I think the following, passages from the decision highlight why you're misunderstanding, or perhaps misusing the term "disruptive": > Appellees are high school

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.