Overlooked: The Right To Protest At A Mall »
Posted By Dakota 1 year, 10 months ago in NewsRecently the California Supreme Court had to decide whether a mall is considered public property--and essentially a town square where protesters can gather--or private property.
Read Full Story at newsquake.netscape.com »
181 Views Share Story 15 Comments Report
Submitted By:
Dakota
A reporter for Propeller, Dakota writes the Overlooked column for the web site. If you submitted a story and feel it deserves a second look ...
Other Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 37 of 38 Comments (view all)
-
-
-
-
Neutral
saintetienne1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Instead of going to the mall and protesting about yet another whiny, malcontent issue, why don't these "protesters" utilize the mall to get a job? There are all kinds of retail, management and security jobs at a mall, many of which offer insurance benefits, 401k options and retirement packages. I worked in a mall all through high school and got valuable on-the-job training and work skills that I carried with me into my future careers.
(SIGH)
Once again, it's so much easier for these people to just collect welfare from the government instead of actually taking personal responsibility, getting off their ass and getting a job.
What in God's name are these people protesting about, anyway? Thank your lucky stars you're in the U.S. and have endless opportunities to make and re-make yourself as you wish, instead of always bellyaching about something. Honestly, I'd love to see these people try to spend ONE WEEK in Haiti or Nigeria or Myanmar...
Reply-
-
Neutral
bill-smith1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Instead of going to the mall and protesting about yet another whiny, malcontent issue, why don't these "protesters" utilize the mall to get a job?"
Again, did you bother to read the article BEFORE your original comment? Don't bother, that's a rhetorical question as any sentient being can tell that you did not.
I believe that it's a horrible court decision by a misguided court but why are you ragging on the protesters? Union members on strike are "whiny malcontents" who "just collect welfare from the government instead of actually taking personal responsibility, getting off their ass and getting a job"? Really?
As for your statements about the great jobs available at the mall with wonderful benefits, wtf? Either you worked at a very special mall or you're prevaricating.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
1-2-Oscar1 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The real danger lies not in the "free speech" issue raised by the striking workers, although I do not think they have either the moral or legal right to conduct a secondary boycott of the department store. The real issue lies in the erosion of "property rights" by the court. If this sort of "reasoning" is not overturned by the federal courts, then you could easily be deprived of the right to determine when and how your property will be used. And if you don't control those things, is it really still YOUR property?
The California Supreme Court has countenanced an unjustifiable "taking" of private property. We will rue this day.
Reply-
Neutral
walden31 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Have no fear. The case came out the way it did because the California constitution provides greater free speech protection than the US constitution. The US Supreme Court already ruled on the issue and found that there are generally no federal free speech rights in shopping malls.
In your opinion how was it a taking, the owner still has his economic interest, he can still lease it or sell it?
Reply
-
-
palamaComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
walden31 year, 10 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
To me it seems there needs to be a balancing of interestes. A mall is obviously more open than a private residence. To me it seems inconsistent that one can open their property up to all comers and then declare that it still retains all the characteristics of private property. To me that's the largest factor, the degree to which the owner has opened his property or restricted access. If the owner lets one group pamphlet then thye shouln't act surprised when another group wants to pamphlet.
Reply-
PsychoHosebeastComment removed: Spammer, Abusive8 Replies
-
More News
LA Times
A story of shock, chaos and bravery unfolds in Ft. Hood shooting
Historic healthcare overhaul passes House
Afghanistan government says foreign officials are interfering
Unemployment rate rises above 10% ; Obama signs jobless benefit extension
Jason Rodriguez : Shooting at downtown Orlando office building leaves 5 hurt, 1 dead
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.