Rating is available when the video has been rented.
This feature is not available right now. Please try again later.
Published on Sep 26, 2008
This is part 5/5, the final segment of the 5 part series that stemmed from this incident. This segment begins with me asking the cops about the California Supreme Court ruling regarding free speech in shopping malls. Info:
In Fashion Valley Mall v. NLRB, the California Supreme Court (4-3) reaffirmed its earlier Pruneyard rule. As described by BNA's Daily Labor Report (subscription required):
[The Court, in an opinion written by Justice Moreno,] said that the state constitution provides that any person may "speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects," and that "[a] law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press." In Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899 (Cal. 1979), Moreno said, California's high court held that the state constitution provided broader protection for free expression than the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and that the state constitution protected speech and petitioning in shopping centers even when they were privately owned. . . .
..."A shopping mall is a public forum in which persons may reasonably exercise their right to free speech guaranteed by article I, section 2 of the California Constitution," Moreno wrote. "Shopping malls may enact and enforce reasonable regulations of the time, place and manner of such free expression to assure that these activities do not interfere with the normal business operations of the mall, but they may not prohibit certain types of speech based upon its content, such as prohibiting speech that urges a boycott of one or more of the stores in the mall," he added. ------ Also: Court allows free speech on private-property malls http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/me...