Indeed not. My point is this: the mall *is* the public square and the people have a right to hold and express unpopular opinions in the public square. Not to shout or to be disorderly, but to have the freedom to speak their mind or to wear a t-shirt with a political message.
The debate here has been that the mall is a private place and as such people have no rights.
I say that the mall is different from a private accountant's office or a private residence, because it has received a government monopoly to operate and to effectively replace the traditional "town square" where political dialogue could be held. Do you think your local government would allow you to build a mall across the street from the existing mall on your own property? No way. You wouldn't get the building permit because there already is a mall. Therefore the existing mall is a government sactioned monoply. By virtue of benefitting from the government monopoly, the mall has an obligation to respect the same rights that a citizen enjoys in the public square.