I don’t know their ideology. @Spice_Weasel but from what I see they do it for content. Money, money, money. That’s the motivation. Always.
I remember a very similar case from when I was in college, in Wisconsin, in the 1980s.
UW-Madison has historically been a very liberal campus (and Madison a very liberal city, in general), and there were always activists/protesters doing one thing or another on and around campus. One group, which particularly focused their messaging on being anti-nuclear war, would incorporate performative dance routines and short plays into their protests.
That group then tried to do the same thing at a shopping mall in Madison. When mall security told them to stop, the protesters refused, which led to them being arrested. They filed suit against the mall, making essentially the same claim as in the case you cite: that a shopping mall, despite being private property, was effectively a public forum, and their First Amendment rights were being infringed when they were forced to stop. The Wisconsin court, as I remember it, found that the bar to define a “public forum” on private property was high, and that a shopping mall did not qualify.
Edit: I found a photo of that group, doing their thing at the mall in question, in 1984:
And this, from the Wikipedia entry on the mall:
The videos I’ve seen involve an “independent journalist” (which is the First Amendment nexus) filming in some public setting, often a government building where some public business is conducted. The “auditor” part is that they’re testing their ability to exercise their right to film. It inevitably (by design, ISTM) leads to confrontation.
The “auditors” are generally in the right (in the vids I’ve seen), but they are clearly provocateurs looking to make people nervous and defensive. Why a TJ’s parking lot was selected, not sure.
It leads to clicks and views.
This was really interesting. Thanks for sharing!
The full text is Jacobs v. Major, 407 NW 2d 832 - Wis: Supreme Court 1987
The Wisconsin Supreme Court did look at the California Pruneyard decision (and many other similar attempts across different states) and very strongly disagreed with the California interpretation:
We do not accept the proposition that a negative restraint on government creates a positive right assertable against all other persons. The historical intention of state constitutions, including Wisconsin’s, was a reaction to the dire experience with England to recognize rights of the people and protect them from governmental interference. Governments were not to be trusted, but rather were controlled by Declarations of Rights from any interference with those rights. This does not mean that these rights needed protection from interference by other persons. To turn what was prohibition of governmental acts into positive rights against other private persons is not logical nor historically established. In fact, it would be contrary to history. Courts would be ill-advised to rewrite history and plain, clear constitutional language to create some new rights contrary to history. To do this courts would become mini-constitutional conventions in individual court cases whenever a new theory or philosophy became appealing. To say that whenever a balancing must be done between free speech and private interests that free speech must prevail is to give vent to one’s own choices and to rewrite history and the constitution in personal terms. That is not the right nor privilege of courts or judges.
[…]
The defendants [the dancers] argue there are inherent rights coming from God or nature which existed, therefore, prior to the very idea of a Wisconsin Declaration of Rights or a Wisconsin state government. They argue that in a governmentless society, such as Wisconsin was during the earliest days of colonial exploration, persons still possessed meaningful rights by virtue of the laws of God and nature. Defendants then come to the conclusion that if such rights have any meaning, they must apply as against one’s fellow human beings. This they say is true since a right which, because it is inherent, exists prior to the institution of any government, cannot shrink or disappear when a government is established, but retains its full moral vigor and validity in nongovernmental as well as governmental contexts. Thus, the argument goes that though Wisconsin adopted a constitution, the inherent rights, free speech being one, exist as between private persons. Carrying this to its logical conclusion produces the absurd result that the right can be exercised on any property including private property.
They also thought it ridiculous that a mall would be held to be a public forum in a town so full of many other public forums:
The argument is made that this is a case where the malls have replaced the downtown small town square for purposes of public demonstration. There cannot be any serious claim that the Madison community in which the Capital and state government are located, as well as the largest part of the state university system, does not provide public areas for free expression. Nor is this a case of the company town with a resemblance to governmental organization and control over the functions in society.
The protestors had enough other venues to dance in, I guess.
So I guess if you’re going to annoy passers-by, best to do it only in large malls in California?
And they did, very regularly, at various locations on campus. I always assumed that they chose to try to do their protests at the mall for visibility, among people who wouldn’t normally be on campus, as well as for media coverage, especially if they got arrested.
I was reading about these “auditors” on Wikipedia, and apparently their numbers are growing. And here’s probably the reason why (quoting from Wikipedia) :
“Critics have also noted that many auditors profit from the videos they publish on YouTube and other platforms. According to a report by The Daily Beast, the growing popularity of online auditing videos has led to “ruthless competition” among auditors, which has incentivized more dramatic, confrontational, and abusive videos.”
Speaking of legality, is it legal to shout over and over again “This is a staged situation! They are doing this for public response!”, interrupting their routine?
Why wouldn’t it be? (In all seriousness.)
How about “Hey, another graduate of the Fred Phelps Video School!”?
Sure. You could even make your own YouTube channel documenting it. You’d both get more views if it escalated into a fistfight or gunfight. Seems like a win-win to me 
Or, you know, just finish your shopping and go home. No need to feed the trolls.
Wonder what they would do if you whipped out a camera and started filming them filming onesellf.
I think that breaks the “K.I.S.S.” rule.
Because if you ignore it, it goes away, right? All this stuff you brought up that I never mentioned would indeed be something to talk about…if someone actually proposed them. They are already trying to do something rather malicious, and I merely thought of a way to disrupt them.
Adio disruption is easier.
In this case, yes. They only do it to get a rise out of people and get the views. If people ignored them as the boring idiots they are, they’d get no views. If you engage in any way you only feed their agenda.
Just walk away. “Not interested. Have a nice day, bye.”
Edit: If you really want to do something about it, find the mall management and file a formal complaint with them about this interrupting your shopping experience. Get them trespassed, don’t engage them yourself.
They are NOT being ignored-they are getting hits and they are getting attention. I don’t want to “engage” them (what a deceptively disarming little word that implies that a public discord is happening). I want to interrupt the engagement they wish to have with followers. I want them to think of some other way to get their followers.
In other words, that ointment isn’t so soothing when you stick flies in it.
You have any examples of that working that you would like to share with us?
I doubt it’s going to work, but feel free to try if you must? Just be safe. Fighting with idiots rarely turns out well.
Ignoring the idiots as they disrupt things never turns out well…but it sure as fuck is easy, ain’t it?
Of course. Movie theater disruptors, bar bouncers, public events I was hosting at where there were hecklers, etc. Even in that Trader Joe’s case above, it was the corporate people who removed them, not some random passerby. As another random person on the street you have no legal power over the people being annoying idiots but the business (TJs or the mall operator) could easily 86 them.