Replies

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

Who gets to decide what speech is legitimate? I'm in favor of the mall being able to keep out undesirables, but I can understand that public money was taken. Perhaps a reasonable compromise (like letting protesters and such hand things out at the entrances) can be fashioned.

I wonder how the judges would feel if people were engaging in their free speech rights in their taxpayer-supplied courtrooms!

Using the word "legitimate" only to differentiate it from the "undesirables" you wrote of.

Once again, the problem is, at least where the public-private partnerships are concerned--where do we draw the line?

Obviously, we've drawn the line in the case of courts. I can't protest or distribute literature in a court, but I sure can stand at the the foot of the Courthouse's steps and exercise my free speech.

If we say that because of property rights we can limit or ban first amendment-protected activities, even where public monies have been used or, as in the case in Las Vegas, the city owns the property, are we on that annoying slippery slope?

For example, I do own a business here and it is located on a public street. Obviously, no one can come into my shop and protest or distribute literature without my permission. However, anyone can stand right in front of my shop and do those things without my consent. I would be upset because it would hurt my business dramatically, but I couldn't do a thing about it.

The outdoor "malls" in Las Vegas and Salt Lake that this article refers to are basically city blocks, not enclosed buildings, that have businesses along them. If these city blocks are funded by my tax dollars, and, in the case of Las Vegas, are owned by the city, how is it different for me to set about protesting or pamphleteering on those sidewalks from someone protesting or pamphleteering in front of my business? I pay rent and a percentage of my gross to occupy my place of business. Why can't I have that same protection from disruption that these "malls" are claiming?