Briefing 2 - All property is held subject to the power of...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Briefing Robins vs. Pruneyard Shopping Center Facts A group of demonstrators entered a privately owned shopping center to petition, but was told to leave the premise with possibility of arrest for trespassing. 1946, U.S. Supreme Court held that privately owned streets of a company town serve the same function as public streets. The same rule applied to private streets. 1968, U.S. Supreme Court extended the doctrine, by holding that the common areas of a shopping center served the same function as shopping centers, and owners could not evict peaceful demonstrators. 1972, U.S. Supreme Court held that an owner could evict demonstrators from distributing pamphlets and information unrelated business purposes of the shopping center. Private property right won over free speech rights.
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: All property is held subject to the power of the government to regulate its use for the public welfare. Courts have long protected the right to petition as an essential attribute of governing. Cause of Action The shopping center owners ordered the demonstrator off the premise which enabled them to express their free speech rights. Issues Whether the rights of Free Speech, First Amendment, prevailed over rights of Private Property, Fifth Amendment. Holdings Upper Court: No Lower Court: Yes Rationale We conclude that the California Constitution protects speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned. By no means do we imply that those who wish to disseminate ideas have free rein....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online