From: "Robert G Lewis" 

Not entirely incorrect. Various federal courts have upheld the private
property rights. Several States have added laws explicitly allowing free
speech activities. Also if there is a govermental office there then the
mall's right to expel someone is drasticly decreased.

Interesting article here
http://www.freedomforum.org/packages/first/freeexpression/

Bob Lewis ( I Looked it up the first day )

Most of the
"Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
news:MPG.18d6e1cd57d8948f98b383{at}news.barkto.com...
> 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.
>
> 
>

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