Free Speech at the Mall

The California Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters inside a shopping mall when it handed out its opinion on Christmas Eve for the case of Fashion Valley Mall, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board and Graphic Communications International Union, Local 432-M (D.C. Cir.Ct.App. No. 04-1411, December 24, 2007). This case found permitted protesters to boycott one of the stores in the mall.

You may be familiar with the Pruneyard ruling from 1980 (Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center (1979) 23 Cal.3d 899, affirmed sub nomine Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980) 447 U.S. 74). Under this case, California law permits the exercise of speech and petitioning in private shopping centers, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner rules adopted by the property owner. Essentially, the Pruneyard Court found that the shopping mall had become a public forum, replacing the streets and sidewalks of the central business district which, had been used for purposes of assembly and protest.

The Pruneyard case involved students soliciting support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against Zionism. The Fashion Mall case involved a group urging shoppers to boycott one of the stores in the mall. The Fashion Mall owner had crafted a series of regulations and permitting for protests. However, they did not allow for boycotts: "Prohibits . . . 5.6.2. Urging, or encouraging in any manner, customers not to purchase the merchandise or services offered by any one or more of the stores or merchants in the shopping center."

Obviously this restriction on speech in the Fashion Mall's regulations is not content-neutral and therefore subject to a higher level of scrutiny. "The Mall’s rule prohibiting speech that advocates a boycott cannot withstand strict scrutiny. The Mall’s purpose to maximize the profits of its merchants is not compelling compared to the Union’s right to free expression." The Court concludes:

"A shopping mall is a public forum in which persons may reasonably exercise their right to free speech guaranteed by article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. Shopping malls may enact and enforce reasonable regulations of the time, place and manner of such free expression to assure that these activities do not interfere with the normal business operations of the mall, but they may not prohibit certain types of speech based upon its content, such as prohibiting speech that urges a boycott of one or more of the stores in the mall."

This ruling is limited to California, as the California Supreme Court pointed out that the California state Constitution provides broader rights than the United States Constitution. But many other states also consider their state constitution to provide broader free speech rights than the United States Constitution, so the effect of this ruling may be felt by shopping malls across the country.

UPDATED: added updated link to case.

Christmas Tree Farms and Premises Liability

As I have seen the Christmas holiday decorations starting go up already, I thought it appropriate to post about Christmas trees. The case of MacFadyen v. Maki popped up in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly in a decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

Ellen S. MacFadyen injured her elbow when she tripped over a snow-covered tree stump while selecting a Christmas tree at the Star of the East Christmas Tree Farm, owned and operated by Robert L. Maki. Mr. Maki cited M.G.L. c. 128, § 2E, as an affirmative defense to the plaintiff's claims of negligence and gross negligence.

M.G.L. c. 128, § 2E states:

No owner, operator, or employee of a farm who allows any person to enter said farm for the purpose of agricultural harvesting, including the cutting of Christmas trees under a so-called “pick-your-own” agreement shall be liable for injuries or death to persons, or damage to property, resulting from the conduct of such operation in the absence of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct on the part of said owner, operator, or employee.

Said owner or operator of said farm shall post and maintain signs which contain the warning notice specified herein. Such signs shall be placed in a location visible to persons allowed to enter said farm for the purpose of agricultural harvesting. The warning notice shall appear on a sign in black letters, with each letter to be a minimum of one inch in height and shall contain the following notice:

WARNING

Under section 2E of chapter 128 of the General Laws the owner, operator, or any employees of this farm, shall not be liable for injury or death of persons, or damage to property, resulting out of the conduct of this “pick-your-own” harvesting activity in the absence of wilful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

Unfortunately, Mr. Maki did not post a sign with that warning.

So, the Massachusetts Appeals Court held that "an owner of a tree farm must post a warning sign in accordance with G. L. c. 128, § 2E, in order to avail himself of the protection of the statute."

If you own or operate a pick-your-own Christmas tree farm, make sure you have your warning sign posted and that the warning matches that statute.

If you are going to a pick-your-own Christmas tree farm, watch where you are walking.

The Right to Exclude as a Property Right

Jerry L. Anderson (Drake University Law School) has posted Comparative Perspectives on Property Rights: The Right to Exclude on SSRN. I found it fascinating article on a comparison of the right to exclude others from your property as a very American property right that has its limitations here and is not as true world-wide.

I was familiar with the Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. It was one of the few Supreme Court Takings cases that is straight-forward in its rule and application. If the government forces you to allow someone to place something on your property, no matter how minor, this is a taking and requires compensation.

Professor Anderson compares this to Britain's Countryside and Rights of Way Act of 2000, which declares private land that contains mountain, moor, heath or down to be "open country" on which the public is free to enter. Madonna had an issue with the public entering her 1000 acre estate in South Wiltshire. It seems her American sensibility of the keeping people off your land does carry across the Atlantic when she adopted her British accent.

The one part of the article that threw me off was Professor Anderson's attempt to link American obesity to the lack of access. "Perhaps the right to exclude also plays a role, by increasing the difficulty of walking from one place to another and by placing some of the most inviting territory for a hike off limits. Would it make a difference if you could start a hike by simply hiking across the fields near your house, rather than having to drive to a park or nature preserve many miles away?"

Thanks to Ben Barros at the Property Prof Blog for pointing out this article.