Can you protest in a public mall?

The Christian Science Monitor ^ | October 21, 2002 | Steve Friess

[leslie_is_cooking]

I thought this was an interesting case of conflict between private property rights and First Amendment rights.

Where should the line be drawn between respecting the rights that a private group which has put monies (albeit often in partnership with a government entity's money) into an area that has traditionally been a public area and the First Amendment guarantee of free speech for the public at large?

[gcruse]

You are perfectly free to go buy your own mall and protest to your heart's content. How's that for freedom? But don't expect you can come into my living room and do the same thing. A 'public' mall is private property, just like a living room.

[leslie_is_cooking]

Even when it's partially paid for by public funds?

[Atlas Sneezed]

If your neighbors chipped in $27 million to improve your living room, it might be a different story of you tried to keep them from visting freely.

[Larry Lucido]

I'd say that if the "owners" want to exclude anyone who wants to peaceably express an opinion, they should refuse public funds. As long as a government entity is part owner, First Amendment applies.

[gcruse]

Whose name is on the title?

[gcruse]

As long as a government entity is part owner, First Amendment applies.

Am I allowed to protest in any facility that receives public funds,
such as a private school getting voucher money?

[Larry Lucido]

I would agree that calling a 100% privately-owned mall a "public" place doesn't make it so. But if actual ownership vests in part in a government entity, then it really does become public and unreasonable restrictions on speech would become unconstitutional.

[leslie_is_cooking]

In the case of the Las Vegas mall, it is owned by the city but the city has ceded control to a LLC.

In the case of the Salt Lake land, the Mormon church bought it, so I'm assuming its name is on the deed. However, they seem to be the one's who have suffered the defeat (at least so far).

[RussellStevens]

I think the LDS Church should be able to make restrictions on the land they purchased. If their private property rights are not protected, then we cannot count on ours in the future.

[gcruse]

Agreed. But if I am the one whose name is on the deed, what then?

[jbstrick]

Public monies are used to provide power and water to our houses. Does this mean someone can protest in my house? What about a Military base?

[Torie]

When I was in law school I argued in moot court the issue of protesting in a private shopping mall. It was based on the Tanner decision in the appellate court, which was pending before the Supreme Court at the time. In the next year, the Supreme Court ruled, holding in favor of property rights over the right to protest. And earlier decision had held in favor of protest in a company owned town in Alabama as I recall. It looks like this issue might be revisited.

[Larry Lucido]

I think you got it right in your post #6. Actual title should be dispositive.

[gcruse]

It looks like the name on the deed is controlling for both the house and the military base.

[gcruse]

It would seem so. If it's your property, it should be your property.

[RIGHT IN SEATTLE]

I live in Las Vegas and I'm glad that when the bums get out of line and loud, they are immediately cuffed and outta there!

Don't get me wrong, get a permit-----------I don't want to see Las Vegas turn into Seattle.

RIS

[Larry Lucido]

It does put the lie to the whole "public-private partnership" nonsense. I prefer to keep the two as separate as possible - it avoids a lot of confusion.

[leslie_is_cooking]

The bums, the panhandlers, etc.--I'd love to see them better controlled and mannered here too.

How do you feel about "legitimate" free speech in the mall (protests, handing out pamphlets, etc.)?

[RIGHT IN SEATTLE]

A Mall is private propery.

Ask anyone who pays by the square foot, triple net lease, and %age.