Yesterday there was a protest at Mall Of America about recent police violence. The protesters were informed this was private property and told to leave. It looks like most did peacefully although about 25 didnt and were arrested for trespassing.
My question though is while yes, places like Mall of America are technically private property, the fact that they are such a major public icon and I’m guessing make use of public financing should some some of the bans against protests be waived?
No, it remains private property.
I agree with Bryan Ekers. Malls are private property.
No, it is private property. That is a line I don’t want to get crossed even if I agree with the protest.
Shall we allow protests to be held in your living room next? I mean, sure, it’s private property, but you’re hooked up to the municipal water mains and all, which means you’re making some use of public financing…
Seems a dumb place to do it: why don’t they protest outside a police station i.e. at police?
I believe they were told not to do it even before they got there.
“Public financing”…give me a break. The protesters are the recipients of a good deal of public financing generated by the consumers who want to use the mall.
Why do you say technically? There is no question whatsoever that the places are, in fact, private property.
There is absolutely no question that malls are private property and the owners have the right to control access to them, and to some large extent, how visitors behave within them.
On the other hand, malls and other quasi-public places often operate in a gray zone between public and private, tending to cherry-pick the advantages of each while rejecting the obligations of both. Tax breaks, heavy load on law enforcement, traffic management and civic resources, independent control of events and operation… mall operators are quick to claim all these perks on an image of “public benefit,” then turn and demand private-property rights when it suits them.
Disney has made something of an art form of this for its major parks, to the point of being their own sham city in Florida and taking a huge share of public monies, grants etc. for “civic improvement”… but of course demanding the highest level of “private property” protection otherwise.
So the OP is not as off-base as the dry legal interpretation would make it seem.
I agree that they are private property and should be able to control access to bar protesters if they choose. They should be able to bar access for any reason, or no reason. Do the folks who think the mall should be able to restrict access to protesters also think they should be able to discriminate based on other criteria as well?
I think you might have dropped a sentence in there - I don’t follow your logic.
There is, in any case, a difference between keeping someone out because they are “undesirable” on some arbitrary level and barring or ejecting someone because they’re causing a disruption.
For the record, I think the problem of malls goes way beyond who they let in or not.
I don’t think pointing out that it’s private property ends the discussion. Our legal code restricts your behavior on your own property all the time, in order to maintain the public good, including restricting whom you can restrict from your place of public accommodation.
I vaguely remembered some court upholding the right of protest in shopping centers. Turns out Pruneyard applies specifically to California, and apparently a couple of other states have adopted similar rules; these states have broader free speech rules than the country at large.
Given the efforts of shopping centers to replace town squares, a traditional venue for political and other important free speech, I am pretty sympathetic to protecting the rights of protesters in them. I think our society benefits from vigorous free speech far more than it benefits from increased protection of the private property of the very wealthy.
The Mall Of America is private property. They do not have to allow protesters, or protesting, on their property. The protesters should go and play in traffic.
One thing it might depend on is when historical public spaces are enclosed by property developers. In the UK new shopping malls are often built on top of existing public spaces, often retaining As at Cabot Centre I Bristol) the course of medieval streets. There had to be special legislation to extinguish these historic rights of way to keep the developers happy.
It’s private property, so no. But if something is worth protesting it’s worth getting arrested for.
Miami Beach 1972 Republican Convention, and I don’t regret doing it.
The OP posed the question whether or not privately operated malls should be allowed to restrict access to protesters. The first three responses, from Bryan, sandra, and grude said unequivocally no, it’s private property. So based on that it is fine to restrict access to protesters. I agree.
I carry this a step further and say it’s private property, it’s fine to restrict access to anyone, for any reason. I am wondering if those folks above would make the same statement.
I take it you’re suggesting that the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a bad idea?
In any case, I think it’s very possible to hold that people can be restricted based on what they do (protest, shoplift, spy for competitors, openly carry firearms, etc.) but not for who they are (Communists, African Americans, Christians, homosexuals, etc.) I think everyone agrees that at least in some circumstances behavior is an appropriate reason for discrimination. That doesn’t mean everyone agrees that identity is appropriate.
You’re still conflating two different scenarios and/or being a bit absurdist. I think that barring someone from a public-access area, even if privately owned, because they are black, or tattooed, or short, or whatever is a clear violation of civil rights statutes and could be a basis for a valid lawsuit.
Barring or removing someone because they are doing, or intend to do, something disruptive, possibly dangerous and contrary to the purpose of the facility and its normal visitors is another matter altogether, and within the rights and appropriate operation of both private and public facilities.
(Emphasis added.) Right, even public entities unquestionably subject to the 1st/14th Amendment may impose reasonable and neutral “time, place, and manner” restrictions on free speech & protest.
I’m clearly identifying different scenarios, not conflating them. I agree that in our current environment barring someone from a public access area based on protected criteria would be a violation of statute. LhoD comments similarly. From that I think the gist is that it is not sufficient that the mall is private property - there is also a content evaluation being made.
What if the protest does none of those things? It’s not disruptive, not dangerous, and not contrary to the purpose of the facility? Imagine if 90% of the patrons behaved exactly the same as they regularly do but all wore t-shirts that indicated they were protesting, or arm bands or some such passive protest. Are you okay with that group of folks having their access restricted?
I’m not sure actually. In principle I think the aspect that created protected classes was and continues to be a bad idea. In practice I think it was necessary at the time. No idea how to address that today.