Thundar
Regular Member
imported post
Interesting article about constitutional free speech rights inside malls in California. Private property rights do not trump all constitutional rights in a public forum.
I think the ruling is kooky, but I thought this would be a good discussion point for those that think that public places have less private property rights than homes. (i.e; Don't tell me I can't have my gun in your mall. Your personal property rights do not trump my right to bear arms.)
The link:
http://www.nbc11.com/news/14920522/detail.html?subid=10111094
The story:
SAN FRANCISCO -- [/b]The California Supreme Court ruled by a 4-3 vote Monday that shopping malls can't prohibit protesters from urging a boycott of one of the facility's stores.
The court, in a decision issued at its San Francisco headquarters, said the state constitutional right of free speech protects such protests.
Justice Carlos Moreno, the author of the majority opinion, wrote, "Urging customers to boycott a store lies at the core of the right to free speech."
The court struck down a rule in which the Fashion Valley Mall in San Diego, while allowing most free speech, banned protests that urged or encouraged boycotts of mall stores.
The rule had been challenged by newspaper union workers who were barred by the mall from passing out leaflets in front of a mall store that advertised in the newspaper. The leaflets asked customers and employees to call the newspaper's chief executive about alleged unfair treatment of the workers.
In a key ruling in 1979 in a case concerning the Pruneyard shopping center in Campbell, the California Supreme Court said a shopping mall is a public forum where free speech is protected under the state constitution.
Monday's ruling concerned whether that doctrine extended even to speech urging a boycott of a mall store.
Justice Ming Chin wrote in a dissent, "Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone."
Chin and two other justices said "the tide of history" had turned and said the original Pruneyard decision should be overruled or modified.
The case was argued before the state high court in Santa Rosa in October at a special outreach session in which Sonoma County high school students were invited to hear the arguments and learn about court procedures.
Interesting article about constitutional free speech rights inside malls in California. Private property rights do not trump all constitutional rights in a public forum.
I think the ruling is kooky, but I thought this would be a good discussion point for those that think that public places have less private property rights than homes. (i.e; Don't tell me I can't have my gun in your mall. Your personal property rights do not trump my right to bear arms.)
The link:
http://www.nbc11.com/news/14920522/detail.html?subid=10111094
The story:
SAN FRANCISCO -- [/b]The California Supreme Court ruled by a 4-3 vote Monday that shopping malls can't prohibit protesters from urging a boycott of one of the facility's stores.
The court, in a decision issued at its San Francisco headquarters, said the state constitutional right of free speech protects such protests.
Justice Carlos Moreno, the author of the majority opinion, wrote, "Urging customers to boycott a store lies at the core of the right to free speech."
The court struck down a rule in which the Fashion Valley Mall in San Diego, while allowing most free speech, banned protests that urged or encouraged boycotts of mall stores.
The rule had been challenged by newspaper union workers who were barred by the mall from passing out leaflets in front of a mall store that advertised in the newspaper. The leaflets asked customers and employees to call the newspaper's chief executive about alleged unfair treatment of the workers.
In a key ruling in 1979 in a case concerning the Pruneyard shopping center in Campbell, the California Supreme Court said a shopping mall is a public forum where free speech is protected under the state constitution.
Monday's ruling concerned whether that doctrine extended even to speech urging a boycott of a mall store.
Justice Ming Chin wrote in a dissent, "Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone."
Chin and two other justices said "the tide of history" had turned and said the original Pruneyard decision should be overruled or modified.
The case was argued before the state high court in Santa Rosa in October at a special outreach session in which Sonoma County high school students were invited to hear the arguments and learn about court procedures.