (2016). «Just relationships». Columbia Law Review, 116, 1395. https://columbialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Dagan-Dorfman.pdf
  • Dagan, Hanoch (2009). «Exclusion and inclusion in property». Tel Aviv University Law Faculty Papers. Working Paper 109, p. 30. http://law.bepress.com/taulwps/art109.
  • Dworkin, R. (1994). «A new map of censorship». Index on Censorship, 23(1-2), 9-15. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03064229408535633.
  • Dwyer, J. R. (1972). «First Amendment Rights vs. Private Property Rights-The Death of the Functional Equivalent», University of Miami Law...
  • Emerson, T. I. (1962). «Toward a general theory of the First Amendment». Yale Lj, 72, 877. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/2145/Toward_a_General_Theory_of_the_First_Amendment.pdf?sequence=2.
  • Epstein, R. A. (1997). «Takings, Exclusivity and Speech: The Legacy of PruneYard v Robins», The University of Chicago Law Review, 64(1), 21-56....
  • Espinoza Rausseo, A. y Rivas Alberti, J. (2023). «La libertad de expresión en las relaciones jurídicas tripartitas de defamation y privacy...
  • Espinoza Rausseo, A. y Rivas Alberti, J. (2021). «La Teoría pura del Derecho y la separación conceptual entre las funciones administrativas,...
  • Espinoza Rausseo, A. y Rivas Alberti, J. (sf). «La doctrina del foro público y el modelo de las esferas de la vida en sociedad, en el derecho...
  • Habermas, J. (1982). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Luchterhand.
  • Habermas, J. (1996) [1992]. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats, Frankfurt...
  • Habermas, J. (1998) [1992]. Facticidad y validez. Sobre el derecho y el Estado democrático de derecho en términos de teoría del discurso....
  • Horwitz, Morton J. (1971). The transformation of American law, 1870-1960: the crisis of legal orthodoxy. Harvard University Press.
  • Horwitz, Morton J. (1973). «The Transformation in the Conception of Property in American Law, 1780-1860». The University of Chicago Law Review,...
  • Horwitz, Morton J. (1974). «The Historical Foundations of Modern Contract Law». Harvard Law Review, 87(5), 917–956. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340045
  • Hoskyns, T. (2014). The empty place: Democracy and public space. Oxon: Routledge.
  • Inazu, J. D. (2014). «The First Amendment’s public fórum», Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 56, 1159. Disponible en https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3583&context=wmlr....
  • Johnson, R. M. (2023). «Social Media and Free Speech: A Collision Course That Threatens Democracy. Ohio Northern University Law Review, 49(2),...
  • Kelsen, Hans (1923). Hauptprobleme der Staatsrechtslehre. Entwickelt aus der Lehre Vom Rechtssatze. Verlag von J.C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck)...
  • Klonick, K. (2017). «The new governors: The people, rules, and processes governing online speech. Harv. L. Rev., 131, 1598. https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1184&context=faculty_publications
  • Mattson, K. (1999). «Reclaiming and Remaking Public Space: Toward an Architecture for American Democracy», National Civic Review, 88(2), 133–144....
  • Meiklejohn, A. (1961). «The First Amendment Is an Absolute». The Supreme Court Review, 1961, 245–266. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3108719
  • Michelman, F. I. (1997). «Common Law Baseline and Restitution for the Lost Commons: A Reply to Professor Epstein», University of Chicago Law...
  • Michelman, F. I. (2022). Constitutional Essentials: On the Constitutional Theory of Political Liberalism. Oxford University Press.
  • Morales, F. (2013). «The property matrix: an analytical tool to answer the question, «is this property?”» University of Pennsylvania Law Review,...
  • Mullender, Richard (2001). «Prima Facie Rights, Rationality and the Law of Negligence». In Matthew H. Kramer (eds.) - Rights, Wrongs and Responsibilities....
  • Parkinson, J. (2012). Democracy and public space: The physical sites of democratic performance. Oxford University Press.
  • Peller, G., & Tushnet, M. (2004). «State action and a new birth of freedom», Georgetown Law Journal, 92(4), 779-817. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/state-action-new-birth-freedom/docview/231528446/se-2
  • Posner, R. A. (1995). Overcoming law. Harvard University Press, p. 231.
  • Pound, R. (1943). «A Survey of Social Interests», Harvard Law Review, 57(1), 1–39. Disponible en https://doi.org/10.2307/1334970.
  • Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Harvard University Press.
  • Raz, J. (1986). The morality of freedom. Clarendon Press.
  • Ross, A. (1963). Sobre el derecho y la justicia. Buenos Aires: Eudeba.
  • Ross, A. (2019). On law and justice. Oxford University Press, p. 198;
  • Ross, W. D. (1951) [1939]. Foundations of ethics. Oxford University Press.
  • Rousseau, J. J. (1995). El contrato social. Fernando de los Ríos (trad.). Espasa Calpe, S. A., Madrid
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2002). «State Action is Always Present», Chicago Journal of International Law: Vol. 3: No. 2, Article 15. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cjil/vol3/iss2/15
  • Weinrib, E. J. (2012). Corrective justice. Oxford University Press.
  • Weinrib, E. J. (2017) [2012]. La idea de derecho privado. Traducción de Eze Paez. Madrid: Marcial Pons.
  • Weinrib, E. J. (2018). «Ownership, Use, and Exclusivity: The Kantian Approach». Ratio Juris, 31(2), 123–138, p. 124. doi:10.1111/raju.12200.
  • Werhan, K. (2004). Freedom of speech: A reference guide to the United States constitution. Greenwood Publishing Group.
  • Zick, T. (2009). «“Duty-Defining Power” and the First Amendment’s Civil Domain», Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar, 109, 116. Disponible en https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1871&context=facpubs....
  • Zick, T. (2009). Speech out of doors: Preserving first amendment liberties in public places. Cambridge University Press, pp. 56, 156.
  • Zinn H. (2015). A people’s history of the United States: 1492–present. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.