Jump to content






Photo

Court Rules: Legal To Chat In Mall


  • Please log in to reply
15 replies to this topic

#1 mylo

mylo

    Mmm.. Tomato

  • Moderator
  • 16,763 posts
  • Location:Folsom

Posted 14 August 2010 - 03:07 PM

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

More at: http://news.yahoo.co...legal_mall_talk
"Ah, yes, those Gucci extremists and their Prada jihad!" --ducky

#2 MrsTuffPaws

MrsTuffPaws

    Crazy Lady

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,390 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 14 August 2010 - 04:09 PM

Well, a Mall is a private company, and they should be able to implement any stupid rules they want to. And man oh man is that a stupid rule.

#3 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,595 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 14 August 2010 - 05:44 PM

The purpose of the rule was to prevent hucksters and prosletyzers from harassing mall patrons. The petitioner in the underlying case was some self-defined "preacher" who was accosting patrons.

Obviously, the mall tried to write a rule that didn't discriminate against religious or other identifiable groups. Unfortunately, the rule they ended up writing had comical side effects-- like you couldn't comment to a fellow shopper about the weather or ask directions.

Good intentions... unintended consequences.

#4 SacKen

SacKen

    Lifer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cell Block D

Posted 16 August 2010 - 01:31 PM

Well, a Mall is a private company, and they should be able to implement any stupid rules they want to. And man oh man is that a stupid rule.

Yeah, that's the part of this story that I don't like. As stupid as it is, the private business should have the right to have such a rule, much like a theater can enforce rules about talking and cell phones. If patrons don't like it, they can choose not to shop there. If enough people stop going, the mall would probably change the rule. That's how the free market works. Unfortunately, the judges in the People's Republic of Commifornia don't believe in free enterprise. Not to mention that "free-speech" rights do not apply to, and weren't meant to protect, speech on private property. I have the right to tell anyone on my private property to STFU and get the eff off my lawn. :old:
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin

#5 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 16 August 2010 - 02:36 PM

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

More at: http://news.yahoo.co...legal_mall_talk

It would seem a no soliciting rule without written permission of mall management would be enough to prevent proseletizing.
(trying to solicit others to believe as they do).
I would rather be Backpacking


#6 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 August 2010 - 02:54 PM

It would seem a no soliciting rule without written permission of mall management would be enough to prevent proseletizing.
(trying to solicit others to believe as they do).


I like that idea, especially if it would include those people that constantly try to stop you at the kiosks in the middle of malls.

#7 (MaxineR)

(MaxineR)
  • Visitors

Posted 16 August 2010 - 03:18 PM

I absolutely hate those who proselytize their religion to those shopping or involved in other leisure activities, in public places.

#8 bordercolliefan

bordercolliefan

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,595 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Natoma Station

Posted 16 August 2010 - 04:31 PM

A shopping mall is not treated as "private property" for constitutional purposes. If it were, the mall would be free to ban African American customers or senior citizens ("they move too slow!") or any other protected group.

I would not think you want to return to the days of "white only" hotels, stores, restaurants, and malls... or do you? Are we ready to repeal civil rights?

#9 SacKen

SacKen

    Lifer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cell Block D

Posted 16 August 2010 - 05:21 PM

A shopping mall is not treated as "private property" for constitutional purposes. If it were, the mall would be free to ban African American customers or senior citizens ("they move too slow!") or any other protected group.

I would not think you want to return to the days of "white only" hotels, stores, restaurants, and malls... or do you? Are we ready to repeal civil rights?

LOL... that's quite a stretch of logic. No business can discriminate like that. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, it being a mall or being "treated" a different way than another business. That's about violating laws.

A business has the "right to refuse service" as long as you aren't violating laws like the ones that already exist to protect the groups you mentioned. It doesn't mean that all of your Constitutional Rights are in effect when you are on private property and in someone's private business. Remember, the purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights is to protect us from the government, not a business owner.
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin

#10 Bill Z

Bill Z

    Hopeless Addict

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,795 posts
  • Location:Briggs Ranch

Posted 16 August 2010 - 06:52 PM

I like that idea, especially if it would include those people that constantly try to stop you at the kiosks in the middle of malls.

Well, I believe the kiosks are operating with the permission of the mall management, so the no soliciting wouldn't apply to them.
I would rather be Backpacking


#11 MrsTuffPaws

MrsTuffPaws

    Crazy Lady

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,390 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 August 2010 - 06:57 PM

LOL... that's quite a stretch of logic. No business can discriminate like that. It has nothing to do with the Constitution, it being a mall or being "treated" a different way than another business. That's about violating laws.

The article specifically stated that the rule violated California's Constitution.

#12 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 16 August 2010 - 07:00 PM

Well, I believe the kiosks are operating with the permission of the mall management, so the no soliciting wouldn't apply to them.


I know, I know. I can hope, can't I? I just don't like those guys who try to stop you so they can put some sort of lotion on you and continue to ask even when you've already said, "No, thank you."

I like SacKen's thinking. This has to do with conducting business. I don't think the whole idea was to exclude any certain group, but rather to allow people to shop without being annoyed. It was just written very poorly. If I know Mall A is full of hucksters that are going to accost me as I go from store to store and Mall B isn't, then I'm more likely to go to Mall B.

#13 SacKen

SacKen

    Lifer

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,286 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Cell Block D

Posted 17 August 2010 - 09:29 AM

The article specifically stated that the rule violated California's Constitution.

I know. My reply that you quoted was regarding bordercolliefan's exaggeration that not extending Constitutional Rights to private property would lead to a "white's only" mall, not the original story.

My related point about the story is that I think the court was incorrect in ruling that there was a Constitutional violation. If the case went to the Supreme Court and not a California Appeals court (which have a record of being mentally deficient), I'd put my money on the side of the mall owners. We'll probably never know, though. I doubt the owners are crazy enough to waste more money on something so stupid.
"Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" -- George Carlin

#14 Darth Lefty

Darth Lefty

    Disco Infiltrator

  • No Politics!
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,578 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The OV
  • Interests:Volunteer with a service club like Active 20-30, and you CAN make a difference!

Posted 17 August 2010 - 10:52 AM

I just don't like those guys who try to stop you so they can put some sort of lotion on you and continue to ask even when you've already said, "No, thank you."

...or else it gets the hose again!

Anyone remember the Animaniacs survey ladies?
"I enjoy a bit of cooking, and this has always worried me. But it's OK. I only like it because it allows me to play with knives." - James May

Genesis 49:16-17
http://www.active2030folsom.org

#15 ducky

ducky

    untitled

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,115 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 17 August 2010 - 10:57 AM

...or else it gets the hose again!

Anyone remember the Animaniacs survey ladies?


I'm not getting this. Is it a sign I'm too old?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users