Fellow Burma Activists,
I'd like to make sure that everyone knows they have a U.S. Constitutional
right to leaflet INSIDE a shopping center, if they please, because shopping
centers offer public access. The Court decision is called the PruneYard
case (see below), but security guards and store managers often don't know
the law; and sometimes, the police will knowingly violate your rights just
to appease the store owner. So activists must be on their toes and know the
law!
For instance, LA Burma activists today leafletted in the parking structure
entrance of a Sport Chalet. When we first started leafletting, the mall
security guards approached us and said it was private property and we must
get permission from the owners to leaflet there. So essentially, he was
telling us we had to leave. I told him we had a right to leaflet there, and
he should contact the LAPD to clarify the situation. So the cops came and
they were actually pretty nice- they also knew the law. We were lucky that
we got cool cops though, they can be pretty bad sometimes. So if you get a
bad cop, flash the PruneYard case to him and tell him that you have a right
to leaflet there. If he refuses, then get his name and badge number and
complain.
No. 79-289
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
447 U.S. 74; 100 S. Ct. 2035; 1980 U.S. LEXIS
March 18, 1980, Argued
Appellees are high school students who sought to solicit support for their
opposition to a United Nations resolution against "Zionism." On a Saturday
afternoon they set up a card table in a corner of PruneYard's central
courtyard. THEY DISTRIBUTED PAMPHLETS and asked passersby to sign
petitions, which were to be sent to the President and Members of Congress.
Their activity was peaceful and orderly and so far as the record indicates
was not objected to by PruneYard's patrons.
Soon after appellees had begun soliciting signatures, a security guard
informed them that they would have to leave because their activity violated
PruneYard regulations. The guard suggested that they move to the public
sidewalk at the Prune Yard's perimeter. Appellees immediately left the
premises and later filed this lawsuit in the California Superior Court of
Santa Clara County. They sought to enjoin appellants from denying them access.
THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT [HELD] THAT THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
PROTECTS "SPEECH AND PETITIONING, REASONABLY EXERCISED, IN SHOPPING CENTERS
EVEN WHEN THE CENTERS ARE PRIVATELY OWNED." 23 Cal. 3d 899,910,592 P. 2d
341,347 (1979). IT CONCLUDED THAT APPELLEES WERE ENTITLED TO CONDUCT THEIR
ACTIVITY ON PRUNEYARD PROPERTY.
Here the requirement that appellants permit appellees to exercise
state-protected rights of free expression and petition on shopping center
property clearly does not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of
appellants' property rights under the Taking Clause. There is nothing to
suggest that preventing appellants from prohibition this sort of activity
will unreasonably impair the value or use of their property as a shopping
center. The PruneYard is a large commercial complex that covers several
city blocks, contains numerous separate business establishments, and is open
to the public at large. THE DECISION OF THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT MAKES
IT CLEAR THAT THE PRUNEYARD MAY RESTRICT EXPRESSIVE ACTIVITY BY ADOPTING
TIME, PLACE, AND MANNER REGULATIONS THAT WILL MINIMIZE ANY INTERFERENCE WITH
ITS COMMERCIAL FUNCTIONS. APPELLEES WERE ORDERLY, AND THEY LIMITED THEIR
ACTIVITY TO THE COMMON AREAS OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. In these
circumstances, the fact that they may have "physically invaded" appellants'
property cannot be viewed as determinative.
There is also little merit to appellants' argument that they have been
denied their property without due process of law. In Nebbia v. New York,
291 U.S. 502 (1934), this Court stated:
"[NEITHER] PROPERTY RIGHTS NOR CONTRACT RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE.... EQUALLY
FUNDAMENTAL WITH THE PRIVATE RIGHT IS THAT OF THE PUBLIC TO REGULATE IT IN
THE COMMON INTEREST....
The shopping center by choice of its owner is not limited to the personal
use of appellants. It is instead a business establishment that is open to
the public to come and go as they please. The views expressed by members of
the public IN PASSING OUT PAMPHLETS or seeking signatures for a petition
thus will not likely be identified with those of the owner. Second, no
specific message is dictated by the State to be displayed on appellants'
property. There consequently is no danger of governmental discrimination
for or against a particular message. Finally, as far as appears here
appellants can expressly disavow any connection with the message by simply
posting signs in the area where the speakers or HANDBILLERS stand. Such
signs, for example, could disclaim any sponsorship of the message and could
explain that the persons are communicating their own messages by virtue of
state law.
We conclude that neither appellants' federally recognized property rights
nor their First Amendment rights have been infringed by the California
Supreme Court's decision recognizing a right of appellees to exercise
state-protected rights of expression and petition on appellants' property.
The judgement of the Supreme Court of California is therefore Affirmed.
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER ET AL. v. ROBINS ET AL.
129; 64 L. Ed.2d 741
June 9, 1980, Decided
OPINION: MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court:
Appellant PruneYard is a privately owned shopping center in the city of
Campbell, Cal. It covers approximately 21 acres -- 5 devoted to parking and
16 occupied by walkways, plazas, sidewalks, and buildings that contain more
than 65 specialty shops, 10 restaurants, and a movie theater. The PruneYard
is open to the public for the purpose of encouraging the patronizing of its
commercial establishments. It has a policy not to permit any visitor or
tenant to engage in any publicly expressive activity, including the
circulation of petitions, that is not directly related to its commercial
purposes. This policy has been strictly enforced in a nondiscriminatory
fashion. The PruneYard is owned by appellant Fred Sahadi.
Last modified: 12 April 1996
http://www.actionpa.org/activism/mallflyrs.html