Well, I can certainly identify with the story below. In years past, I used
to do a lot of witnessing and pamphlet passing in public places, including
on streets and street corners, in parks, at beaches, and yes, in some malls
as well. In fact, twenty-four years ago, while passing out pamphlets in a
mall in northern Japan, I happened to give a pamphlet to a man who happened
to work at the local immigration office. This man was not too happy with me,
and as a result, I was eventually deported out of Japan, which, as some of
you will know, is a largely Buddhist and Shintoist country.

So, yes, I know all about being persecuted for our Christian faith; and that
wasn't the first time that I was persecuted for public witnessing either.

We don't know all of the details regarding the youth pastor who is mentioned
in the story below, but it sounds like he pushed these mall owners and
security guards to the limit. We need to stand up and be a bold witness of
our faith, and contend for our faith, but we also need to have the wisdom to
know when enough is enough.

The man in this story was obviously willing to pay the price, and he knew
that he was headed for trouble, because he had apparently received enough
warnings. I wonder how much personal pride is involved in this story. Having
purposely pushed the mall owners to the limit, I don't know if it is right
that he should now be taking this to court.


Man Sues California Mall After Guard Arrests Him for Having Conversation
About God

By Diane Macedo - Fox News

February 10, 2010


Imagine getting arrested for just striking up a conversation about religion
in public.

That's what happened to California resident Matthew Snatchko in 2006 when
the youth pastor initiated a conversation about God with three shoppers at
the Roseville Galleria mall.

The women gave Snatchko permission to broach the subject, but a nearby store
employee said they "looked nervous," so he ordered the evangelist to leave.
After Snatchko refused, mall security arrested him.

"He was put in handcuffs and hauled down to the mall's security station and
later booked at the local jail," said Snatchko's attorney Matthew McReynolds
of the Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization specializing
in the defense of religious freedom.

Snatchko was later released and never charged with a crime, but he and the
Justice Institute decided to challenge the constitutionality of Roseville
Galleria's restrictions on conversations about topics such as religion and
politics.

"He wanted to make sure that neither he nor anybody else got harassed again
at this mall or the 55 other malls this company owns throughout the United
States," said McReynolds.

In 2008, a California superior court ruled that the mall's ban on
controversial conversations with strangers didn't violate freedom of speech.

But late last month Snatchko and the Justice Institute appealed to the
state's 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento. All parties in the case are
now waiting for the court to schedule a date for oral arguments or issue a
ruling.

Katie Dickey, spokeswoman for the Westfield Corporation, which owns the
mall, would not comment on the case but issued a company statement saying
that "everyone -- regardless of race, color, creed, gender or religious
belief -- is welcome at our shopping centers."

Court documents claim that Westfield's policy simply limits activities that
have a "political, religious or other noncommercial purpose" to designated
areas within the mall, in order to "minimize congestion." Speakers must
submit a written application at least four days in advance. Access to the
designated areas is then awarded on a "first come, first selected" basis.

Westfield argues in the court documents that mall security guards warned
Snatchko on a number of occasions that he was violating the mall's Courtesy
Guidelines by discussing religion with strangers. During one of his visits,
guards even gave him a copy of the guidelines, but Snatchko continued
striking up the same conversations without applying for a permit or sticking
to the designated areas.

"By roaming the mall and randomly approaching other mall visitors, plaintiff
effectively circumvents any attempt by Westfield to reasonably regulate his
expressive activities in the mall's common areas," the court document reads.

McReynolds confirmed Snatchko had been given the Courtesy Guidelines prior
to his arrest but said the pastor "believed he was complying with them, and
that they were being misinterpreted by the security guards who accused him
of 'soliticing,' even though he was not selling anything."

McReynolds added that the mall has no right to regulate the kind of speech
Snatchko was initiating.

"He's never pushy, he doesn't haul out the megaphone or large placards or
anything like that -- he just asks people if they mind talking to him about
issues of faith," Snatchko said.

But California-based constitutional attorney Bo Links says the mall's
restrictions are appropriate and fall within state guidelines.

"Their rules appear to be content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner
restrictions which are allowed," Links told FoxNews.com. "The
fellow who was
arrested clearly has free speech rights, and those rights apply to a
shopping mall, but they're subject to reasonable regulation such as what the
shopping mall seems to have had in place."

"It's obviously a sensitive issue," he added, "but the
shopping mall has a
right to protect the people who are leasing stores and make sure there's
order in the marketplace and there was a way for this fellow to proselytize
if he wanted to proselytize, he just didn't want to do it the way the mall
set it up."

But constitutional attorney John Eastman says that "to require a permit to
even speak about your religious faith to anybody in the mall starts looking
like it's unreasonable and might well be unconstitutional."

Eastman, a professor at California's Chapman University School of Law, says
because Snatchko was seemingly engaged in a private conversation and not a
public address, his speech would not have violated mall rules were it not
for its content.

"There's a decent argument that if the mall is not consistently applying
this to all kinds of speech but is targeting religious speech or political
speech then it is a content-based restriction ... and a content-based
restriction like that would be unconstitutional," he told FoxNews.com.

McReynolds calls the incident a "national issue," especially because
Westfield owns malls all over the country, but he says California is the
best place to tackle it.

"Out here in California, because of the way our state constitution words its
own free-speech clause, it's been extended beyond the realm of just
government property to large public venues like shopping malls."

Eastman warns that even if Snatchko wins his case, people outside of the
state of California could find themselves in the same predicament.

"In other states, unless they've take the step in interpreting their own
constitution that California took ... those malls are going to be treated as
private property where they'll have more control over the people who enter
onto their property and a greater ability to set rules like these."

McReynolds said the ban is a "don't talk to strangers" rule for
adults. "We
think that's beyond the pale of what the constitution allows and what free
speech allows in this country and certainly in the state of California."



Jeff Snyder, SysOp - Armageddon BBS  Visit us at endtimeprophecy.org port 23
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your Download Center 4 Mac BBS Software & Christian Files.  We Use Hermes II


--- Hermes Web Tosser 1.1