Dear Everyone;
Just a little clarification on the news item about leafletting
activities at shopping malls.
The case revolved around a teamsters union going to a shopping mall
and asking mall patrons to not shop at a store which advertised in
the newspaper the union was having a beef with and to call the
newspaper executive. The mall said adios teamsters and vamanos!
Malls still have the right which was not changed by the decision to
ban or limit protesting during holidays and restrict the location of
the activities and also require no disrupting of the business or to
physically interfere with store shoppers.
Starchild and Terry Graham - those malls which did not and do not
receive public subsidies and thus are not rent-seekers and built the
facility with private funds the property is private property and
private property owners have the right to restrict access to their
private property even when it is a shopping mall open to the public.
Malls do this by rightfully restricting access to SHOPPERS. If you
come to the mall for activites other than SHOPPING you are trepassing
and guilty of conspiracy to trepass with aforethought.
Once again this is an egregious case of the Government in the guise
of the State Superior Court being the worst enemy of private property
and private property ownersship.
I put this case in the same light as those idiot supervisors who
passed a law forbidding downtown hotels from turning some of their
rooms into luxury condos because there would be less hotel taxes
against the property taxes on the condos but of course no study was
down about this just claims and against their being less jobs for
SEIU workers at the hotels leaving out the cleaning services which
would call for hotel workers for the condo residents.
The hotels are private property not City property!
Where do you draw the line as it were of the camels nose coming into
the tent when it comes to private property rights and the rights of
private property owners?
There can be no compromise about the rights of private property
owners just because you can leaflet for Ron Paul.
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
Good news! California shopping malls will no longer be able
to
prohibit peaceful political activity on the premises (see message
below). This may not be strict libertarian orthodoxy, but I think
the
freedom movement has a strong pragmatic interest in making sure
that
when it comes to exercising basic rights, people who want to
exercise
those rights are given a great deal of leeway.
On a moral level, it can be argued that rent-seekers who
receive
large public subsidies of their facilities should not be able to
deny
members of the public the ability to exercise their basic rights
in
these facilities. Shopping malls are the kind of large-scale
developments that often benefit from government handouts of this
type
(see http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-
dougkaplan25apr25,0,3373590.story ).
New Jersey's Supreme Court apparently made a similar ruling
in 1994
(see http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?
res=9F05E7DB1038F932A15751C1A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all ).
Not sure about the status of other states.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
> From: Terry Graham <teegra22@...>
> Date: December 26, 2007 10:45:21 AM PST
> To: ronpaul-568-announce@...
> Subject: [ronpaul-568] ALERT: Malls now OK for Pamphleteers
> Reply-To: ronpaul-568@...
>
> WE CAN NOW PASS OUT INFO ON RON PAUL AT SHOPPING MALLS ON
PRIVATE
> PROPERTY!
>
> Today's (12-26-07) SF Chronicle editorial "Where Only The Speech
is
> Free", announces a HIGHLY significant CA Supreme Court ruling
last
> Monday which allows peaceful political activity to take place on
> private land Shopping Centers/Malls. THIS MEANS RON PAUL
ACTIVIST
> MAY PASS OUT LITERATURE at malls like Northgate, The Village,
Town
> Center, Stonestown, etc, throughout California just as we would
> public squares, post offices, etc. as we promote Ron Paul to
voters.
>
> The Supremes decision was 4-3. "The justices were divided over
> whether private property rights should trupmpthe opportunity for
> peaceful political activities. The judges got it right: Until
[the
> malls] start requiring invitations or tickets at the
door,shopping
> malls fit the definition of a public place. Customers who
consider