Judge: Roseville Galleria visitors can talk to strangers

[The Straight Story]

Judge: Roseville Galleria visitors can talk to strangers

ROSEVILLE, CA - A state appellate court ruled Friday that an attempt by Roseville Galleria owners' Westfield LLC to ban mall patrons from conversing with strangers they didn't know is unconsitutional.

A three-judge panel in the 3rd District Court of Appeals issued a 43-page ruling, saying the rule is "unconsitutional on its face."

The rule attempted to ban mall patrons from talking with anyone they didn't know, unless they were discussing issues surrounding the Roseville Galleria.

The controversy came to light when Matthew Snatchko, a 27-year-old pastor, engaged a group of three women in a discussion on faith. When mall security stepped in and asked Snatchko to leave, he refused.

After a brief argument, Snatchko found himself in handcuffs under a citizen's arrest.

However, during arraignment, the Placer County District Attorney decided not to file charges, saying Snatchko was factually innocent.

http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=90861&catid=2

[Billy Burnett]

1. When citizens try to arrest KKKarl Rove - OH NOES!

Attempted Citizen's Arrest Of Karl Rove
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ili0jgn_JD4

[david13]

2. I like Dorothy in the Land of Oz. dc

[david13]

3. I don't like it. I can see free speech, but not commercial speech.

He wanted to talk about "faith", as in let me sell a bible or the bible to you, let me sell the jeesuz cure to you, let me sell my church to you.
That is commercial hucksterism. He should rent a booth or something and pay rent, then he can do all the business he wants at the mall. "Step right up and get yer jeezus cure all", all for the low low price of ...
Otherwise, he shouldn't bother people.
But ordinary free speech, ok.
dc

[Chemical Bill]

8. +1

[slampoet]

10. That is a huge stretch.

[slampoet]

4. Snatchko found himself in handcuffs under a citizen's arrest. WTF ?

Handcuffs

+ citizen's arrest for a law that doesn't exist but is instead a MALL RULE

= KIDNAPPING





Since when can anyone citizen's arrest someone for a fucking mall rule?

[pipi_k]

5. Hmmm...what the article doesn't say, unless I missed it, was...

whether those three young women actually told the security guard to back off because they didn't feel like they were being accosted on any level by the guy talking to them.

I dunno...on one hand, it's a stupid rule.

On the other, I know I would appreciate not being accosted by strangers trying to shove their personal beliefs on me.

Lots of gray area here...

[slampoet]

7. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky

You are either for the right of people to express opinions that you don't agree with, or you are against free speech.

[Meldread]

6. Title is a bit misleading.

The rule (which was imposed by the mall itself) stated: "The mall had a remarkable rule and regulation that said you couldn't express yourself on any controversial topic, be it religious, political et cetera, unless you were with someone you already knew," said McReynolds, a lawyer for the Pacific Justice Institute. "In effect, it was a 'don't talk to strangers rule' for adults."

That's according to the article.

I can see what the mall was doing, even if I agree with the judge that it was blatantly unconstitutional. The mall was trying to protect its patrons from harassment from, say, some religious nut who felt the need to stop people randomly and spread the "good word." I think a anti-harassment and a anti-disturbance rule would suffice, and would be perfectly constitutional. Effectively saying that you may not harass mall patrons, nor may you cause a disturbance that detracts from the atmosphere that the mall is attempting to achieve.

That allows people to talk to strangers about any subject that they'd like, so long as they aren't pestering those that aren't interested.

[slampoet]

9. Harass rules are unevenly enforcable and have chilling effects too.

In the city of Grand Rapids MI they had one of these rules that if someone complained of harassing behavior on the downtown mall.

The Effect? Complete illegalization of all street performers because no matter what music or act you did someone would complain.

What about the religious freaks with their fire and brimstone? They got to stay because police officers can point to the freedom to religiously harass someone more than the right to play a guitar for tips.

[Meldread]

11. Yes, I can see how that could happen.

Especially if the government does it. However, this isn't a government office to my understanding - this was a privately owned mall. I don't believe the government has the right to outlaw ANY form of free speech, and if the government attempted to create a law which had the purpose to restrict free speech I'd be against it. The difference is that this is a private business.

It's a bit like trying to claim that people have a constitutional right to free speech while on DU. Obviously, that is not the case. Democratic Underground, LLC. has the right to determine what is and is not acceptable speech or action while visiting this site, and frequently bans people who violate their rules. If a government (local, state, or federal), then obviously that's a different story all together.

Just like on DU, people don't have the right to free speech in a private place of business. The difficulty here, unlike with privately owned property, the mall is open to the public. Thus it serves the public and some aspects of the constitution apply. For example, the mall can't decide to exclude certain groups of people because the business decides it's a "Christian" business - and therefore won't serve LGBT people, or hispanics, or blacks, or whatever - if it is going to be open to the public, then it has to be open to everyone. The exception to this rule is if it requires a membership to visit, then it becomes a private club and they can exclude whomever they like.

The reason I agree with the judges ruling is that it is open to the general public. However, at the same time I believe there does need to be a balance. The mall has an interest in ensuring that it's patrons aren't harassed when they are there just to shop. I think the way they got their crazy rule was by trying to be "fair" - which ended up just making them look silly. I believe they had good intentions behind it, wanting to protect their patrons from harassment, but at the same time overstepped.

Thus, the only logical conclusion for them to protect their patrons from harassment is to create an anti-harassment rule. As a private place of business they aren't required to allow freedom of religion, like a government must do. It could lead to what you suggest, but I don't necessarily think that would happen unless there are many complaints. The only way I could see that happening is if the mall decided such a thing shouldn't be part of their atmosphere.