News – Recently the California Supreme Court had to decide whether a mall is considered public property--and essentially a town square where protesters can gather--or private property.
Instead of going to the mall and protesting about yet another whiny, malcontent issue, why don't these "protesters" utilize the mall to get a job? There are all kinds of retail, management and security jobs at a mall, many of which offer insurance benefits, 401k options and retirement packages. I worked in a mall all through high school and got valuable on-the-job training and work skills that I carried with me into my future careers.
(SIGH)
Once again, it's so much easier for these people to just collect welfare from the government instead of actually taking personal responsibility, getting off their ass and getting a job.
What in God's name are these people protesting about, anyway? Thank your lucky stars you're in the U.S. and have endless opportunities to make and re-make yourself as you wish, instead of always bellyaching about something. Honestly, I'd love to see these people try to spend ONE WEEK in Haiti or Nigeria or Myanmar...
What are they protesting? If only you had read the article (or even just the first 2 paragraphs) you would know.
Neonimrod,
My question was rhetorical, meaning, is THIS what they're protesting about?
Their protest was a NON-ISSUE. Can't they think of something better to do with their time than go to the mall and protest a store? WAYYYY too much time on their hands.
Kind of like you, neophony. Isn't there something better to do with your time than look after my posts, making sure I've read the article? Perhaps you need to get yourself a job at your local mall? It's a great self-esteem booster, AND, you get to earn your own money instead of relying on the government to come to your rescue every month. Try it sometime!
No, your question wasn't rhetorical. It was inane. It was childish. It was stupid. It showed an incredible lack of comprehension. However, it was not rhetorical.
"Their protest was a NON-ISSUE. Can't they think of something better to do with their time than go to the mall and protest a store? WAYYYY too much time on their hands."
They were on strike. Would you have them sit at home and do nothing? Tell us, what would you have them do? Never mind, I know, you'd have them shut up and work. Then again, you'd have them quit whining, get off welfare, and find a job.
Really, read the articles first before leaving comments.
Hi Neo, good to see you are around.
I'm still trying to figure out what about my posts violated the TOU. It was not clear to me that they were in violation. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me why they were violations, so that I can learn to stay within the TOU. Please be specific.
SpazMat
"Instead of going to the mall and protesting about yet another whiny, malcontent issue, why don't these "protesters" utilize the mall to get a job?"
Again, did you bother to read the article BEFORE your original comment? Don't bother, that's a rhetorical question as any sentient being can tell that you did not.
I believe that it's a horrible court decision by a misguided court but why are you ragging on the protesters? Union members on strike are "whiny malcontents" who "just collect welfare from the government instead of actually taking personal responsibility, getting off their ass and getting a job"? Really?
As for your statements about the great jobs available at the mall with wonderful benefits, wtf? Either you worked at a very special mall or you're prevaricating.
The real danger lies not in the "free speech" issue raised by the striking workers, although I do not think they have either the moral or legal right to conduct a secondary boycott of the department store. The real issue lies in the erosion of "property rights" by the court. If this sort of "reasoning" is not overturned by the federal courts, then you could easily be deprived of the right to determine when and how your property will be used. And if you don't control those things, is it really still YOUR property?
The California Supreme Court has countenanced an unjustifiable "taking" of private property. We will rue this day.
Have no fear. The case came out the way it did because the California constitution provides greater free speech protection than the US constitution. The US Supreme Court already ruled on the issue and found that there are generally no federal free speech rights in shopping malls.
In your opinion how was it a taking, the owner still has his economic interest, he can still lease it or sell it?
But who would lease or buy if they could not conduct business unmolested at the location? Would this lead to shopping malls limiting the entrants by requiring some type of pass? Personally, I can't figure out how they'd do it, but I'm sure others could.
I'm sorry, but as the property owners they should be able to place reasonable limits on speech. Shall we make it legal to scream obscenities at the top of our lungs in the mall because we're mad at the GAP's return policy? Or because Mrs. Field's put too much ice in our soda? Just like the protesting that would be a bad decision as it would detract from the atmosphere of the mall. The majority of patrons don't go to the mall to congregate and discuss political issues. They go to shop in a clean, safe, and comfortable atmosphere. That atmosphere is diminished by groups protesting, and, therefore, the business (mall) is harmed.
The mall is still in business, which goes to show that many will patronize even with people picketing.
There are also laws to punish disruptive behavior, so if someone starts to yell obscenities as you suggest I bet they'd be charged.
I see two issues-
I think we all agree that speech is free on the town common. At what point does a mall approach a town common? How about a private university campus? If a mall allows all comers, even mall walkers that have no intention of shopping or other non commerce related events, then the ownership has allowed activities that are not related to shopping. If a the owner allows some to collect signatures, or candidates to shake hands or girl scouts to sell cookies then I think the mall is beginning to approach a public common.
Also, if strikers are picketing an employer who is only located at the mall I attach some importance to their ability to directly picket at that location. What good would it do to picket your employer from miles away?
I disagree with the line of reasoning. Just because the mall management allows some activities does not equate to it ceding its right to limit activity on the property.
The tenants rent space and should expect a certain amount of protection. The mall management is the one who is responsible for defining that protection which is their right as deemed by the owners of the property.
While I sympathize with the protesters, I still see property right protection as paramount. In usurping the property rights of the mall's owner, the CA judiciary has sent a chilling message that private property rights are subject to the leisure of the government and not to the owners.
Free speech rights granted by constitutions should focus on setting governmental constraints not forcing one private entity to endure the free speech of another on its own property.
While I fervently support free speech, I have my doubts in this case whether free speech rights should apply on private property. To declare privately owned property as a public place does not sit right with me. The protesters could have picketed at the public entrances to the mall but should have followed mall rules within it.
To me it seems there needs to be a balancing of interestes. A mall is obviously more open than a private residence. To me it seems inconsistent that one can open their property up to all comers and then declare that it still retains all the characteristics of private property. To me that's the largest factor, the degree to which the owner has opened his property or restricted access. If the owner lets one group pamphlet then thye shouln't act surprised when another group wants to pamphlet.
I more or less figure, regardless of use, when the public starts paying my property taxes, then they can consider it public property.
I think it would depend on the nature of the property and the degree that it is opened to others.
Do you think these are public or private fora:
Sidewalks?
Town commons?
Public parks?
Board of selectmen meetings?
Public universities?
Private universities?
Shopping malls?
Sidewalks are generally municipal property - although property owners are often required to install and maintain them.
Town commons - public property.
Public parks - public property.
Board of selectmen meetings - presumably held on: public property
Public universities - how public? Does the government actually OWN the university or does that just mean that anyone can apply?
Private universities - very likely private property
Shopping malls - very likely private property
Anyone wants to protest something at a mall, they should be required to stay on the sidewalk OUTSIDE the private property line. Except, apparently, in CA. This ruling would seem to imply that someone standing in a mall shouting obscenities could NOT be removed even though it's private property. If a bum were to be in there with loaded pants - as long as he was giving forth on some political issue: could not be removed.
This ruling WOULD seem to take away the right of a property owner to say who can be there.
Thanks Joe. Can we focus on private universities just for the sake of reason?
Say there's a huge private university in your state. Around here it's BU, BC and Northeastern. The campuses sprawl for blocks. Anyone can drive through them for a shortcut. Kids playing football. Moms pushing baby carriages. You get the idea. The university allows people to protest against the war, against Israel and against Bush. Say some pro-military group wants to set up a table should it be allowed to do so or can the university now argue, private property?
I think the university by opening itself up to all comers has lost the right to proclaim, not for this one particular group.
As you know most stuff isn't black or white, but shades of gray. I think shopping malls may fit into that gray area, part private and part public property. No doubt the stores are private, but the common areas? I'm not so sure about. It depends on the facts and the degree that it has been opened up to public use.
University campuses that spread over several blocks almost certainly DO contain public property. Unless the university maintains their own streets and sidewalks. These, I presume would be fair game. At a PRIVATE university that did NOT have public ownership, I'd have to say the university should have the right to say who can, or cannot, be on the property. Just as we would presume you or I have that right. If, for example, I were to set up a stage on my front lawn and hold a rally for Ron Paul, would that mean that Hillary's campaign had a RIGHT to do the same? I'm saying: NO! If a private university CHOOSES to allow protests or demonstrations as part of their liberal "education", that's a different matter and doesn't imply that the protesters have a RIGHT to be on that private property. Malls, unless there are public streets involved, are PRIVATELY owned. Seems like airports have chased away the Hari Krishnas - and those ARE public - usually.
Yeah, there was a Supreme Court case about the Krishnas. They can't solicit but they can distribute leaflets. Strange.
We disagree. I still think it depends on the degree that the property has been opened.
I have another example. I know of a place where there is a cul-de-sac street. ONE of the houses on the cul-de-sac has an opening through a big line of fences that allows egress to another area where there are shops etc. Other than that opening, people have to walk about 3 blocks to get around the fences. Now, the people that own that lot have allowed as how they don't MIND people cutting through, so long as they are quiet and respectful of the property. By your definition, this would seem to "open" up the property. Now, if the people passing through begin to get rowdy, do damage to the property, etc. - would it then be your position that they are ENTITLED to do that? Or that they would be ENTITLED to hold a protest there? Or can the property owner put up a gate and say "too bad, privilege abused, go around?"
No. No one would be entitled to create a disturbance or damage property. I do see a cut through owned by private citizens differently than a shopping mall so I can't see possibly making an argument that trespassers? invitees? guests? have a right to protest.
However, depending upon how long their property has been "adopted" for public use they may be at risk of losing it to the municipality. If the property owners decide to shut it down I can see the town moving in to take it over. On the other hand the owners may be able to get a reduction in their property taxes if they just deed it over to the town and are done with the liability, taxes and upkeep.
You raise an interesting point: What happens if a mall owner decides - for whatever reason- to CLOSE the mall. This is NOT an exercise - this actually happened where I live. The government did NOT take it over. They did NOT make it available as a "free speech" venue. It was closed up, doors locked, and after several years of trying to figure out another viable use -- was knocked down. I should think this would put a lid on any argument that simply opening a private property to the public for purposes of commerce was the same as making it a public property. I begin to suspect you of communism...{:>D)=
Not a member? Sign-up today!
pyuuuke
big-ass
IZasPIE
Londi
kcstack
joeblowe
smaaz
Helixbuilder
STONERS
dexlovex2
Sock_Puppet
bcoynejr
AtheismIsReality
Fedquip
Wolfie2007
ringlen837
Charlson
nejronODP
jeremytoday
avpd85
mdvaldosta
Bkumm
hurr1
JamesMarcus
daducha
walden3
MaryLynn_
Tyrone620
983Boyd
Watts437
berkeley
BessThigpen
Aidenag
JohnAndujar
zephyr_ali
janelagregory
MidnightPrism
humbertowhite
AutisticPsycho
vvv63vvv
ascomputer
_kam0_
Beau7890
Alexia
edwardmills
BoxMonkey
pholpher
miklkit
Truzseeker
Ciera Marie
About Propeller | Frequently Asked Questions | Help
© 2003-2008 Propeller. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
36)
Vote
Are mall-goers on average smart enough to read protest signs?