Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!cmcl2!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Types of Property
Message-ID: <1191@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 8-Mar-86 00:25:51 EST
Article-I.D.: mmintl.1191
Posted: Sat Mar  8 00:25:51 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Mar-86 19:25:19 EST
References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 19



This whole discussion is getting rather ridiculous.  The critical factor
which makes a mall a public place is that anybody is let in, and allowed to
remain, whether they have any business there or not.  (This is, in general,
only true during the hours they are open; the right of the mall owners to
close the place at night is unassailable.)  This is quite different from a
home, where the public may not enter, or a church, which is likely to let
anyone enter, but is likely to require that they participate in the service.
The right to free speech in a public place, so long as it doesn't interfere
with the owner's intended uses, is quite properly guaranteed by the courts
on the basis of the first amendment.  (The interference clause would rule
out blocking access, or setting up a loudspeaker system which interferes
with the ability of those in the stores to conduct business.)

Mr. Sevener is thus quite right to be outraged about having been denied
access to a mall for leafletting.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108