State court declares (Roseville, Calif.) Galleria's speech rules unconstitutional

[Newsjock]

Source: Sacramento Bee

A state appellate court has declared that rules regulating talk among strangers at the Galleria at Roseville violate California Constitution free speech guarantees.

... The specific rule at issue prohibits a person in the center's common areas from "approaching patrons with whom he or she was not previously acquainted for the purpose of communicating with them on a topic unrelated to the business interests" of the mall or its tenants.

The case centered of efforts by Matthew Snatchko, a 27-year-old youth pastor, to share his Christian faith. Snatchko, a Roseville resident, often went to the Galleria, the largest shopping mall in Northern California. While in a common area one evening, he approached three young women who agreed to talk with him on subjects that included principles of his faith.

A store employee called security and an officer responded and told Snatchko to stop talking to the women or leave the mall. When he refused, the officer called for backup and a senior security officer responded and ordered Snatchko out. He again refused, and found himself under "citizen's arrest," handcuffed and turned over to Roseville police.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2010/08/13/2957342/state-court-declares-gallerias.html

[tomhayes]

1. Well, what's the law on punching missionaries??

Wel?????

[melm00se]

35. that's called assault

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 240-248

http://law.justia.com/california/codes/2009/pen/240-248.html

[davidinalameda]

2. wonder if they could require him to get a permit

or just keep any non-approved groups off the property

[zbdent]

4. I thought that the laws were that any owner of private property

(which a mall is ... private property) had the right to refuse entry to someone after they've been told to leave ... trespassing ...

but then, IOKIYAC ...

[izquierdista]

14. They want the public to come spend

But if the public want to exercise any of their constitutional rights, suddenly the place becomes "private property".

[X_Digger]

24. This area is getting fuzzier and fuzzier as the line between 'public spaces' and 'private property'

.. gets blurred.

The CA Supreme Court has held that the right protected by the state's analog of the first amendment applies to the common areas of privately held malls when reasonably exercised.

Then there's Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that says businesses open to the public ('public accomodation') can't discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin.

[X_Digger]

20. Nope, Cantwell v Connecticut

In 1940, in Connecticut, a solicitor of any stripe was required to obtain a license before going door to door, whether to sell vacuum cleaners, encyclopedias, or their particular flavor of religion.

Newton Cantwell and two of his sons were proselytizing in a heavily catholic neighborhood. The trio were arrested for soliciting without a license.

Connecticut courts sided with the state. The SCOTUS disagreed- "to condition the solicitation of aid for the perpetuation of religious views or systems upon a license, the grant of which rests in the exercise of a determination by state authority as to what is a religious cause, is to lay a forbidden burden upon the exercise of liberty protected by the Constitution."

[davidinalameda]

30. I'm going to argue something

would you be expected to allow the Klan to go up to people in your mall or even door to door in your neighborhood or does this only apply to preachers

[X_Digger]

32. If it's protected speech, yes.

If it's not directly advocating violence, inciting a riot, slander, obscenity, etc, then yes.

California's protection of free speech is even stronger than is protected at the federal level.

[zbdent]

3. ah, but when a lefty is arrested for wearing a T-shirt in a mall where he/she purchased

it ... that's not "freedom of speech", that's trespassing when the mall owners have the right to refuse anybody entry ...

of course, now the "conservative" who probably goes on and on about "frivolous lawsuits" will probably sue for millions of dollars in a civil suit ...

[ThomCat]

9. I remember when malls were doing that to people in dem t-shirts.

Did a case ever make it to the supreme court? Did they really decide that a mall could get away with that? :(

[zbdent]

34. actually, if I recall the right case,

it was the matter of a person wearing a T-shirt with a bit of a profane message ... which a store in the mall sold, apparently with no objection from the mall's owners ...

[jobycom]

5. Seems like normal trespass and loitering laws would be enough.

Unless mall management is refusing to keep him out. In that case, just boycott the place.

The law is crazy. Sounds like you could technically get arrested for asking a stranger the time. I hate having to deal with these preacher types, too, but carefully crafting a law to ban them seems pretty unAmerican.

[X_Digger]

25. Well, it's not a "law" but a regulation of the mall.

But you make the same point that one of the judges did-

“The Rules preclude strangers from talking about everything from their political, social, environmental or religious views to their views on current sports events…or even the weather,” she opined. “Given the wide variety of reasons people go to shopping malls and the range of possible conversations between individuals at the mall, Westfield’s prohibition of strangers spontaneously talking to each other on topics unrelated to the mall substantially burdens far more protected speech than is necessary to meet Westfield’s safety and convenience concerns.”

Snatchko v. Westfield LLC

[haele]

6. Closer to laws allowing property owners to refuse to allow petitioners

and people "performing" - seeking an audience as it were - whether it's as an artist, a protester, a pollster, a proselytizer, or a pan-handler" on their property without their permission.

If he had been observed going up to random people and engaging them, without their permission - it doesn't matter if some of them stop and talk to him, he's using the private property of the mall to endorse his own activities that are not part of the mall.

I'm not sure if this young man's activities are protected under the First Amendment. I can't go into a church that I'm not a member of and start telling people in the vestry about the special deals going on with my new tobacco bar - "Hookahs and Happy Endings" - without expecting to be tossed out on my ass, now, can I?

Haele

[StatGirl]

22. That would be a fascinating test case!

If the church is open to members of the public, then by the same reasoning, you could.

[davidinalameda]

31. churches are allow to discriminate per membership

they set their own rules on who is or who can be a member

[X_Digger]

27. CA (and NJ) have ruled that malls are fair game..

Here's an interesting read on the blurring of the line between public and private property..

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Assembly/topic.aspx?topic=private_property

The first attempt to provide a constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property occurred in the mid-1940s. In Marsh v. Alabama (1946), the Supreme Court held that the owners and operators of a company town could not prohibit the distribution of religious literature in the town's business district because such expression was protected by the First and 14th amendments. The majority reasoned that the town displayed many of the attributes of a municipality; therefore the state-action requirement was satisfied for constitutional purposes of sustaining the rights of free expression. As stated in Marsh, "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company.

(emphasis added)

For the CA case, see Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center

[Downwinder]

7. By those rules you can't even ask where the restroom is.

[thelordofhell]

8. C'mon everyone, stop dancing around this

This law was put in to stop people from pan-handling the patrons. The unintended consequences of which led to what happened in the article. It's a disgusting law and deserves to get struck down.

:mad:

[ThomCat]

10. Very true.

There should be a way to keep the preachers from harassing people.

But I won't agree with anything that makes it a crime to be poor at the mall asking for help. :(

[Lance_Boyle]

13. Panhandling has (and deserves) no protection on private property.

I would go so far as to say that panhandling deserves no protection on public property, either. It is a nuisance.

[fascisthunter]

17. yes... those homeless bums are so inconvenient

[Lance_Boyle]

18. It's not inconvenience, it's harassment, and illegal.

Should I expect you to chime in here in the next sexual harassment thread claiming that the rights of the overly affectionate are being violated?

[fascisthunter]

21. you can make up all the hypotheticals you want but I know when somebody

makes a statement like you did, that you see these so-called "nuisances" as being equivalent to sexual harrassers or lower than you.

"It is a nuisance."

yes. poverty is a bigger nuisance. May you never have to pan-handle

[Lance_Boyle]

23. So harassment is OK as long as the harasser is poor. Gotcha.

It's not too much to ask to be able to walk down the street or through the mall without professional beggars accosting you for money.

[fascisthunter]

26. don't want to be "harrassed"? Then do something about it, like...

getting rid of poverty. People better learn to live with poverty... It's here to stay. I already have, it's been all around me my whole life. People care less about the poor until they stand in our way begging for money while we enjoy our leisurely strolls as a consumer. It's ironic...

It's the attitude towards the poor that is a problem here... this will do no good.

I hope you see my point rather than feel insulted or feel a disdain for those who have to beg. Not all are "professional".

[thelordofhell]

19. I pity you

:wtf:

[ThomCat]

37. panhandling is the last ditch, bottom line thing to do

for people who have no other possible option. They have nowhere else, nothing else, but don't yet want to die. What else do you expect them to do? It's the only option left that can keep them alive another day.

Have you ever been homeless? I have.

Have you ever had to beg for food? I have.

Have you ever had to beg for a safe place to sleep? I have.

Call people a nuisance, but do you really give a damn about helping people get out of poverty? Do you really give a damn about helping people survive?

Or do you only care about making your own life convenient?

[Ian David]

11. If someone tries to talk to me unsolicited about religion, I just start talking about sex. n/t

[Lance_Boyle]

12. Snatchko? Really?

Reverend Vaginalo was busy that day? And Deacon Rectanus?

[Moonwalk]

15. So, wait, what if the pastor had been asking about sex instead?...

...I thought it was against the law for me to talk to strangers about sex, especially if I suggest exchanging money for it. Why isn't that protected as free speech?

[HillWilliam]

29. Honest to Dog the jokes write themselves

:rofl:

[greiner3]

16. If only that store employee had carried a gun.

[X_Digger]

28. Link to the decision..

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C059985.PDF

[Turbineguy]

33. If he makes a living at this

he could be charged rent. Like the stores and kiosks.

[annabanana]

36. I hope that means that we can wear any T-shirt we like in there, and

that we can engage people in political talk at the food court without fear of arrest. . .