Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!burdvax!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Types of Property
Message-ID: <2022@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 15-Mar-86 03:03:35 EST
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.2022
Posted: Sat Mar 15 03:03:35 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Mar-86 22:21:54 EST
References: <1691@bbncca.ARPA> <536@whuts.UUCP> <1636@ihlpg.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 66

> In article <1589@brl-smoke.ARPA> wmartin@brl-smoke.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
> >There are pretty obviously a number of types of property; I will list
> >some below, as they come to me ..........
> >
> >Public property: The traditional city street and sidewalks. ........
> >
> >Fully-public business property: The prime example is the mall, where all
> >this discussion originated. This is NOT the individual store or shop in
> >the mall, which falls under the preceeding category, but the area
> >outside the stores, to which access is granted the general public, in
> >the hope that they will in turn enter the stores to spend money. Note
> >that there is no requirement or contract to the effect that, once you
> >enter the mall, you *must* subsequently enter a mall shop to buy ......
> >
> >In the light of the above, I would equate "public property" with the
> >"fully-public business property", in that legitimate free-speech
> >political actions should be allowed in both...............
> 
> Unless you propose using tax money to pay for the support and maintenance
> of the mall (rather than charging the stores rent), the stores and
> the mall management (acting on behalf of the owner) are the only ones
> who have a legitimate "right" to determine what can and cannot be done
> in the mall.  In fact, when malls became a gathering place for teen-age
> gangs, the police were called in to eject them, even though they were
> not patronizing the store.
> 
> If Tim really wants to distribute leaflets on the mall, he can approach
> a few of the merchants, ..............................
> ask the merchant to bring it up at the next "tenants meeting".
> Charities and non-profit organizations frequently do this, and are
> given permission to leaflet for a specific period of time.  For example:
> Easter Seals can .....................................
> 
> The main concern of mall management is control of any activity which
> might be percieved by the tenants as driving customers away......

I fully agree that there are differences between types of property.
It is not much questioned that if you run a bissness on a property,
than you cannot limit access to it in an arbitrary way.  For example,
it is not legal to refuse leasing an appartment solely because the
applicant is black.  Access to a store cannot be limited in this fashion
as well.  

What is being proposed here is censorship by mall management (whatever the
form of this management is).  If driving customers away is a legitimate
concern, then simple rule concerning the behavior of leaflet distributors
would suffice.  I already ask why airports or downtown shopping alleys
can put up with them.  

Imagine that Tim is not a peacenik but a Trotskyist who wants to 
distribute his leaflets.  Do you think that many merchants would 
find it a cute idea to let him do it in the week around anniversary
of Trotsky's death?  Scary for shoppers?  Indeed, but why shoppers
in Cambridge Central Square do not avoid the stores?  If anything
makes peoples to go to a mall instead, it is prices, selection
and availability of parking.

The ancient democracies had to have the meeting places for the people,
be it Greek agora or Roman forum.  It seems that suburban communities
suffer a kind of agorafobia: a fear against a place where the most
of the public can meet freely.  Res publica, common wealth, turns into
a constellation of carefully insulated communities.  In this circumstances
I agree more with the decision of NJ courts, which view malls as
equivalent to public places than NY courts, which do not.  

Piotr Berman