Section 31-51q

Citation: Section 31-51q
Parent Document: Cotto v. United Technologies Corp., 251 Conn. 1 (1999)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 1999-10-12
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7898264/cotto-v-united-technologies-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,355 chars

MCDONALD, J.,
concurring. I agree that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed. I do so because, as Justice Borden points out in his opinion, property owners have first amendment rights. The defendant, United Technologies Corporation, Sikorsky Aircraft Division, as the owner of the premises, has the right under our constitution to express its views on the property free of government interference. As Harvard professor Richard Pipes concludes from his study of the failed Soviet system and other totalitarian systems, “[property is an indispensable ingredient of both prosperity and freedom.” R. Pipes, Property and Freedom (1999) p. 286. The freedom to own and control private property is fundamental to freedom. Both the United States Supreme Court and this court have held that a private property owner may exclude the public from entering the premises and expressing its views without the owner’s consent See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 567-68, 92 S. Ct. 2219, 33 L. Ed. 2d 131 (1972); Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 61-62, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984). If property owners may control the expression that occurs on their own land, it follows that they have the right, protected by the first amendment of the United States constitution, to express their *54own views on their property, free of government interference.

Other Sections in This Document (143)

Full Text