This story is archived

Overlooked: The Right To Protest At A Mall »

Posted by: Dakota 1 year, 12 months ago

Archived 58 0 drops

Recently 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 »

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 ...

This Story is Archived and Commenting is Closed

Comments: 38

Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Dionys
Jan. 3, 2008, 5:29 p.m.
Are mall-goers on average smart enough to read protest signs?
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
DropkickaLib
Jan. 3, 2008, 5:48 p.m.
Private property. Can I walk in a department store and stage a protest? No. People with time to stage protests need to work more hours. I don't have time for that kind of disruptive behavior.
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
saintetienne
Jan. 3, 2008, 5:57 p.m.
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...
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
Will1313
Jan. 3, 2008, 6:15 p.m.
What in God's name are these people protesting about, anyway?
----------
guess with all those "valuable on-th-job training .. they didn't teach you to read the story BEFORE commenting...
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
1-2-Oscar
Jan. 3, 2008, 8:03 p.m.
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.
palamaComment has been removed: Retracted by user
Avg rating: (+0/-0 0)
walden3
Jan. 4, 2008, 8:44 a.m.
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.