I’m not much okay with the idea of malls, period. But that’s another argument.
I don’t think nor agree with what seems to be your contention that “protesters” have some inherent right to “protest” wherever they wish. The owners of private property, even quasi-public such, have a right to control the activities within that property, and a “protest” is inherently disruptive by nature, even if it consists of people standing silently while wearing t-shirts. A mall is for shopping; if they aren’t there shopping, they are being obstructive, distracting and probably disruptive.
The general notion of free speech and assembly does not mean the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (or the Stones) can set up in my living room.
If the mall owners, or the store owners, believe that your protest group is going to damage property, steal stuff, disrupt walkways and store entrances, or drive away paying customers, there going to issue two orders to your group. 1) Get out. 2) Stay out.
If your group refuses to leave, the police will be called and your group will be escorted out.
Access to the property? I’m pretty sure you can fence and gate anything you own. What you might be thinking of are the “quasi-public” rules applying to things ilke shopping malls and entertainment venues that have to allow ready access to public safety.
It used to be common for car lots to have chains or gates that they put up when the lot was closed, to hinder theft of the vehicles. When a huge new auto plaza was built near where I lived, around 1990, the local FD forbid blocked entrances at any time, so that access to building fires and other emergency services would be unhindered.
(That led to dealers installing cheap alarm/kill systems in every single car, which you then had to pay to keep as an alarm or pay to have removed on purchase… sigh.)
No, I mean if you want to say, protest on the Washington Mall, and this protest is expected to block access to it, you would need a permit for that, right?
No different than a sit-in, in my opinion. As long as they’re not throwing bricks through store fronts, they’re just walking through the mall like everyone else and are therefore being asked to leave simply due to their beliefs. And that is wrong.
I can agree with preventing them from loudly chanting or displaying large signs, but only if that applies to everyone else in the mall as well. Otherwise they’re being singled out for discrimination.
I think, generally, yes - protests are expected to have a permit much like a parade or any other public gathering. It does raise interesting contradictions. I seem to recall more than one wry cartoon about getting a permit for a demonstration or riot, back in the day when those were still effective tools.
I am not sure that applies to private spaces like malls or office complexes, though. Only if they take place in truly public or government-owned space, I think.
They are being singled out for disrupting the purpose of the facility and the intentions of everyone else. I don’t see that as either discrimination or “wrong” - at least, not if you’re going to concede private property owner rights.
I would like to see the ban extended to everyone who gets in your way in a mall or similar space, including hawkers, survey takers, coupon wavers and the like. They’re just as disrupting as “protestors.”
On private property, for reasons unrelated to the location’s business and actions? No.
Actually protesting something Macy’s or Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby does by occupying and in-sitting their stores is another thing. But general social protest in a mall? No. Besides being pointless and absurd on a level with Light Puce ribbons, there’s no reason for the owners or patrons to have to tolerate such.
In public areas, different story. That’s one thing public spaces are for.
Anyone who gets to the front of a long line at a food court McDonald’s and then thinks about what they want should be send to Gitmo and force-fed McNuggets until their liver explodes.
Private property, their rules. (No shoes, no shirt, no service?) Sit-ins were done to gain the right to USE that particular facility for the intended purpose, and not be discriminated against simply for being of a certain race, religion, etc. These people just want another place to protest. A mall is a place to shop, not protest.
If you want to try, go right ahead. Just don’t bitch when they kick you out, and certainly don’t bitch if you get arrested. (Or consider it part of your protest!)
Now, if said mall doesn’t mind allowing them there, hey, knock yourself out!
Does everyone in a mall shop? Around here many just go there to walk or exercise. Or sometimes especially this time of year, youth choirs and bands perform.
And go back to what was said earlier, malls are private but they also have some public attributes such as tax incentives.
So therefore I think that malls should be required to allow limited actions of public dissent. For example they can allow protests as long as they stay within certain bounds and can limit their size (say only 20 people), and can limit their time.
So say a group can be allowed to protest near a certain door, be no more than 20 people, cannot be louder than a set decibel level, cannot use any electronic amplification, and can only be for 1 hour.
The whole point of civil disobedience (i.e. sit ins) is that they are disobedience. You do something peaceful but illegal, disturb the status quo, draw attention - but take your lumps which might include jail or fines.
As to the mall, I think this is a horrible slippery slope they don’t want any more than Oklahomans want a statue to Bathamet (or whomever) at their capital. Of course most of them don’t care, most of the people I know who went to that protest don’t shop at the mall - too capitalistic. So it won’t inconvenience them if the mall became a hang out for anti-abortion protesters or the Westboro Baptists and their ilk. If it becomes that, then it will not fill its purpose - to PROVIDE jobs and revenue back to the state, because those that shop will avoid it in favor of strip malls. Which the MOA has done a bang up job of, even if the jobs are low paying - because yes, people shop and spend at the MOA.
All true. But my point is because of their semi-public status they should allow limited protests.
Now a thousand people blocking commerce? No way. Maybe a few dozen in a limited area for a couple of hours? Well I can see that. To me its no different than a performer. Heck some sort of “free speech” zone could even become an attraction of its own. Dont they have those in the UK?
It also works in the reverse. Many public areas like parks allow some businesses like in California those yoga people set up and run classes.
I’m reminded of Pearl Street in Boulder Colorado. It allows street performers but there are guidelines like no microphones and they have set and limited areas and times they can perform.
Strictly speaking the OP asking if protests should be ALLOWED in malls, which is kind of a separate question from the purpose of civil disobedience.
In fact, it’s really not a question that can have a specific answer, since it’s up to the owner of the mall. Literally taken, the question can only be answered by the operators of the Mall of America. They can certainly allow a protest if they wish, or not allow it if they wish, depending of course on the nature of the protest (I doubt they would ask someone to leave just for wearing an “I Can’t Breathe” sweatshirt though it is technically a form of protest.) Clearly the kind of protest noted in the OP can’t practically be permitted, or else the mall wouldn’t really function.
This is a bit OT, but the purpose of the Mall of America is somewhat more complex than that. Its primary purpose of course is to provide profit to its owners; it does that by renting out space to clients who use that space to provide customers with a place they can come to shop for goods.
An ancillary benefit of that is that the State of Minnesota and City of Bloomington get tax revenue from it, and people have jobs - perfectly good jobs, I don’t know what people’s beef with entry level jobs are - which generates more taxes, plus the efficiency of the mall provides a net increase in related jobs, such as the manufacture of the goods sold there, transportation of the merchandise to the mall, so on and so forth. Most business transactions have a lot of positive effects. Those aren’t the “purposes,” per se, of the mall. They’re things that happen when almost any successful business functions.