Hey, Californians: You have 1st amendment rights inside privately owned malls, says the Supreme Court of California. They’ve ruled that malls are a public forum and management cannot restrict speech based on content, says the NYT:
In a 4-to-3 decision, the court said a San Diego mall violated California law protecting free speech when its owners barred protesters from distributing leaflets in front of one of the mall’s stores, asking shoppers not to give the store their business.
“A shopping mall is a public forum in which persons may reasonably exercise their right to free speech,” Justice Carlos R. Moreno wrote in the majority opinion.
Justice Moreno said shopping malls were entitled to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations of the time, place and manner of such free expression,” to avoid a disruption of business.
“But they may not prohibit certain types of speech based upon its content,” he wrote, like speech urging a boycott of stores.
The case itself dealt with a labor union that urging shoppers to boycott a particular store.
Court Ruling on Protests Curbs Malls in California [NYT] (Thanks, p!)
(Photo:Atari Gracinha & Marco)
More From Consumerist
-
Court Says California Cities & Counties Can Ban Pot Shops
-
Massachusetts Court: Retailers Can’t Ask For ZIP Codes To Verify Credit Card Purchases
-
Supreme Court Upholds Corporations’ Right To Unlimited Campaign Spending
-
Supreme Court Agrees: Cigarette Warning Labels Don’t Violate Big Tobacco’s Free Speech
-
Yelp Fights Against Outing Anonymous Reviewers In Lawsuit By Carpet Cleaner
@Shadowfire: Actually, it’s been part and parcel of California law since the 1970s, surviving numerous challenges in a variety of federal and local court venues. The only thing that’s really happened here is the State Supremes clarifying that mall owners can’t restrict the content of that speech.
While I can understand the vehement emotional reaction this brings out in people, the matter has long since been settled.
@trollkiller:
Ah, so basically you object to not only the Declaration of Independence (Unalieneable rights), but have little concept of property law where in order for you to preserve your personal rights and have uniformity under the law you must give on your property rights.
Morever by implication that you have all the rights upon your land and no one else has any rights, you are endorsing something that amounts to slavery since others are inferior to you [pat.tamu.edu]
While proper in some instances to treat people as tresspassers and uninvited, it seems ill mannered and unethical to invite people over then treat them badly, especally since you are technically a host.
I assume this is not what you meant, but rather are dealing with something other than the case in point where you deal with most people as trespassers.
@dantc: Actually they have already clarified that it is a State matter and that States can create a State constitutional right of access to shopping centers, therefore this issue (of state application of State law which SCOTUS has said was not a Federal issue of preeemption) is not really in the jurisdiction of SCOTUS.
I believe what you are missing is the possible compelled use of private property for speech purposes which may be a violation of the shopping center’s 1st amendment (FED.) rights – however this has already been decided under Pruneyard by SCOTUS (see above).
@Curiosity: Relink I got a 404 error.
My house, my castle. If you notice I said I could not break the law enforcing my property rights, that in turn protects your rights under the Constitution. You can do all of your God given rights once you are off my property.
I am not holding you on my property. If you don’t like my rules you are free if not encouraged to leave.
Inviting someone onto your property and treating them badly is not right. Telling them they have to stop a behavior you disapprove of, or they must leave is perfectly ok.
Sigh
Try reading [www.law.cornell.edu]
and
[www.davelippman.com]
@curiosity: I meant this one. [pat.tamu.edu] somehow a period was on the end of it and I got a 404
Anyhow I am not disputing that the left coast have different ideas as to what is mine. If the California constitution allows this kind of property rights abuse then the court ruled correctly. Still does not make it right.
p.s. reading the slavery thing now.
@Curiosity: Thanks for the pointers, much appreciated.
This is more evidence that California should secede from the Union, have the “Big One” earthquake, and fall into the Pacific Ocean. The average American IQ would surely jump by 10 points.
This is PRIVATE PROPERTY! What about the First Amendment rights of the PROPERTY OWNER? If people want to protest a store at the mall, they can do it on PUBLIC PROPERTY (i.e., the sidewalk).
Does this mean that if I want to protest against Carlos R. Moreno, I can walk onto his front porch or into his living room and walk a picket line?
Clearly the judges are on something, or maybe they went off their medication.
I need to read the original article to learn what store the union goons were protesting so I can be sure to go buy something.