3 ms·

> The court cited several cases in support of this position, including Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins. In that case, the Supreme Court held that California

> The court cited several cases in support of this position, including Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins. In that case, the Supreme Court held that California could permissibly require a shopping mall to allow individuals to distribute pamphlets inside the premises—reasoning that a business establishment that holds itself open to the public has no “expressive” interest in who is allowed to speak in the establishment. I don't understand how this can be true. If I have a bunch of hooligans handing out pamphlets to everyone that enters my private shopping mall such that the content on the pamphlets is actively deturing shoppers from conducting business in my privately owned establishment, I have a very compelling interest in the "expressive" content of the pamphlet. Aside, this is akin to forcing my business to allow people to sling racial insults at shoppers with no recourse like kicking them out.

joshuamorton 3y ago
You're reading a lot I to the case that wasn't true. In pruenyard, the pamphleters weren't being disruptive.
- pbhjpbhj 3y ago
  Pamphleteers who didn't hand out pamphlets? Does they only have pallets to peddle who went over to them and asked for one? Otherwise they would be disruptive.
  - joshuamorton 3y ago
    I think the following, passages from the decision highlight why you're misunderstanding, or perhaps misusing the term "disruptive": > Appellees are high school students who sought to solicit support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against "Zionism." On a Saturday afternoon they set up a card table in a corner of PruneYard's central courtyard. They distributed pamphlets and asked passersby to sign petitions, which were to be sent to the President and Members of Congress. Their activity was peaceful and orderly, and, so far as the record indicates, was not objected to by PruneYard's patrons. There's other similar passages, but broadly: no one except the owner appeared to complain, which makes arguments about disruption difficult to see. They weren't actually annoying any patrons. If individual shops felt compelled to leave, or patrons complained, the situation would be different.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  I'm generalizing the result of the case. Which is applicable so long as the current lawsuit references it as supporting evidence.
makeitdouble 3y ago
In the case of malls, it probably comes down to how "open" they are. To your case, imagine a mall that takes half of the city center, is an integral part of everyone's life and was permitted on the ground that it would be a true "third place" for the residents to hang out, which is why it includes structures and areas dedicated to community events and such. That kind of mall can't be ran like a pure private business that has no accountability outside of its shareholders. There's a balance to strike of course, but if the hooligans have most residents' support, allowing them in would be a decent choice.
- int_19h 3y ago
  The obvious problem, then, is that the mall takes half of the city center and is an integral part of everyone's life. There should be no private actors like that. It creates numerous problems, of which the one under review here is not even the most egregious example.

joshuamorton 3y ago

You're reading a lot I to the case that wasn't true. In pruenyard, the pamphleters weren't being disruptive.

pbhjpbhj 3y ago
Pamphleteers who didn't hand out pamphlets? Does they only have pallets to peddle who went over to them and asked for one? Otherwise they would be disruptive.
- joshuamorton 3y ago
  I think the following, passages from the decision highlight why you're misunderstanding, or perhaps misusing the term "disruptive": > Appellees are high school students who sought to solicit support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against "Zionism." On a Saturday afternoon they set up a card table in a corner of PruneYard's central courtyard. They distributed pamphlets and asked passersby to sign petitions, which were to be sent to the President and Members of Congress. Their activity was peaceful and orderly, and, so far as the record indicates, was not objected to by PruneYard's patrons. There's other similar passages, but broadly: no one except the owner appeared to complain, which makes arguments about disruption difficult to see. They weren't actually annoying any patrons. If individual shops felt compelled to leave, or patrons complained, the situation would be different.
hellojesus 3y ago
I'm generalizing the result of the case. Which is applicable so long as the current lawsuit references it as supporting evidence.

makeitdouble 3y ago

In the case of malls, it probably comes down to how "open" they are. To your case, imagine a mall that takes half of the city center, is an integral part of everyone's life and was permitted on the ground that it would be a true "third place" for the residents to hang out, which is why it includes structures and areas dedicated to community events and such. That kind of mall can't be ran like a pure private business that has no accountability outside of its shareholders. There's a balance to strike of course, but if the hooligans have most residents' support, allowing them in would be a decent choice.

int_19h 3y ago
The obvious problem, then, is that the mall takes half of the city center and is an integral part of everyone's life. There should be no private actors like that. It creates numerous problems, of which the one under review here is not even the most egregious example.