We read:
"A Navy veteran who drives a truck calling for voters to elect "American Patriots" was booted from the Mall at Millenia in Orlando allegedly for carrying a solicitation
For two years, Charlie Klein's truck has carried a sign that says,"God gave we the people America. Our corrupt elected are destroying it. Faith and prayer in God we trust. To save the USA Vote for American Patriots. To uphold our constitution."
The bolted-down sign, significantly larger than a bumper sticker, only became a problem for him, when Klein went to the mall on Friday, he told MyFoxOrlando. Mall administrators said solicitation is prohibited on mall property, whether it's a political appeal or otherwise.
"I wasn't soliciting I was driving my car, my pickup truck. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of political speech out the door at the Mall of Millenia," Klein added.
Source
"Soliciting" normally means trying to get somebody to buy or donate something. I can't see that he was doing that.
8 comments:
On private property, you have the right to restrict speech as you see fit. The First Amendment applies to government action, not private action.
While it may seem ridiculous from a policy standpoint, the mall owner is within its rights to eject whomever they choose.
While it may seem ridiculous from a policy standpoint, the mall owner is within its rights to eject whomever they choose.
No, they are not. Many cases have ruled that malls are the modern day equivalent of the "commons" or "town squares" of old. As such, they may only restrict speech or expression that is disruptive.
However, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether a person legally driving a legal vehicle can be asked to leave an area onto which he was invited based on the content of sign.
That answer would be no, as the mall allows bumper stickers that solicit and delivery trucks that advertise the names and products of stores. Furthermore, the mall allows working vehicles that people use for work. They are not excluded but clearly are soliciting.
If the guy in this story drove his truck to the mall and went shopping, the mall cannot exclude him or ask him to leave as clearly they are making him leave based on the content of his sign. If the guy was simply driving around the mall all the time, that is a different story and might qualify as "loitering" but even that is a stretch.
From Pruneyard v. Robins at the USSC:
"The shopping center had adopted a strict policy against the distribution of handbills within the building complex and its malls, and it made no exceptions to this rule. Id., at 555. 3 Respondents in Lloyd argued that because the shopping center was open to the public, the First Amendment prevents the private owner from enforcing the handbilling restriction on shopping center premises. Id., at 564. 4 [*81] In rejecting this claim we substantially repudiated the rationale of [***752] Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U.S. 308 (1968), which was later overruled in Hudgens v. NLRB, 424 U.S. 507 (1976). We stated that property does not "lose its private character merely because the public is generally invited to use it for designated purposes," and that "[the] essentially private character of a store and its privately owned abutting property does not change by virtue of being large or clustered with other stores in a modern shopping center." 407 U.S., at 569.
Ultimately, the Court determined that the California Constitution was more expansive, and sided against the mall owners, but made it clear that the First Amendment is inapplicable on private property.
The fact is that it is a double-standard that continues to plague the founding ideals of the United States. If he was promoting Islam, he would have been given a pass, but because his message is patriotic, it is considered inappropriate.
-sig
The publics response to the mall should be a general boycott. It works every time.
2:39am here here and woot woot
Malls have generally been legally defined as: "quasi-public" by many State courts. I believe his sign does fall under the 1st ammendment and qualifies to be displayed at the mall parking area.
After all its wording is not an incitement to hatred.
However, it might be defined as incitement to annoy Liberals!
A state court cannot issue a holding regarding the U.S. Constitution that overrides the interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court. So a subjective belief about what the state courts would hold doesn't really matter.
Frankly, I am glad it's this way without regard to the message. I don't want to live in a country where I cannot control my own private property, whether it's used for business or not.
Post a Comment