OK, this happened inland, but there's got to be some reason that the people who run the Galleria Mall in Roseville, California think they can prohibit non mall-related speech between "persons not previously acquainted." And none of the reasons I can come up with have anything like a rational basis. I believe this may be the first time ever that anyone has tried to enact a Rick Springfield song into law.
The mall's rule came to light after a "citizens arrest" of a pastor who approached three young women who agreed to talk to him about stuff, including his faith. Note the emphasized word there. Agreed. As in, didn't complain to anyone at the mall. Didn't get a manager. Didn't call a mall cop. But a store employee, who was not among the ones the guy was conversing with, did complain, and the fellow was eventually arrested and handed over to the city police. All charges were dropped, and the judge at his hearing made a finding of "factual innocence," which is a step beyond the usual "not guilty" verdict.
The man then sued the mall, and a California judge sided with the mall. A state appellate court smacked down that ruling, sending it back for do-overs (possibly with a copy of the First Amendment stapled to it), and found the mall's policy was "unconstitutional on its face," meaning that they didn't have to do anything other than read it to find it ridiculous. Mall owners, because they have trouble getting it, may appeal.
Now, given my line of work, you might be surprised that I like being approached by strangers who want to discuss religion about as much as many people, which is to say, not very. But that's why I decline the conversation, or point out that I'm clergy, or otherwise show I'm not interested. And of all the times I've been approached, never has my polite disinterest been met by anything other than a polite "Thank you" and my questioner moving on. Of course it happens, and of course Christians, being human, have the ability to be jerks about sharing their faith.
But remember, the people the pastor wanted to talk to agreed to the conversation, and it was in a mall common area, not any store.
Read the whole thing, and marvel at the gall of the mall's senior general manager -- a title whose immense supra-Constitutional power the First Amendment framers obviously didn't anticipate -- suggesting that such speech isn't prohibited. You just have to apply for it four days in advance, filling out a request for "third-party access for noncommercial speech."
Yes. You have to fill out a form asking permission to talk to a stranger four days before you may have the conversation, and even then, you can only talk to one other stranger. You have to conclude your conversation before you can begin another one. Maybe if you have two forms you can talk to two people at once. Which means my own personal project -- persuading people to repeal the admission of the 31st state into the Union on grounds that those people out there are just plain goofy -- is going to face some obstacles.
2 comments:
uh...can i comment on this, or is there a click-through link to the form where i can APPLY to comment on this, provided i comment on nothing but this, and don't mention that the red sox are pretty much done, this year...or note that since they're remaking "footloose," you'd be terrific in the john lithgow part?
heh heh: what a wacky darn country, brettly. now, i've been on the receiving end of a NOT welcome conversation with a proselytizer - in a music store - and i'd have appreciated it if the guy would've taken my "no, thanks" and not verbally attacked me...but a citizen's arrest? (i mean, a bitch-slap, maybe...)
forgive my politicization, but this is the sarah palin effect: people who don't understand basic concepts shouldn't be in any power position...whether it's managing a mall or the u.s. of a. (i pick on sarah 'cause i just saw her defense of dr. laura via twitter...really funny stuff from a woman who doesn't understand that criticizing someone does NOT constitute taking away their first amendment rights.)
anyway, once i've filled out the form, we can discuss this...
Just imagine how difficult your preferred mall activity from your teen years would have been if you'd had to fill out a form for every cute gal you wanted to chat up.
Existing law almost everywhere I'm aware of covers exactly the situation you experienced -- someone who persists in an unwanted conversation is disturbing the peace and is usually subject to removal or arrest.
And truth be known, I want this guy managing a mall or some similarly meaningless position. I don't want him anywhere near actual power.
Post a Comment