Must not talk about God?
We read:
"Imagine getting arrested for just striking up a conversation about religion in public. That’s what happened to California resident Matthew Snatchko in 2006 when the youth pastor initiated a conversation about God with three shoppers at the Roseville Galleria mall.
The women gave Snatchko permission to broach the subject, but a nearby store employee said they "looked nervous," so he ordered the evangelist to leave. After Snatchko refused, mall security arrested him.
"He was put in handcuffs and hauled down to the mall’s security station and later booked at the local jail," said Snatchko’s attorney Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom. Snatchko was later released and never charged with a crime, but he and the Justice Institute decided to challenge the constitutionality of Roseville Galleria's restrictions on conversations about topics such as religion and politics.
In 2008, a California superior court ruled that the mall's ban on controversial conversations with strangers didn’t violate freedom of speech. But late last month Snatchko and the Justice Institute appealed to the state’s 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento. All parties in the case are now waiting for the court to schedule a date for oral arguments or issue a ruling.
Source
39 comments:
It's more, very much more than simply striking up a conversation about God. This particular man has been running all over that mall and striking up that conversation about God with everyone who is polite enough to stop and listen when he talks to them.
The real question here is whether the owners of that Mall have the right to contain his speech to the venue they provided for such speech.
I can sympathize somewhat with this man but I can also see how if this man wins it could also mean that salespeople from one retailer would have the right to enter the premises of another retailer in order to hawk their own wares.
Anon 1:09 if this man wins it could also mean that salespeople from one retailer would have the right to enter the premises of another retailer in order to hawk their own wares.
No, it wouldn't. Commercial speech (i.e. "hawking their own wares") is more easily regulated than private speech, and a lease holder may also ask anyone to leave the premises for just about any reason (although in a non-discriminatory fashion.)
The point is, California has a tradition of claiming the Mall has replaced the "Public Square," and therefore restricting private speech between individuals becomes much tougher.
The question before the court is how far that "Public Square" analogy should be carried.
Some raving doofus tries to talk "God" at the mall with me and I'll kick him in religious BALLS!
In Wal*Mart, however, I might just think twice.
"In Wal*Mart, however, I might just think twice."
Especially in the baseball bat department.
The mall isn't the public square. Aventura Mall in Miami for example forbids people being shirtless, profanity, and solicitation.
It doesn't matter if you're selling Jesus, shoes, or Jenny Craig, if the mall doesn't want it they can ask you to stop what you're doing.
If the shoppers don't like the policy they are free to boycott the mall or demand a new policy and maybe the mall will accommodate them.
Let's look at it this way. Say you have a hardware store and everyday Mathew Snatchko comes in to talk to your customers about Jesus, yet he never buys anything. Aren't you going to tell him to stop coming?
I agree with Bobby, we are talking about private property. And I hated the way Diane Macedo and Fox News ran their article. The guy wasn't arrested for talking about God, he was arrested because he was asked to leave private property and he refused. Oh, and he wasn't even charged. He should be thankful.
He was aksed to leave the property because of what he was saying, which is "Constitutionally protected speech". And the fact that he had the permission of the women he was talking with, only makes his case stronger. No mall has the right or authority to regulate speech unless that speech is illegal. (ie: profane, violent, etc.) Being it's Mexifornia, you can bet no one would have complained had the guy been shouting the praises of Che, or Mao, or Obummer.
I see - so now "religionists" should be allowed to "ram their views" down the public's "throat", but gay activists aren't (according to offended christians on this site).
6:01 - The gays have been ramming their views on everybody for a long, long time. Even when the MAJORITY of people in a STATE (CA) vote what you want down, you can't handle that.
So, is it ok for gays to fight the majority of the population for what a few of the people want? No, but you do it anyway. So get over it.
The mall isn't the public square. Aventura Mall in Miami for example forbids people being shirtless, profanity, and solicitation.
This isn't true 100% of the time and frankly, there are a lot of conflicting court opinions on the subject.
Some states say the the mall is not a public place, but others states have basically said that the mall has replaced Main Street.
This case is interesting as it seems to be saying that the mall has the right to regulate speech between two consenting parties based on the observations of a store employee.
While some may think that the mall is "private property," it is not the same type of private property as your home. There are strict governmental regulations on the use and standards of that property. (A ban on smoking is an example.)
Does a property, serving a public interest and regulated by the government, have the right to regulate or suppress non-harrassing and non disruptive speech?
Time will tell.
If it is private property they have the right to make command him to leave. IF it is town property that the person is renting with some restriction that he must only command people to leave for approved reasons then he does not.
If he is commanded to leave, no one , nto even the government is allowed to punish him for what he talks about as he leaves in a reasonably rapid manner.
(unless there is some robot nearby who kills people when it hears the word god and this causee iminent danger)
"The guy wasn't arrested for talking about God, he was arrested because he was asked to leave private property and he refused"
---Good point, Mark. I would not be surprised if he actually wanted to get arrested just to get some publicity for his cause.
Still, I admire the guy, it takes balls to approach strangers and tell them all about Jesus.
People who stop you in the street or a public place to promote their religion or organization or commercial product are a nuisance. They should instead passively invite contact with a notice of some sort.
9:00 AM - I see, the gays want to force the majority to marry someone of the same sex?!
Way back in a past life I worked in a local mall, and every few months a group of these guys would come in and accost every shopper that was polite enough not to push them out of the way.
There were several times I got corralled into hearing a monologue about Jesus just because I made eye contact when the said "Excuse me". If I tried to break contact and walk away, they would actually follow me and try to cut me off. They would start making all kinds of noise about "What did I do to offend you? Are you uncomfortable talking about God? Are you embarrassed about religion?" One even put his hands on me to stop me once, which almost got us both arrested.
So I have absolutely no sympathy for this guy and his "rights" - that employee probably watched the same scene play out over and over, and thought that the shoppers were just being bullied like so many others.
Not to mention that potentially paying customers leave the area in droves when these guys start "sharing" with everyone in earshot. Free speech or not, they are impeding the business and livelihood of the people who pay rent to do business in the mall.
"Free speech or not, they are impeding the business and livelihood of the people who pay rent to do business in the mall."
What an interesting theory. So profit now supersedes the First Amendment? What if YOUR speech were voided simply to allow me to make a profit?
"The guy wasn't arrested for talking about God, he was arrested because he was asked to leave private property and he refused"
And why was he asked to leave?
Yep - interesting one. Seems somewhat akin to the gay guys in SLC's Main Street Plaza who were allegedly arrested for kissing.
There has been a line of thinking moving towards the mall replacing main street - but it also runs up against the private property argument.
Surely in each of these cases the activity could have been done just as effectively had it taken place outside on the sidewalk?
"What an interesting theory. So profit now supersedes the First Amendment?"
---What's the alternative? To let people come into your private property and behave anyway they want?
"What if YOUR speech were voided simply to allow me to make a profit?"
---So should I go poor because you want to speak? It's like a restaurant, if you become rude and obnoxious eventually the manager is going to ask you to leave.
As the article pointed out:
"Court documents claim that Westfield’s policy simply limits activities that have a "political, religious or other noncommercial purpose" to designated areas within the mall, in order to "minimize congestion." Speakers must submit a written application at least four days in advance. Access to the designated areas is then awarded on a "first come, first selected" basis."
I think the policy makes perfect sense.
Free speech restictions?
Suppose I was a Democrat, walked into Walmart and struck up a conversation about the goodness of Obama? Free speech?
Suppose I was a Baptist, walked into Walmart and struck up a conversation about the goodness of God? Free speech?
Suppose I was an employ of K-Mart, walked into Walmart and struck up a conversation about the goodness of K-Mart? Free speech?
6:01 AM, Christians are commanded by God to spread the Gospel--it's part of our faith. We are not commanded to get in your face or to ram our views down the public's throat (though regrettably some do.) It's about simply spreading a message of hope to a world that is lost. We're vocalizing God's opportunity of reconciliation that He gives to everyone.
In the United States, we have the Constitutional right to express that message. And in the U.S., gays also have the Constitutional right to freedom of speech to express their views.
While I may not agree with your gay lifestyle, I respect your right to express your opinion, so please afford me the same respect.
"What an interesting theory. So profit now supersedes the First Amendment? What if YOUR speech were voided simply to allow me to make a profit?"
It has nothing to do with restricting speech. You absolutely have the right to spread your message, but you also must respect the rights of others while you do it. If I pay rent and have a legal contract saying I can do business in a certain location in exchange for that rent, isn't that my right? Do my customers not have the right to be in my place of business without being harassed and badgered?
If these people just set up a table and had actual conversations with people who were truly interested that would be fine. But that's not what they do. Do you remember the Hare Krishnas that used to roam the airports chasing people down and surrounding them? It may not be quite as severe as that, but it's similar.
"Suppose I was a Democrat, walked into Walmart and struck up a conversation about the goodness of Obama? Free speech?"
---Wal-Mart would probably let you do that outside their store, on the sidewalk next to the parking lot.
---What's the alternative? To let people come into your private property and behave anyway they want?
You are making the mistake and assuming that the mall is the same as your home.
---So should I go poor because you want to speak? It's like a restaurant, if you become rude and obnoxious eventually the manager is going to ask you to leave.
It isn't the same. The mall's common area and walkways are not the same as the interior of a store.
Courts have sent mixed messages about this issue, but the one consistent message is that the common areas are not the same at the stores and both are not the same as your private home.
A controlling case might be Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins in which a bunch of high school students set up a table in a common area of a mall to gather signatures for a petition against a UN resolution.
The mall security guard asked them to leave.
They sued, claiming that their rights under the first and fourteenth amendments were violated.
The California Supreme Court agreed with them. (This doesn't bode well for the mall in this case.)
In addition, the US Supreme Court affirmed the California Supreme Court decision.
The Roseville Galleria case is going to be interesting as the guy who was thrown out was involved in a private conversation with three people.
Does the mall have the right to regulate private conversations? They say they do. For now, a Superior Court has agreed with them, but in that the California Constitution has a much more affirmative position on free speech even the US Constitution, and the fact the Pruneyard is close on the facts, I don't think that the mall's actions will stand.
"You are making the mistake and assuming that the mall is the same as your home."
---What about the sign "no solicitation" that a lot of malls have?
"It isn't the same. The mall's common area and walkways are not the same as the interior of a store."
---Those areas aren't kept clean by the government but by the Mall company, thus I think that makes them private. It's just like a hotel, anyone can come in but if you're going to start sleeping in the chairs or hitting on every woman and people get annoyed with you, I will ask you to leave.
"The California Supreme Court agreed with them. (This doesn't bode well for the mall in this case.)"
---Well then, I just hope they don't mind the next time a more radical group decides to set up shop.
"The Roseville Galleria case is going to be interesting as the guy who was thrown out was involved in a private conversation with three people."
---It was loud enough for others to hear and get bothered by it. To me, private is sitting at a table or discretely discussing the issues standing up. I have no idea how loud this missionary was, but if it had been private the security guard would not have heard it.
Maybe the courts will agree with you, if they do then it's a victory for boorish behavior and anarchy. Have you noticed for example how teenagers curse in front of adults? I support pornography yet you're not gonna catch me reading a Hustler in front of other people.
Besides, what's the point of having your own business if you don't have a say regarding what goes inside?
What about my right not to have a table full of ugly college students next to my $50,000 fountain? What about my right to provide my clientele with an atmosphere oriented towards commerce and not religion?
Tell me, should it be illegal for a bakery owner to tell a customer "if you're not going to buy anything, get out?" The Supreme Court is wrong, malls may seem like a public square but they aren't a public square. The public square is always open, malls close.
"What an interesting theory. So profit now supersedes the First Amendment?"
The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to interfere with free speech. However on private property, the owner makes the rules. If you don't like the owner's rules, you don't have to patronize him.
---What about the sign "no solicitation" that a lot of malls have?
What about it?
---Those areas aren't kept clean by the government but by the Mall company, thus I think that makes them private.
You can think that, but it doesn't make it so. The mall is different from your home. In your home, you can smoke. In the mall, you cannot. In your home, you can run around naked. In the mall, you cannot. In your home, you can serve your kids wine. In the mall, you cannot.
There is a distinct, legal difference.
---Well then, I just hope they don't mind the next time a more radical group decides to set up shop.
And they may decide this case along narrow lines. I am not sure what you mean by a "more radical" group. If you are talking about a group that is louder, creating a disturbance, etc, there are laws that already outlaw that.
---It was loud enough for others to hear and get bothered by it.
No it wasn't.
From the article:
The women gave Snatchko permission to broach the subject, but a nearby store employee said they "looked nervous," so he ordered the evangelist to leave.
There is no indication that Snatchko was creating a disturbance, or that he was being loud enough so that anyone other than the people to whom he was speaking could hear him.
Besides, what's the point of having your own business if you don't have a say regarding what goes inside?
A business that decides to act like a public square doesn't have the right to shut people out when it disagrees with what is said in that public square. Once again, the guy was not in the store - he was in a common area. He was not disturbing anyone other than a store employee who had no jurisdiction over the common area thought that the women "looked nervous."
Also, if you believe that the store has an absolute right to determine what goes on inside of it, that must mean that you support Jim Crow laws where the store didn't allow blacks inside, or didn't serve them.
What about my right not to have a table full of ugly college students next to my $50,000 fountain?
Are there other tables and seats there? If so, what gives you the right to say "this person is acceptable to me and this person is not?"
What about my right to provide my clientele with an atmosphere oriented towards commerce and not religion?
What right? Please show me where that right is listed. You still don't understand that when a mall makes an area a common place, and effecively makes it a "town square," some courts and states have said the mall loses the absolute right to restrict what is said in that area. In your home you have the right to restrict is said.
Tell me, should it be illegal for a bakery owner to tell a customer "if you're not going to buy anything, get out?"
I don't know. That is not what is at issue here so there is no point in discussing it.
The Supreme Court is wrong, malls may seem like a public square but they aren't a public square. The public square is always open, malls close.
Wrong again. There are town squares that close or have restricted access.
You always claim to be an advocate of "free speech," but here in this case, you want to restrict the rights of a guy who wasn't creating a disturbance, was restricting the flow of people, wasn't raising his voice, wasn't disturbing the peace and was talking in a private conversation to be muzzled.
Duh!
...but here in this case, you want to restrict the rights of a guy who wasn't creating a disturbance, was restricting the flow of people, wasn't raising his voice, wasn't disturbing the peace...
Should be:
...but here in this case, you want to restrict the rights of a guy who wasn't creating a disturbance, wasn't restricting the flow of people, wasn't raising his voice, wasn't disturbing the peace....
PIMF.
---What about the sign "no solicitation" that a lot of malls have?
What about it?
---If it's ok to tell people about Jesus in a private mall, why is it not ok to engage in other forms of solicitation?
I agree with Robert, "The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to interfere with free speech."
"You can think that, but it doesn't make it so. The mall is different from your home. In your home, you can smoke. In the mall, you cannot. In your home, you can run around naked. In the mall, you cannot. In your home, you can serve your kids wine. In the mall, you cannot."
---You make my point, in my home I can say anything I want, in the mall not necesarily.
"And they may decide this case along narrow lines. I am not sure what you mean by a "more radical" group. If you are talking about a group that is louder, creating a disturbance, etc, there are laws that already outlaw that."
---I mean a group with more unpopular views like holocaust denial, racist, atheist, satanist, environmentalist, etc. I don't mind the PETA crazies at Lincoln Road but if they're going to be approaching people eating meat at the food court and say "hi, can I tell you why eating meat is murder" I would be very annoyed.
"There is no indication that Snatchko was creating a disturbance, or that he was being loud enough so that anyone other than the people to whom he was speaking could hear him."
---Well, if you don't have the freedom to remove a customer from your store for whatever reason, then you're not really free.
"Also, if you believe that the store has an absolute right to determine what goes on inside of it, that must mean that you support Jim Crow laws where the store didn't allow blacks inside, or didn't serve them."
---I believe the marketplace should reward or punish a business without interference from the government. Besides, what's the difference between Jim Crow and a club in South Beach deciding not to let you in because they have too many men and you're not bringing any women, you're too old, you're not pretty enough, you're not well dressed, etc?
"Are there other tables and seats there? If so, what gives you the right to say "this person is acceptable to me and this person is not?"
---I don't know, maybe there are no tables but just places to sit down. Maybe the tables are just for eating or perhaps they're leased to vendors.
"You still don't understand that when a mall makes an area a common place, and effecively makes it a "town square," some courts and states have said the mall loses the absolute right to restrict what is said in that area."
---Well, I disagree with those rulings, I see this as an issue of government encroachment and you know how much I hate big government.
"You always claim to be an advocate of "free speech," but here in this case, you want to restrict the rights of a guy who wasn't creating a disturbance, was restricting the flow of people, wasn't raising his voice, wasn't disturbing the peace and was talking in a private conversation to be muzzled."
---If your court-supported views about malls being in the public square are correct, then you are right an I am wrong and I should support this man's efforts to evangelize in those places. However, like pro-lifers, I am disagreeing with the courts, I think their rulings are erroneous. And just like you can't tell a pro-lifer that abortion isn't murder just because SCOTUS has ruled that way, you can't tell me that turning the mall into a public square is not a huge mistake.
I love free speech, but when I go to the mall I got to shop or browse. I don't even like it when they have music events that attract annoying crowds that don't buy anything and block my way.
---If it's ok to tell people about Jesus in a private mall, why is it not ok to engage in other forms of solicitation?
Because the way "solicitation" is used in those signs means "the selling of a product or service." That is not the same thing as what this guy was doing.
I agree with Robert, "The GOVERNMENT is not allowed to interfere with free speech."
It was the GOVERNMENT that arrested the guy. Once again, this was in a common area.
---I mean a group with more unpopular views like holocaust denial, racist, atheist, satanist, environmentalist, etc. I don't mind the PETA crazies at Lincoln Road but if they're going to be approaching people eating meat at the food court and say "hi, can I tell you why eating meat is murder" I would be very annoyed.
And this is why the courts have said that "reasonable restrictions" may apply. If a person is bothering you, impeding you or whatever, the mall may have a right to stop that just as a cop would out on the street. However, the actual act of non disruptive speech should not be regulated in common areas.
---Well, if you don't have the freedom to remove a customer from your store for whatever reason, then you're not really free.
Here we go again. Look, the guy was NOT IN A STORE. Once again you have to resort to making crap up.
Besides, what's the difference between Jim Crow and a club in South Beach deciding not to let you in ...
You really don't know? Wow.
---I don't know, maybe there are no tables but just places to sit down. Maybe the tables are just for eating or perhaps they're leased to vendors.
Then there is no reason to discuss your hypothetical situation.
---Well, I disagree with those rulings, I see this as an issue of government encroachment and you know how much I hate big government.
Obviously you love the idea that big government can take a guy away for speaking. So I don't see how you hate big government at all.
---If your court-supported views about malls being in the public square are correct, then you are right an I am wrong and I should support this man's efforts to evangelize in those places.
The malls are not the public squares. The common areas in the malls are the new public squares. For some reason, you either cannot or will not recognize that important distinction.
And just like you can't tell a pro-lifer that abortion isn't murder just because SCOTUS has ruled that way,
The SCOTUS has never said that. Sorry.
you can't tell me that turning the mall into a public square is not a huge mistake.
I repeat.... the mall is not the public square. The common areas of the mall are the new public squares.
I love free speech, but when I go to the mall I got to shop or browse. I don't even like it when they have music events that attract annoying crowds that don't buy anything and block my way.
No you don't love free speech. You love speech that doesn't annoy you. You just said that in the paragraph above.
Why do you think the mall allows groups in? Because they attract attention and visitors. So on one breath you say that the mall should do what it feels is in its best interest and in the next breath say that they should not allow groups in to the mall.
At this point in time, O'Reilly would call you a pinhead.
"Obviously you love the idea that big government can take a guy away for speaking. So I don't see how you hate big government at all."
---Now you're making stuff up. Did I ever say I was happy the guy was arrested?
"No you don't love free speech. You love speech that doesn't annoy you. You just said that in the paragraph above."
---There's a place for everything, including free speech. The mall is not the place to sell Jesus, Buddha, Scientology, or anything. However, I would not mind a religious store in the mall, that would be ok.
"At this point in time, O'Reilly would call you a pinhead."
---Fine, I give up. You win.
---Now you're making stuff up. Did I ever say I was happy the guy was arrested?
In that it was the way the guy was stopped from speaking in conversational tones in a common area, and you believe he shouldn't be able to do that, what else should I believe? That you were saddened that the guy got what you believe he deserved?
---There's a place for everything, including free speech. The mall is not the place to sell Jesus, Buddha, Scientology, or anything. However, I would not mind a religious store in the mall, that would be ok.
I see. Free speech is only allowed when the venue is "appropriate." That means that you don't support the concept of free speech, but as I have repeatedly said, you only support speech that you agree with and only at a time and place you agree with.
That isn't free speech or freedom.
It doesn't sound like the judges are considering both arguments and then making a judgment. It sounds like they never even understood some of the arguments in the first place.
They honestly sound like lazy people who never even bother to consider the logic before deciding, don't they?
To be required to leave , even if it is only because of the content of your speech, is not a violation of your right to free speech. You are still free to speak. The people you were talking to will not hear you, but that is not something that the government is required to provide for you.
It doesn't sound like the judges are considering both arguments and then making a judgment. It sounds like they never even understood some of the arguments in the first place.
I think they are getting it right.
What they judges in some cases and the SCOTUS seems to back up is the idea that the common areas of the mall are similar to that of "Main Street" where there are shops adjacent to the street itself.
We allow people to speak on "Main Street" with certain limitations. For example, they cannot block or impeded the flow of pedestrians. Some cities will not allow speakers to use bull horns or sound amplification.
I believe those restrictions are reasonable for both outside and inside a mall in the common areas.
The right of this guy to speak is not unlimited in the mall just as it is not unlimited on the streets.
In this case, you have a guy who approached three women and asked if he could speak with them. They agreed. At what point in time does that become the concern of a store employee or the mall itself?
The guy was not being belligerent. He was not being harassing. He was not being overly loud. He was not impeding the flow of traffic.
Imagine if you will walking down the mall and seeing a girl or guy you are interested in and walk up to him / her and start talking to them. Should you be thrown out if s/he says "sure"? I don't think so.
Should you be thrown out if the person says "no - go away" and you keep pressing the issue? Yeah, I can see that. You have crossed the line from speech to harassment.
In this narrow, limited case, I believe the mall has overstepped its boundaries.
The mall is seeking to limit a conversation between two or more consenting individuals who are not creating a disturbance, not blocking traffic, not being overly loud, etc.
While the mall is a private enterprise, it operates in the public domain, and the rules and laws are different in that arena.
Once again, in this narrow case, I think the mall is in trouble. They have no legal interest in stopping a conversation between consenting people in a common area.
Fine, I will admit I was wrong on my previous position regarding the public areas of the mall.
The private individual stores are a different story, Banana Republic should be free to ask a customer to leave if they are bothered by said customer. Agreed?
The private individual stores are a different story, Banana Republic should be free to ask a customer to leave if they are bothered by said customer. Agreed?
Absolutely.
The difference can really be seen in the primary purpose of the two different areas. In a store, the primary purpose is retail - the selling of something.
The common areas are much more like a street whose purpose is not the selling of anything, but the movement of people.
And for the record, I wouldn't say that you were totally wrong on this. What made you "not totally right" was a refusal to see the difference in the retail stores and the common areas.
That being said, this is a difficult case that will require the balancing the rights of individuals and the rights of property owners operating in the public arena.
Fair enough?
Absolutely.
To clarify, that "absolutely" should be "absolutely" within the confines of non-discriminatory behavior.
A store shouldn't be able to bar someone because they are black, white, green, male, female, etc.
Just wanted to be clear.
"A store shouldn't be able to bar someone because they are black, white, green, male, female, etc."
---Yet popular nightclubs do that all the time. A bar has complete discretion of who gets in and who doesn't. People say sometimes Studio 54 would be almost empty yet there would be a ton of people outside waiting to get it. Or what about Ladies Nights? Isn't it discrimination that women get drink specials or two for one while men don't?
Post a Comment