In order to protect labor unions. This seems like a dangerous "thin end of the edge" to me:
"Labor unions and political protesters are protected by freedom of speech when they leaflet shoppers at malls in California and urge them to boycott stores, a sharply divided state Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The 4-3 decision was based on the court's landmark 1979 ruling that allowed political speech and activity at large shopping centers. In that ruling, which involved signature-gathering on political petitions at the PruneYard Shopping Center in Campbell, the court said a shopping mall was the modern equivalent of a town square or community meeting place, where people come to exchange ideas as well as spend money.
The U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in 1976 that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects free speech only against restrictions imposed by the government and not by private property owners. But the 1979 ruling, based on independent rights under the California Constitution, remains the law in the state....
"Urging customers to boycott a store lies at the core of the right to free speech," said Justice Carlos Moreno in the majority opinion. He said the mall's rules were not aimed at preventing disruption but simply prohibited certain speech based on its content.
The dissenters, led by Justice Ming Chin, said the court should not only uphold the shopping center's ban on consumer boycotts but also overturn its 1979 ruling allowing peaceful political activity at shopping malls. "Private property should be treated as private property, not as a public free speech zone," said Chin
Source
If someone wants to accuse me of being a child-molester, do I have to allow him to post a sign to that effect in my front yard? On the principles above, it would seem that I might have to.
