Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!uunet!decwrl!world!eff!mnemonic
From: mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin)
Newsgroups: comp.org.eff.talk
Subject: Re: Public forums
Message-ID: <1990Dec21.175518.21538@eff.org>
Date: 21 Dec 90 17:55:18 GMT
References: <2012@beguine.UUCP>
Organization: The Electronic Frontier Foundation
Lines: 28

In article <2012@beguine.UUCP> Robert.Berry@samba (Robert Berry) writes:
>Mike, maybe I'm misreading the case, but my understanding of Pruneyard
>is that it is grounded in the California constitution, not the federal
>constitution.  I don't have the complete text of the case at my disposal,
>so I may well be wrong.  At any rate, that's why I didn't interpret it
>as overturning Lloyd.

Your understanding is almost correct. Pruneyard *is* based on the California
constitution, but the interests in involved (e.g., property rights) also
implicated federal constitutional issues. That is why the case was
heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, which otherwise would have no jurisdiction
to hear claims based on the California constitution.

Mike Bob says check it out.



--Mike





-- 
Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed
mnemonic@eff.org            | every thing would appear to man as it is,
Electronic Frontier         | infinite."
Foundation                  |                 --Blake