[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 90 (Tuesday, June 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H4310-H4311]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       DISNEY VERSUS THE BAPTISTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Texas [Mr. Paul] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, I was recently asked who is right, the 
Southern Baptists or Disney, in their argument regarding homosexuality. 
The question was pointedly directed to me because it is known that my 
political positions do not exactly conform to Washington's conventional 
wisdom.
  As a Congressman, the answer for me was easy: both. Neither party is 
incorrect in stating their position. Both are permitted their viewpoint 
and neither has violated the other's rights.
  Disney has chosen to use its own property to express a view. Although 
not endorsed by everyone, Disney has every right to do so. The 
Government did not tell them they must nor did Disney ask for any 
Government pressure to be applied to those disinterested in Disney's 
message. Moreover, no Government money was involved. Disney's right of 
free expression is achieved in this case through its constitutional 
right to own and use its own property. This is an easy call when 
private property is involved and property rights are acknowledged.
  If this incident occurred using governmental funds or on Government 
property, as in a Government school, and only the concept of free 
speech was taken into consideration, it would have been virtually 
impossible to satisfy everyone's demands.

                              {time}  1900

  One set of taxpayers claiming free speech on public property only 
opens the floodgates of controversy in an attempt to permit everyone to 
express

[[Page H4311]]

any viewed desire. But it is this very fuzziness injected by government 
control of property that today is the source of so many hard feelings 
and difficult problems.
  Some argue that the freedom to express the views of secular humanism 
and even communism are perfectly acceptable in government schools, 
while at the same time, it is necessary to exclude voluntary prayer and 
all religious programs. Recognizing that atheistic humanism is a 
substitute for religious beliefs, this argument falls far short of 
satisfying any group desiring to use government property for religious 
reasons.
  Such conflicts do not occur on private property. No one argues the 
right of Protestants to invade Catholic-owned premises to preach the 
Protestant doctrine as a right under the first amendment. The access to 
a newspaper, television station, or radio station should only come with 
the permission of the owner. Who owns the property becomes the 
overriding issue and the right of free expression is incidental to that 
ownership.
  Essentially, all conflicts as to who could say what could easily be 
resolved with a greater respect for private property ownership. This is 
this principle that protects us in our homes from those that would 
lecture us in the name of free speech in public places.
  Thus, it is easy to argue for the Baptists' right to boycott. They 
are expressing their disgust by withholding their support and their 
property, that is, their money. And that is perfectly appropriate. As 
far as I am concerned, the more voluntary nonviolent boycotts, the 
better. The boycott is the free society's great weapon and was well 
understood by Martin Luther King. The evil comes when a boycott or any 
objection is made illegal by the State and the participants are jailed. 
When laws such as these exist, only jury nullification or even civil 
disobedience can erase them if the legislatures and the courts refuse 
to do so.
  Quite clearly, both sides of the Disney flap are correct in asserting 
their rights. The proper view on homosexuality and tolerance is a moral 
and theological question, not a political one.
  Problems like this can be voluntarily sorted out by the marketplace, 
but only when property rights are held in high esteem and there is an 
acknowledgment that government and individual force have no role to 
play. Imposing one's view upon another, through any type of force, 
should always be forbidden in a free society.
  Actually, the Disney-Baptist skirmish is a wonderful example of how 
freedom can work without Congress sticking its nose into each and every 
matter. Both sides have a right to stand up for their respective 
beliefs.
  By using the rules of private property ownership to guide our right 
of free expression and religion, it is not difficult to find an answer, 
for instance, to the conflict between unwelcomed speeches in privately-
owned malls and mall owners. Because most of the difficult and 
emotional problems occur on Government-owned and Government-regulated 
property, we should, here in the Congress, do whatever we can to 
reinstate the original intent of the Constitution and honor and protect 
property ownership as an inalienable human right.

                          ____________________