Over at my personal blog, I’ve posted more on California’s approach to balancing free-speech and property rights. That topic stems from the comments thread from a post I made on the YAL blog last week concering a suit against a California mall for restricting speech.
Here is an excerpt from the new post:
One notable point made in the comments thread involved the case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980).
In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states could extend rights beyond that of the U.S. Constitution so long as doing so does not violate rights protected by the Constitution. The case dealt with the California Supreme Court ruling that their constitution’s protection of free speech allowed for individuals to exercise their free-speech rights in a private shopping mall, despite the wishes of the mall owners. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the California Supreme Court that this did not violate the mall owner’s property rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments.
Read the entire post here.Published in