Should people have a right to distribute political literature in front of stores at strip malls?

[LoZoccolo]

Poll question: Should people have a right to distribute political literature in front of stores at strip malls?

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. I'd be more ok with it if they would SHUT THE F*** UP

The loud-assed teabaggers are always in front of my Target, bellowing about taxes. THAT bothers me. If they'd tone it down, I don't care what they're trying to do.

[hlthe2b]

2. Have the "right?" It is private property...

I don't get what you are trying to accomplish here. How do you think the government can intercede with private businesses to give people a right that is not theirs to give?

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. At a meta level they should, as these places are the public square any more

realistically... it is not going to happen. After all they are private property and private property is like sacred and shit in this country.

[hlthe2b]

8. There seems to be a lot of confusion about this...i.e., the line

between private enterprise and Federal law/regulatory authorities.

Earlier when the issue of concealed weapons being allowed or not in Starbucks came up, the same kind of misunderstandings seemed to come forth--as though the fact that CCW was legal in a state or locale meant that a business owner had to allow it on his premises. It simply doesn't work that way. The requirement to serve without discrimination, for example, is not even absolute as restaurants and other covered businesses still have considerable latitude, if they don't mind bad press or risking a lawsuit. The public square concept has never really been a perfect analogy to a mall, for instance, since unlike a true public square-- where the common areas belong to the public municipality-- those similar areas typically are owned by mall management.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. I know that is why I made the distinction

at a meta level your local mall is the local public square that the founders spoke about. So at that level in THEORY it should.

In practice, you own a piece of property... you can say no.

My local malls are kind of split on this by the way, and it is funny to see what is allowed where. Wally Mart mostly allows RW pamphleteers, while Ralphs allows all, but don't encourage it, and yet another mall allows all comers.

Oh and at the Open Carry Crowd... well there we enter a slightly different arena. Papers are not as dangerous as people carrying a weapon. Paper cuts and all are less dangerous than a gun... at the risk of angering the local gun crew.

[rollin74]

4. not if it's private property

and the property owner doesn't want people doing that

same thing with private residences

[and-justice-for-all]

5. That is correct..nt

[WinterParkDonkey]

6. Publix Supermarket Protests

For many years, members of the Central Florida AFL-CIO distributed fliers at Publix Supermarkets regarding organizing at Mt. Oliv Pickles. There was never a problem.

[hlthe2b]

10. Are you sure they were not off of Publix property per se

Generally when I have seen pickets, they are on the publicly owned areas (sidewalks or other commons areas in front of the entrance). That then is the jurisdiction of the municipality--who generally allow such pickets without question, unless they are blocking traffic or similar.

[Luminous Animal]

9. Some state courts have ruled that since shoppping malls have,

by design, supplanted the traditional public square, they must, as a result, offer the public a forum.

The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled thus:

"...because the mall owners "have intentionally transformed their property into a public square or market, a public gathering place, a downtown business district, a community," they cannot later deny their own implied invitation to use the space as it was clearly intended."

[hlthe2b]

12. Seems a major gray zone... Clearly mall owners can kick out

anyone they feel is being disruptive.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Read that again, becuase that is where we might be moving

one way a private owner can control it is to designate an area of traffic as a free speech zone.

And by the way I was not aware of that court decision.

[Luminous Animal]

19. It's not just New Jersey

http://www.rcfp.org/places/accesstoprivateproperty.html
"California: The California Supreme Court has held that its free speech clause protects citizens from private action as well as state action and grants issue-oriented free speech rights at a regional shopping center. "Speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned" are protected by the California Constitution, the high court ruled.

Colorado: A city's financial support of a shopping mall, including its operation of a police substation inside the mall, combined with the range of activities permitted in the mall, made it a latter-day public forum sufficient to trigger the Colorado Constitution's free-speech clause, according to the state's highest court. This clause prevented the owners of the mall from excluding citizens involved in nonviolent political speech.

Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that the state constitutional guarantee of free and equal elections gives political candidates the right to solicit signatures for a nominating petition in a shopping center's mall area.

North Dakota: The North Dakota Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that a shopping mall that was built on city property but leased to private developers constituted a public forum. The mall owners can therefore only limit expressive activity, such as a protest by an antiabortion group, if the regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. Mall owners may also make content-neutral rules regulating the time, place and manner of activities but they also must be narrowly tailored to serve a significant state interest and leave open ample channels of communication. (City of Jamestown v. Beneda)

Oregon: The Oregon Supreme Court in 1989 ruled that persons entering on mall property to gather petition signatures could not be completely prohibited from doing so. The court ruled that mall owners could bar groups from activities, such as setting up card tables on the property, that would substantially interfere with their business. The state high court did not decide the issue on constitutional grounds.

However, in 1990 the Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the state constitution's initiative and referendum clause, which allows citizens to place measures on the ballot if enough signatures are collected, allowed signature gatherers to enter shopping malls for this purpose. The appeals court based its ruling on the finding that shopping centers have become modern day town squares and access to them is necessary to preserve the people's power of initiative and referendum.

[nadinbrzezinski]

20. Then that is where we are going

and sooner or later this will reach the USSC then. With the current court I am not so sure how they will rule though.

[Luminous Animal]

21. It already has gone to the USSC.

Originally they ruled for the public but in later rulings whittled it down to leave it up to the states.

[Deep13]

22. Malls etc. take the place of what used to be the public common.

The fact that a deed for a space that's open to the public may be in the hands of a corporation (a govt. creation) and not a govt. entity does not in any real sense of the word make it "private property." I happen to think freedom of speech ought to trump corporate property rights. This whole thing is one more way that corporations are turning us from citizens to mere consumers.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. During that other lost war, we set up Draft Counseling tables inside malls.

It didn't seem to have a terrible effect on the public and may have saved some lives.

[WeDidIt]

14. I voted no

But that vote changes to yes if they are protesting on public property.

Nobody has the right to protest on private property.

[Obamanaut]

15. No. It might interfere with people who want to use their food stamps

for alcohol, soda, and/or tobacco products.

[Turbineguy]

16. In theory, yes.

in practice, no.

[HillbillyBob]

17. They have every right to TRY to hand out their crap

but I also have every right to wad it up and throw it back at them, just as I do with religious tracts that I disagree with.
It also aggravates the shit out of me to have that shit pasted on my wind shield as well. Don't put trash on my car.

[Johonny]

18. only if it also contains a coupon to stuff I like

[WVRICK13]

23. It Is Up To The Mall Owner

A strip mall near here allowed all kinds of anti-Obama people to pass out literature, yet they would not allow pro-Obama people. Are private citizens required to uphold free speech on their property? Maybe a fair court would agree but we don't have one of those.

[DailyGrind51]

24. Only if it is literature that I agree with! ;-}

[saltpoint]

25. My first choice would be that the mall itself be bulldozed and

in its place put in a large public park with arboretum, a couple of baseball diamonds, and international sculpture garden.

[Volaris]

27. lol

Whenever we happen to drive by a field that has been "zoned commercial", I bitch about it, and then my friend says "but that field can't be there like that, thats room for 3 new strip malls"
I can't stand those damn things, there is no worse symbol of the modern suburban concrete wasteland.

Large malls that sit mostly empty and unused should be converted by local communities into living space/apartments. they have all the space needed to serve as a self-sufficent community center, and wouldnt it be great to turn that anchor store into your own community rec-center/gym/city hall? Don't know if thats even feasible, but the only way to start taking back the urban blight suburban sprawl is to start thinking creativley about what corp. America has left behind for us after they have packed up and moved that walmart to the next town over, and fucked us all for the sake of a a %age. If the city of Dertoit feels that the only way to reclaim some their dying city is to bulldoze some of it and let grass grow there instead of crumbling housing that no one wants, I guess im ok with that. Those kind of solutions have to be local,and tailored to the local problems/economies.

[saltpoint]

32. Volaris, I hope you are involved with at least one grass roots org in

your neck of the woods because the emphasis you're placing on local activism sure does resonate with me.

And welcome to DU, by the way.

[SmileyRose]

26. You said political and strip in the same sentence !!!

and yes, I do say they'd get more attention if they were nekkid.......... :)

[Synicus Maximus]

28. Not if it is on private property. The property owner has the right

to determine what may be decimated on their property.

[LWolf]

29. Sure.

As long as they respect my space.

I'd like to see some rights to privacy in the bill of rights.

One of those would be the right to be left alone; not approached, spoken or shouted to, in public. People could stand there with their signs and pamphlets, and those interested could approach them.

Since we don't have a right to privacy, we can't hold them to that much restraint.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

30. Aren't strip malls, um, streets? -nt

[JerseygirlCT]

31. It's up to the owner of the mall, isn't it? nt