Over the past decade (and perhaps longer) there has been a trend for business owners to claim that a law violates their free speech rights. A recent example comes from Oregon, where the owner of a vape shop is claiming that regulations prohibiting him from describing the contents of the products that he sells violates his freedom of speech. Another example comes from Texas, where the owner of another vape shop is making a similar claim over a sign ordinance.
On the surface, both of these lawsuits do involve speech. In Oregon, the owner can’t say what he wants about his products. In Texas, the owner can’t advertise his business as he wants. Speech—expressing one’s ideas—is certainly involved in both cases. But is free speech the fundamental issue?
In both cases (and virtually all similar cases), the owner of the business is prohibited from using and trading his property on terms of his choosing. In Oregon, the owner is prohibited from offering advice and information to customers to help them make a purchasing decision. He can’t operate his business as he thinks best. In Texas, the owner is prohibited from erecting a sign on his own property because the city claims that it is too large.
Freedom of speech is one of our most sacred rights. But the means for implementing that freedom is property rights—the freedom to use our property to support and express ideas. Indeed, property rights are the practical implementation of every other right. The right to property is the fundamental right.
For example, a publisher has the right to determine which ideas he will print. He can choose to support a particular point of view or offer a wide range of view points. It is his publication, and he has a moral right to determine its use. Similarly, with broadcasters, websites, social media, and any other forum that expresses ideas in one form or another. The owner has a right to determine how his property will be used.
But the right to property is far less popular than the right to free speech. Most Americans accept violations of property rights as necessary, but they are less willing to take such a stance on free speech. We should be allowed to say what we choose, even if it offends others. But we shouldn’t be allowed to use our property as we choose if it offends others.
In truth, we can’t have free speech without property rights. (Click here to listen to my interview with Dr. Tara Smith on this issue.) If we want to defend our freedom to educate customers or advertise our business, we must begin by defending our right to use our property as we choose.