Court says Roseville mall's chat policy illegal

[Liberal_in_LA]

Court says Roseville mall's chat policy illegal

(08-14) 10:47 PDT Roseville, Calif. (AP) --

A Northern California appeals court has struck down a shopping mall's policy barring people from approaching strangers to chitchat.

The 3rd District Court of Appeal this week said the rules at Roseville's Westfield Galleria violate the California Constitution's free speech guarantee.

The mall prohibited people in its common areas from approaching people they didn't know to talk unless the conversation was about business involving the mall or its tenants. The case arose after mall officials issued a citizen's arrest of a 27-year-old pastor who tried to talk about his faith.

The appeals court says the policy effectively bars shoppers from chatting about the weather or offering directions.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/14/state/n104706D01.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0wbsu8k8H

[Warpy]

1. Yes, it was too broad

While I sympathize with their desire to eliminate the people who buttonhole you to try to sell you Jesus instead of shoes and ships and sealing wax, I recognize that public nuisance laws on the books already take care of the egregious offenders. The rest are a constitutionally protected bunch of professional busybodies and should be tolerated.

[X_Digger]

2. Link to the decision..

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C059985.PDF

from the decision- “The Rules preclude strangers from talking about everything from their political, social, environmental or religious views to their views on current sports events…or even the weather,” she opined. “Given the wide variety of reasons people go to shopping malls and the range of possible conversations between individuals at the mall, Westfield’s prohibition of strangers spontaneously talking to each other on topics unrelated to the mall substantially burdens far more protected speech than is necessary to meet Westfield’s safety and convenience concerns.”

CA is one of two states with precedent for applying their states' freedom of speech protections to the 'common areas' of publicly accessible private property. (The other being New Jersey).