From: Gary Wiltshire 

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003 17:55:01 -0600, Bill Lucy  wrote:

>Out of darkness, Gary Wiltshire says...
>> Wrong.  Exactly the opposite in the courts.
>
>Wow. Made me look.
>
>It appears that both you and Bob are incorrect. A number of state courts have
ruled
>that 1st and 14th Amendment related activity is allowed as long as it doesn't
>violate certain commerce and taking activities.
>
>But the final word is from the Supreme Court in 1980. The case is Pruneyard
>Shopping Center v. Robins (447 US 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741). The
bottom
>line? If there is public space immediately adjacent (public sidewalks for
instance)
>then the mall operator *may* have a right to ask the offender to leave. The
reason
>I say "may" is that the action should be one covered
explicitly by the rules
of the
>mall itself.
>
>Even if it isn't covered, the mall may have the right to expel the offender.
>
clear as mud?>

It was clear as mud,
but it covered de ground,
and de confusion make de brain go round.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4