Shopping mall mulls Supreme Court bid to back no-speaking ban

Shopping Malls are for Shoppers

And if someone without paying rent to the mall owner tries to sell them stuff, proselytize for a religion, or beg for a handout, kicking such a one out the door is routine and unproblematic in almost any country in the world.

In the U.S., however, I've read of a court case which prevented a major city's subway system from expelling panhandlers from its subway stations.

I find this insane. First Amendment rights protect people from persecution for engaging in political debate. They ensure that newspapers won't be shut down for criticizing the government.

Actions, like making a nuisance of oneself, should not be considered protected speech. That has nothing to do with allowing the people to consider all possibilities when making decisions about political issues.

I never thought...

I'd stand up for an evangelist, but hey,

"I'd like to talk to you about Jesus"

"No thanks: goodbye"

But... It seems his audience was willing. Had they complained?

It never fails to astonish how some Americans interpret this "land of the free" thing. Maybe China ought to give them democracy... or something.

Interesting

You may be interested to know that most "shopping centres" (at least here in Oz) and quite a few alcohol-dispensing establishments have a placard at the front listing the "rules" you agree to by entering the premises. One of them is that management reserves the right to refuse you entry or to have you leave the premises without providing justifications.

I'm not sure if this has ever been tested in court, but the fat the signs are still up would tend to indicate that either no-one has yet contested this, or it has been contested and lost.

"Excuse me, do you have a minute to talk about ...

* ... getting (political issue or candidate) onto this year's ballot? I'm collecting signatures." Malls have been given the authority to 86 petition signature gatherers.

* ... how Product XYZ has improved my life? I have some samples and information here." Malls have been allowed to show peddlers the door.

* ... a survey I'm doing for a class project? It's only three questions, won't take but a minute." Malls can evict research- gathering students.

* ... ($deity)? I have good news about ($deity)'s plan for you, if you'd like to chat." Apparently these folks get a pass.

In all instances, the solicitors are at the mall for the purpose of selling something and the passers-by could all give a "Sorry, not interested" and be done with it. In each instance there is the possibility of benefit being conveyed to the solicitee (maybe not as much in #3), and in no instance is there harm being done by the asking.

So, why would the pastor have a stronger "free speech" case than my petition passer (who would most likely be booted regardless of how many people chose to discuss the issue/ candidate and sign the petition)?

Because you're worth it.

Snatchko then, unsurprisingly, sued the mall and the security firm, and as the Bee puts it, is seeking "damages in an unspecified amount for false imprisonment, assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, malicious prosecution, and a general violation of his rights under California's Civil Rights Act"

And this is exactly how many steps away from the kinds of adverts that ask "Have YOU had an accident at work"?

Why is it that - even though the bloke was clearly wronged and the mall would have done naff-all about the problem if they weren't sued - this whole thing just strikes me as rather petulant?

The "weirdos" cause problems for everyone

"It seems that US law has decided that certain types of "private" property are not private in respect of Free Speech rights, as they are to a certain extent public areas."

This is actually just California. Federally, well, I know locally I have not seen ANY mall allow people to set up tables.

Anyway... frankly, you Brits that are saying "tolerate religious types", please recall the US is the home of the religious nutter. Of course there's plenty of normal religious types here that would be polite, set up a table and wait for people to talk to them. But if permitted, some will use bullhorns, they'll tell people they are going to hell (not even trying to convert people, just telling them they're screwed), they will go right up to people and not go away even if told to, they will follow people right to their cars. And probably try to slap bumper stickers on them while they are driving away. I have seen people that are like "OK, thanks, I've got to go" (too polite to say "STFU"), and speed up walking a little, they are followed -- speed up more, followed -- basically they'll be jogging and the religious type is still following them talking! The problem this causes for ALL people trying to push a religion is, before long, the "weirdos" will hear somehow that the polite religious types have not been bothered in some location and will start showing up -- therefore, to avoid the weirdos malls etc. end up with a blanket ban.

Anyway.. it does sound like this mall was a bit heavy-handed, if the article is all there was to it. I do question this though -- was he and these ladies having a chat, or where they trying to walk away and he following after them? The main issue, the mall official should REALLY have STFU before saying anybody that wants to talk in the mall must fill out a form!