[Peace-discuss] Freedom of speech in CA (not in IL)

[John W.]

This was rejected by the peace-discuss list for some reason:

This is an automatically generated Delivery Status Notification

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

      peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net

Technical details of permanent failure:
PERM_FAILURE: SMTP Error (state 13): 554 Service unavailable; Client host 
[64.233.166.181] blocked using multihop.dsbl.org; 
http://dsbl.org/listing?64.233.166.181



>Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2007 05:17:14 -0600
>To: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>From: "John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Freedom of speech in CA (not in IL)
>Cc: Peace Discuss <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>
>At 08:04 PM 12/28/2007, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>
>>The moral right to free speech (among other rights) is broader than that 
>>allowed for in existing law.  That's what the authors of the Bill of 
>>Rights decided when they insisted that rights there enumerated be added 
>>before ratifying the 1787 constitution.  We obviously should be working 
>>to expand those rights, not limiting in the interests of the rich. --CGE
>
>As usual I was speaking in more pragmatic terms, Carl, while you are given 
>to eternal idealism.
>
>It always amuses me how those who are not in power want to base their 
>policy arguments on moral grounds, which to them are eminently sound and 
>utterly beyond criticism of any sort, but which to others are of dubious 
>validity and perhaps even quite mad.
>
>The policy decisions made by those who are actually in power are almost 
>never made on the basis of serious moral considerations, though they may 
>be cloaked in the rhetoric of morality for purposes of rationalization or 
>palatability to the masses.
>
>But you'll have to excuse me, Carl, for I am currently in the process of 
>being schooled by Naomi Klein in her book "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of 
>Disaster Capitalism".  It is one of those books of which it can be said 
>that, having read it, one can never look at the world in quite the same 
>way again.  For Milton Friedman and his "Chicago Boys" at the U. of 
>Chicago's Dept, of Economics, private property and "free-market" 
>capitalism was and still is the very epitome of morality, and the 
>heavy-handed brutality required to implement it is quite beside the point, 
>hardly worthy of mention or notice.
>
>Ah, but I am venturing rather far afield.  Suppose that you, Carl, for all 
>your moral purity, somehow came into possession of a very well-patronized 
>and lucrative Outback Restaurant.  Would you encourage me, in the 
>interests of the free speech which you hold so dear, to come into your 
>restaurant for the purpose of proselytizing your patrons on the virtues of 
>fundamentalist Christianity or of veganism?  Would you approve of a 
>Supreme Court decision that required you to do so?
>
>John again
>
>
>
>>John W. wrote:
>>
>>>At 11:14 AM 12/28/2007, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>
>>>>[Local liberals are aghast at our suggestion that places like Lincoln 
>>>>Square are "the modern equivalent of a town square or community meeting 
>>>>place," but the California Supreme Court has grasped this obvious 
>>>>point.   (And I do love the objection that protesters were attacking 
>>>>the shopping center's "right to exist"; I wonder if that argument will 
>>>>be used elsewhere?) Happy new year.  --CGE]
>>>
>>>Did you not note, Carl, that "courts in nearly all other states that 
>>>have considered the same issue have disagreed with the California 
>>>ruling"?  I'm sure the argument has BEEN used elsewhere, with success.
>>>And all it would take in California would be the replacement of one 
>>>"liberal" justice with a more conservative one.
>>>
>>>And did you not note, Carl, that "the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 
>>>1976 that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free 
>>>speech only against restrictions imposed by the government and not by 
>>>private property owners"?   It's apparently only because the California 
>>>Constitution grants more rights than the U.S. Constitution that the 
>>>California Supreme Court was able to rule this way.
>>>
>>>John Wason
>>>
>>>
>>>>         California's top court curbs malls seeking to limit boycotts
>>>>         Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer
>>>>         Tuesday, December 25, 2007
>>>>
>>>>SAN FRANCISCO -- Labor unions and political protesters are protected by 
>>>>freedom of speech when they leaflet shoppers at malls in California and 
>>>>urge them to boycott stores, a sharply divided state Supreme Court 
>>>>ruled Monday.
>>>>
>>>>The 4-3 decision was based on the court's landmark 1979 ruling that 
>>>>allowed political speech and activity at large shopping centers. In 
>>>>that ruling, which involved signature-gathering on political petitions 
>>>>at the PruneYard Shopping Center in Campbell, the court said a shopping 
>>>>mall was the modern equivalent of a town square or community meeting 
>>>>place, where people come to exchange ideas as well as spend money.
>>>>
>>>>The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1976 that the First Amendment to 
>>>>the U.S. Constitution protects free speech only against restrictions 
>>>>imposed by the government and not by private property owners. But the 
>>>>1979 ruling, based on independent rights under the California 
>>>>Constitution, remains the law in the state.
>>>>
>>>>In Monday's case, lawyers for a San Diego shopping center argued that 
>>>>it had the right to protect its tenants' economic interests by 
>>>>prohibiting handbills that advocate boycotts of any of its stores. 
>>>>Attorneys for Fashion Valley Mall, a complex of more than 200 upscale 
>>>>retailers, said the freedom of speech recognized by the court in 1979 
>>>>didn't cover statements that attack a shopping center's purpose for existing.
>>>>
>>>>But a majority of the court said its rulings even before 1979 required 
>>>>shopping centers to allow peaceful picketing on the premises, even 
>>>>though it might interfere with profits. As long as the protesters don't 
>>>>disrupt a business or physically interfere with shoppers, the court 
>>>>said, the right of free speech outweighs the mall's right to protect 
>>>>its tenants' profits.
>>>>
>>>>"Urging customers to boycott a store lies at the core of the right to 
>>>>free speech," said Justice Carlos Moreno in the majority opinion. He 
>>>>said the mall's rules were not aimed at preventing disruption but 
>>>>simply prohibited certain speech based on its content.
>>>>
>>>>The dissenters, led by Justice Ming Chin, said the court should not 
>>>>only uphold the shopping center's ban on consumer boycotts but also 
>>>>overturn its 1979 ruling allowing peaceful political activity at 
>>>>shopping malls.
>>>>
>>>>"Private property should be treated as private property, not as a 
>>>>public free speech zone," said Chin, joined by Justices Marvin Baxter 
>>>>and Carol Corrigan. He noted that courts in nearly all other states 
>>>>that have considered the same issue have disagreed with the California ruling.
>>>>
>>>>At the very least, Chin said, the court should allow owners of a mall 
>>>>to forbid advocacy of a store boycott, which "contradicts the very 
>>>>purpose of a shopping center's existence."
>>>>
>>>>The case arose when members of a Teamsters Union affiliate that was 
>>>>involved in a labor dispute with the San Diego Union-Tribune handed out 
>>>>leaflets in October 1998 outside the Robinsons-May department store at 
>>>>the Fashion Valley Mall. The leaflets asked shoppers to call the 
>>>>newspaper's chief executive, noting that the store advertised in the 
>>>>Union-Tribune.
>>>>
>>>>The leafleters were expelled by the shopping center manager because 
>>>>they hadn't filled out a permit application promising to abide by the 
>>>>mall's rules, including a ban on advocating boycotts. Lawyers in the 
>>>>case said most regional shopping centers in California have similar 
>>>>rules, which will have to be changed because of Monday's ruling.
>>>>
>>>>The ruling doesn't directly affect other restrictions on protests at 
>>>>shopping centers, including rules enforced at many malls that limit or 
>>>>ban picketing and leafleting during the holiday season, and restrict 
>>>>the location of protesters at other times. But David Rosenfeld, a 
>>>>lawyer for the union in Monday's case, said he would argue that courts 
>>>>should take a closer look at such restrictions in light of the decision.
>>>>
>>>>W.W. Lines, a lawyer for the San Diego shopping center, said limits on 
>>>>the time and place of political activity at malls have been upheld by 
>>>>other courts and shouldn't be affected by Monday's ruling. "I think 
>>>>businesses can live with this," he said.
>>>>
>>>>The case is Fashion Valley Mall vs. National Labor Relations Board, 
>>>>S144753. The ruling is available at links.sfgate.com/ZBXC.
>>>>
>>>>E-mail Bob Egelko at begelko at sfchronicle.com.
>>>>
>>>>http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/25/BA59U45LU.DTL
>>>>
>>>>This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle