PDA

View Full Version : Court Says California Mall's Chat Policy Illegal


gotgunz
08-13-2010, 1:12 PM
If it applies to a mall how long before it is used to include other private places (like forums etc...)?

http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/13/2957342/state-court-declares-gallerias.html

Just for clarification I think this ruling is ridiculous.

SoCalCitizen
08-13-2010, 5:03 PM
It's a free country.....mostly.

vladbutsky
08-14-2010, 6:40 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/14/ap/strange/main6773033.shtml

ROSEVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A Northern California appeals court has struck down a shopping mall's policy barring people from approaching strangers to chitchat.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal this week said the rules at Roseville's Westfield Galleria violate the California Constitution's free speech guarantee.

The mall prohibited people in its common areas from approaching people they didn't know to talk unless the conversation was about business involving the mall or its tenants. The case arose after mall officials issued a citizen's arrest of a 27-year-old pastor who tried to talk about his faith.

The appeals court says the policy effectively bars shoppers from chatting about the weather or offering directions.

A spokeswoman for Westfield says the mall is considering appealing to the California Supreme Court.

So if mall, or any other private property open to public, is not allowed to limit free speech, can they still legally limit my rights to protect myself? Can Peet's coffee be sued for their "no firearms" policy?

dustoff31
08-14-2010, 6:50 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/14/ap/strange/main6773033.shtml



So if mall, or any other private property open to public, is not allowed to limit free speech, can they still legally limit my rights to protect myself? Can Peet's coffee be sued for their "no firearms" policy?

I don't know. Personally, I'm more concerned about the fact that courts are increasingly ruling that private property owners must allow other people to come onto their property and do pretty much whatever they like.

Roadrunner
08-14-2010, 6:56 PM
If a person walks up to you and begins talking to you, what about using an old fashioned "Go away." It worked for me when I was dropped of at SF airport after leaving Travis AFB.

NightOwl
08-14-2010, 6:57 PM
Their appeal has no chance. This is already well established law, heard by the surpreme court of CA back in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

thevic
08-14-2010, 6:57 PM
damn no more picking up on chivks at the mall

thevic
08-14-2010, 6:59 PM
well unless youre like "daaamn girl you buy those jeans here at this mall"

then its legit :)

Wulf
08-14-2010, 7:09 PM
well unless youre like "daaamn girl you buy those jeans here at this mall"

then its legit :)

How would you like to test drive one of those sleep number beds?

Wulf
08-14-2010, 7:10 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/14/ap/strange/main6773033.shtml



So if mall, or any other private property open to public, is not allowed to limit free speech, can they still legally limit my rights to protect myself? Can Peet's coffee be sued for their "no firearms" policy?

That policy hasn't worked on me yet.

jigenax
08-14-2010, 7:13 PM
Seems like all the malls are owned by Westfield. I wonder if they'll get slapped with a monopoly suit from Moonbeam Brown?

vladbutsky
08-14-2010, 8:12 PM
Their appeal has no chance. This is already well established law, heard by the surpreme court of CA back in 1980.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins
A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers
under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights

Can the same ruling apply to other rights? Or it is exclusive to the 1st amendment?
I'm not a lawyer, I'm just asking questions... :)

Window_Seat
08-14-2010, 8:25 PM
It might depend on Nordyke. If the court ultimately finds that the "fairgrounds" cannot be considered a sensitive place, it could spread like "wildfire" (sorry, couldn't resist :laugh:). The mall is full of teeny boppers, parents, moms (some of them might even be millions of moms), and they will be kicking & screaming & flopping on the floor & foaming at the mouth at the thought of this being a connection to these kinds of 1st Amendment court cases. "Pardon me sir, but would you have any Constitutional Muster? But of course NOT! Muwhuahhhhh!!" :p

Erik.

bwiese
08-14-2010, 8:28 PM
I don't know. Personally, I'm more concerned about the fact that courts are increasingly ruling that private property owners must allow other people to come onto their property and do pretty much whatever they like.

The view is that today's malls go beyond a normal business function and have replaced ye old 'publick square' in today's society - esp as zoning therefore expects this. Rules are would be much different for Joe's Liquors on the corner.

What's more irritating to me is the malls that have the kiosk vendors in the center lanes whose staffers accost you to try to sell you some BS product: "Excuse me sir, have you heard of the Dead Sea? We have Dead Sea salt..."
blah blah blah.

dustoff31
08-14-2010, 8:35 PM
Can the same ruling apply to other rights? Or it is exclusive to the 1st amendment?
I'm not a lawyer, I'm just asking questions... :)

Right now it only applies to the 1A in CA.

I wouldn't get my hopes up about exercising the 2A in malls, etc. Even free states allow property owners to disallow guns on their property. I can't quote a case, but I believe Fed courts have upheld that. And IMHO, the idea of a CA court ruling otherwise is just laughable.

JohanD
08-14-2010, 8:42 PM
How would you like to test drive one of those sleep number beds?

ROFL :D

let me guess what your sleep number is...

dustoff31
08-14-2010, 8:43 PM
The view is that today's malls go beyond a normal business function and have replaced ye old 'publick square' in today's society

Well, I suppose there is some merit to that.



What's more irritating to me is the malls that have the kiosk vendors in the center lanes whose staffers accost you to try to sell you some BS product: "Excuse me sir, have you heard of the Dead Sea? We have Dead Sea salt..."
blah blah blah

Yes.

CenterX
08-14-2010, 8:49 PM
That policy hasn't worked on me yet.

+10!

What they don't know may save someones life.

383green
08-14-2010, 9:29 PM
What's more irritating to me is the malls that have the kiosk vendors in the center lanes whose staffers accost you to try to sell you some BS product: "Excuse me sir, have you heard of the Dead Sea? We have Dead Sea salt..."
blah blah blah.

Yeah, those vendors annoy me, too. I rarely go to malls, though, so it's usually the petitioners and (more commonly) glorified beggars outside the supermarket that annoy me.

9mmlaw
08-14-2010, 10:06 PM
The decision, yes I am a lawyer, is pretty narrow in its scope. Essentially the court said that you cannot limit consensual conversation on private property. The plaintiff was asked to leave the mall after he was observed in a conversation with a group of teens about his religious beliefs. There were no props, signs, megaphones or the like. Had there been more "demonstrative" speech the outcome would likely have been different. Given these facts, however, the mall's rules were not reasonable restrictions.

kf6tac
08-15-2010, 12:45 AM
Right now it only applies to the 1A in CA.

I wouldn't get my hopes up about exercising the 2A in malls, etc. Even free states allow property owners to disallow guns on their property. I can't quote a case, but I believe Fed courts have upheld that. And IMHO, the idea of a CA court ruling otherwise is just laughable.

It doesn't even apply to the First Amendment, it applies to the California Constitution's equivalent of the First Amendment. Since the California Constitution does not contain a RKBA guarantee, don't count on Pruneyard being extended to the RKBA anytime soon.

gunsmith
08-15-2010, 2:09 AM
property rights are cool, I like em.
It means you can invite friends over and force them to wash your dishes.

gotgunz
08-15-2010, 2:27 AM
I have always wanted to say this!


:dupe::dupe::dupe:



http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=331578


:xeno:

9mmlaw
08-15-2010, 8:25 AM
The decision, yes I am a lawyer, is pretty narrow in its scope. Essentially the court said that you cannot limit consensual conversation on private property. The plaintiff was asked to leave the mall after he was observed in a conversation with a group of teens about his religious beliefs. There were no props, signs, megaphones or the like. Had there been more "demonstrative" speech the outcome would likely have been different. Given these facts, however, the mall's rules were not reasonable restrictions.

nicki
08-15-2010, 9:36 AM
Well, the reality is right now is OPEN CARRY is done to make a political statement, as such it is an excercise in political expression.

If "Flag Burning" is an acceptable "Political Expression", then wearing a shirt that shows how the 1st and 2nd amendment are interpendent and our means to preserve the "Self Government System" and openly carrying arms should also being acceptable and court protected "Political Expression".

Nicki

CSACANNONEER
08-15-2010, 9:40 AM
I don't know. Personally, I'm more concerned about the fact that courts are increasingly ruling that private property owners must allow other people to come onto their property and do pretty much whatever they like.

THIS! I 100% respect a property owner's RIGHT to limit the public's ability to carry a gun, preach, strip, sing, or whatever on their private property. While I do not have to agree with the property owner's choice on what he/she wants to limit, I will support their right to do so. The gubmet should stay out of this.

6172crew
08-15-2010, 9:42 AM
The view is that today's malls go beyond a normal business function and have replaced ye old 'publick square' in today's society - esp as zoning therefore expects this. Rules are would be much different for Joe's Liquors on the corner.

What's more irritating to me is the malls that have the kiosk vendors in the center lanes whose staffers accost you to try to sell you some BS product: "Excuse me sir, have you heard of the Dead Sea? We have Dead Sea salt..."
blah blah blah.

We need a CGN kiosk at the sun valley mall.:D "Have you heard about the tale of the 2 weeks?"

Bullet Button sold here! Get your 10 rounders and BBs here!

unusedusername
08-15-2010, 7:02 PM
We need a CGN kiosk at the sun valley mall.:D "Have you heard about the tale of the 2 weeks?"

Bullet Button sold here! Get your 10 rounders and BBs here!

A gun store in a mall would be awesome.... but probably won't ever happen in this state. :(

Merle
08-15-2010, 7:06 PM
A gun store in a mall would be awesome.... but probably won't ever happen in this state. :(

What was that horror movie where the zombies moved in and the folks holed up in a mall with a gun store in it? That'll be the day (again).

Theseus
08-15-2010, 7:46 PM
My understanding of this ruling was only that the rules limited reasonable actions of speech as well.

Think about the rule. . . In theory, you can't comment to the other that the weather outside was horrible without running afoul of the rule. That makes it an unreasonable restriction.

Scott Connors
08-15-2010, 8:15 PM
What was that horror movie where the zombies moved in and the folks holed up in a mall with a gun store in it? That'll be the day (again).

The original DAWN OF THE DEAD directed by George Romero.

N6ATF
08-15-2010, 8:55 PM
It doesn't even apply to the First Amendment, it applies to the California Constitution's equivalent of the First Amendment. Since the California Constitution does not contain a RKBA guarantee, don't count on Pruneyard being extended to the RKBA anytime soon.

It's just continued double standards for the CA court system. I'll bet they'd rule against us even if the CA Constitution said "any attempt by the government to disarm sane law-abiding adults is punishable by a swift execution of all individuals or conspirators" rather than:
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

They consistently have ruled AGAINST every attempt to do do any of the underlined things, traitors to not only the US Constitution, but CA's, as well.

CA courts=rule exactly the opposite of what the law says when it comes to good people and self-defense. For further reference, search for Theseus's case.