Yuyutsu, I did not care for the second link.
Don't like plays or overacting.
The first one I can relate to.
What I saw there was a person who was doing what he is supposed to be doing, and he was unabashed in his stance in dealing with either the businessmen nor the charity seekers.
I empathise with scrooge, I see a self assured confident man who has a very clear and uncontaminated view on things.
As I have said many a time, emotions are not helpful.
They do not produce viable or positive outcomes.
In the case of charities, since you brought it up.
Let me give you a reality check.
Apart from the fact that charities are there for their own benefit they help in keeping people poor and destitute.
Why because as it has been said many a time, 'if you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day.
Give him the tools and training to enable him to catch his own fish, and he will never go hungry again'.
So I'm sorry all you bleeding hearts, that is a fact.
I can easily relate to Scrooge and happy to do so.
You see what is not known about me is that I have taught people in less fortunate countries to manufacture and establish a new business so that they can improve their standard of living.
I used to give to charities, mainly children oriented ones, until the truth was exposed about the corruption and greed which resulted in the children suffering just as much as before.
So little or nothing changed, in the bigger picture.
So if I come across as cold, crass, arrogant, indifferent, etc, etc, it's because I am.
I am also a very loving caring person, but that is not relevant here.
Even though I am all these things, I am still a better person than most out there, because I possess the ability to reason and exercise common sense.

Dear Altrav,

Thank you, I understand your position and identification with Scrooge.

So you are a very understanding, pragmatic, practical, cold, crass, arrogant, indifferent and honest person (also a very loving caring person - how does it work?).

Scrooge's behaviour is certainly legitimate, it's his choice indeed, but can't you see the difference between his passive refusal to cooperate and the active, unprovoked, insulting of other members of the public?

IF (and yes, it's a big "if") what we call "public space" indeed belongs to the public, then why shouldn't that public be able to restrict what can and cannot be done or said on their premises just like you and Scrooge can restrict what can and cannot be done or said on your own premises?

Perhaps you don't agree with me that speech can be injurious, but isn't it the case that in your own home you alone can decide what is injurious and what isn't, then ban what you consider injurious without even requiring a proof? Why then can't others, including "the public" do the same?

Yuyutsu, how it works is quite simple.
Because I have the where-with-all to understand people from all these different demographics, I can relate, communicate, understand and therefore interact in discussions involving topics or discussions with a broader community.
You see Scrooge is all those things I/you mention.
Where people find his behaviour abhorant and despicable, I do not.
He was being honest.
The two seeking charity, even though they believe they are pursuing a good cause, were wrong to judge Scrooge by their standards.
Scrooge, like myself is not ruled nor swayed by emotion, unlike the charity seekers.
Firstly they invaded his personal space by ambushing him and obstructing his through passage.
The appropriate proto-col for such a situation is, by all means wait till Scrooge is at rest and or stationary.
Ask him first if you may talk to him.
If he agrees, then ask your question.
When given a negative response, thank him for taking up his time, without invitation to do so, then, without any facial gestures, leave graciously.
People can mock and denigrate Scrooge, but they are being petty, childish and selfish.
You are not Scrooge, you know nothing about his actual life and daily dealings.
It is not your money, so it is irrelevant what anyone thinks of him. It is no-ones business but his.
As for the difference between my home and public open space.
That's easy.
In my home, I am in charge.
Outside my home, no one individual is in charge.
If that were the case we could not demonstrate and say things that you say will upset you.
The answer is, obviously, move on and ignore it.
The same applies to anyone who does not agree with what someone says on the forum.

Dear Altrav,

You describe very well how those two charity-seekers should have behaved. I agree, it's common sense and fortunately also our common experience in Australia.

The question is whether or not it is legitimate for "the public" to set and enforce similar rules of conduct for those who lack common sense or the willingness to use it (and yes, there are such).

Should charity-seekers for example, be legally allowed to nag you again and again in a bus-station: "Oh, but please", "Oh, reconsider", "think again", "Oh, don't you have mercy on those poor children?", "Oh, but why?", "Yes, we will leave you alone... once you give us some money"....

Or do you hold to the "sticks & stones" theory and just "move on and ignore it."?

Or should it be legal in public parks (like in India), to push a snake in your face (don't worry, the venom was removed and the snake won't touch you), saying "Picture with a snake, Mister, Picture with a snake", "Ten dollars, for you just five..."?

Yes, In your home, you are in charge, then you say:
«Outside my home, no one individual is in charge»

What then about someone else's home, or is it just your own home that is so special?

Or is it perhaps a question of numbers?

Suppose ten people buy a barren plot and build a nice park there, for themselves, their families and guests - can they set the rules there, including speech-rules?

What if it's 100 people, 1000, 10000, 100000... at what stage do they lose the freedom to control what's said on their property?

Now you may claim, and then I partially/conditionally agree, that the state does not legitimately own what we call "public spaces", that had they owned it then they could indeed dictate what can/not be said there, but they don't really own the place. Is this actually what you are saying?

Yuyutsu, funny you should mention India and yes it is in certain places, as you describe.
The children are used in some cases, as I have witnessed myself in India.
OK let's consider these annoying, charity seekers.
I don't think I have encountered such here in Aus, maybe abroad but either way if you tell them to go away, move on and leave you alone? Well let's see, hmmmmmmm, Oh I know, wait till the bus comes along and push them into it's path.
Not only have you solved the immediate problem, but just think what a service you have done to the greater populous, they won't have to worry about unwanted, 'in your face' people any more, or at least one less.
Now your next conundrum.
Well my home IS special and it is MY dominion.
Someone else's home is, I would hope, special to them.
Similarly if I get annoying, let's say I get drunk and start groping his wife.
Well he too has the same rights as me over his dominion.
Now if 100 or 100,000 people BUY a baron plot and make a nice park for themselves, then, guess what?
It will get messy but, if 51% of them agree that you should be kicked out, then you should be kicked out.
Now your last premise is also an easy one.
Because 'public open space' is owned by the Commonwealth, (the Queen) we are merely tenants given the right to self rule, by her.
In doing so we vote in people who represent us in drafting laws which ultimately are supposed to be for the benefit of all of us equally. Because of this arrangement, free speech in a public place or public open space, is allowed by law.
The kind of speech allowed is also prescribed by law.
So you see, fear not my right to call you whatever I want may be censored already.
But if it is not you know the choices, challenge them or move on.

Dear Altrav,

So going a full circle we seem to be in agreement that a society MAY, if so it wishes (by way of 51% majority, or by whatever other arrangement as agreed in that society's ground-rules), restrict speech on its public premises.

Whether it is WISE to do so, remains an open question, which a society could decide on a case-by-case basis.

The remaining question is what legitimately constitutes public premises:

You seem to hold the view that [in Australia] public open space is owned by the Commonwealth/Queen. I disagree. I don't believe that pointing one's finger over the horizon and chanting "this is all mine", even when accompanied by three rounds of small-firearms, is sufficient to establish land ownership (that British ritual is more akin to witchcraft). I believe that ownership requires some more significant (and ongoing) investment.

Nevertheless, I think that places like city-roads, cultivated public parks, parliament buildings and public libraries can safely be claimed to belong to the "public".

BTW, what's your view regarding the almost-nonexistent free speech in public libraries?

---

One went to a librarian and said: "I would like to buy one kilogram of tomatoes, half a kilogram of cucumbers and a lettuce".
The librarian told him: "this is not a shop, this is a library!"

So he whispered respectfully and very quietly: "Oh, I'm so sorry Madam, I would like to buy one kilogram of tomatoes, half a kilogram of cucumbers and a lettuce".