3 ms·
You're reading a lot I to the case that wasn't true. In pruenyard, the pamphleters weren't being disruptive.
by 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 agoPamphleteers 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 agoI 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 agoI'm generalizing the result of the case. Which is applicable so long as the current lawsuit references it as supporting evidence.