“Publicly-accessible private space” and “public space” are two legally-distinct things. In a public town square, you have first amendment rights. In a shopping mall, your speech and behavior are restricted. This is similar in that regard. Both are publicly-accessible, but one is private property and can be subject to the rules of the property owner.
This holding was possible because California’s constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution’s First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech.
So my analogy wouldn’t apply to Californian shopping malls, but it would to others, and it would apply federally.
gregorum@lemm.ee 10 months ago
“Publicly-accessible private space” and “public space” are two legally-distinct things. In a public town square, you have first amendment rights. In a shopping mall, your speech and behavior are restricted. This is similar in that regard. Both are publicly-accessible, but one is private property and can be subject to the rules of the property owner.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
To your shopping mall example, you got it wrong. …wikipedia.org/…/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Rob…
gregorum@lemm.ee 10 months ago
You should read the link you posted:
So my analogy wouldn’t apply to Californian shopping malls, but it would to others, and it would apply federally.
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 10 months ago
Well damn, I got hasty.
I still think it really should apply federally, but it doesn’t.