Petitioning at a Mall

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? CA

Can anyone help me understand what is "reasonable restriction" to time, place and manner? For petitioning at a mall rulings were made to be a mall can place reasonable restictions on time, place and manner. Further detailed below. Is a restriction of 15 days out of the year only 3 days in a row and requiring a full years history of where and for what you have petitioned for considered "reasonable"? How could I try and fight these restrictions. I collect petition signatures of non-offensive nature for a job.

Types of restraints on speech[edit] Time, place, or manner restrictions
The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National ConventionFreedom of speech is also sometimes limited to free speech zones, which can take the form of a wire fence enclosure, barricades, or an alternative venue designed to segregate speakers according to the content of their message. There is much controversy surrounding the creation of these areas — the mere existence of such zones is offensive to some people, who maintain that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution makes the entire country an unrestricted free speech zone.[3] Civil libertarians claim that Free Speech Zones are used as a form of censorship and public relations management to conceal the existence of popular opposition from the mass public and elected officials.[3] The Department of Homeland Security under the Bush Administration "ha[d] even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."[4][5]

Time, place, or manner restrictions must withstand intermediate scrutiny. Note that any regulations that would force speakers to change how or what they say do not fall into this category (so the government cannot restrict one medium even if it leaves open another). Time, place, or manner restrictions must:

1.Be content neutral
2.Be narrowly tailored
3.Serve a significant governmental interest
4.Leave open ample alternative channels for communicationWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

You're confusing some principals here. The "reasonable restriction" thing covers exceptions to the First Amendment allowing the government to restrict public assembly.

Most malls are private property. They're under no obligation to allow you to assemble there any reason whatsoever.

CA law for petitioning

CA is a state where private property has been deemed a place that can be considered to be a public forum if the masses congregate there, they invite the public in and therefore do not retain their full private property rights. This is a short answer to it all, but the rules they are going by is that you can petition in this commercial private properties with the exception that they can apply reasonable restictions to time place and manner. I have done quite a bit of research and made many phone calls on the matter. The one thing that is unclear is where you draw the line from reasonable to restictive. I believe the stores and malls are apply excessive restictions on my 1st. amendment right therefore making their restrictions unconstitutional and so I should be able to continue to work without fear of arrest as it is illegal in CA to arrest someone on these grounds if the grounds are violating the 1st amendment. The exception on my side being that the store can revise their time, place and manner to be reasonable.

Well you're definitely wrong about working without fear of arrest. Whether you are likely to prevail if charged/tried is a completely different matter than whether you can be arrested. They can certainly ruin your day even if they can't make any charges stick.

FlyingRon said:

You're confusing some principals here. The "reasonable restriction" thing covers exceptions to the First Amendment allowing the government to restrict public assembly.

Most malls are private property. They're under no obligation to allow you to assemble there any reason whatsoever.

Click to expand...

That's not an absolute. see

Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: I haven't checked this wiki entry for accuracy. That is left as an exercise for the reader.

response

my understanding is that I can only be arrested under tresspass law, I think it is 602.1 where I must harrass, intimidate or cause harm to the business. It is true that some petition circulators do do this, but I do not. I do not chase people, stand off to the side, I am professional and friendly, the petitions are not of offensive manner and I do not push the matter if someone says they are not interested in signing. I also stand outside the mall, not inside of it.

There was a case with Valley View mall where the decision was found that the reasonable time, place and manner could not apply to any activity done outside on the sidewalks surrounding the mall. I am in talks with local police trying to interpret their responses and have been informed by one dept. that it is a civil not criminal manner. I believe that to mean they will not arrest me as long as I handle myself the way I am, even if I don't sign and adhere to the mall contract, but that the mall could then file and injunction against me to try and allow for police to then arrest me. I don't see how they could provide evidence that I am harming their business to do so if there have been no complaints from customers regarding me.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says nothing about private businesses restricting you.

response - where I got my info.

This is from the ACLU who represented many of the petitioners in prior cases.

B. PRIVATE PROPERTY
The traditional constitutional rule has been that free speech rights do not apply to private
property. While government cannot prevent access by prohibiting door-to-door canvassing or
picketing in residential areas, the normal laws of trespass apply to give private owners the power
5
to bar free speech activity from their property. This was reaffirmed by the United States
Supreme Court decision that there are no First Amendment rights to engage in communication in
shopping center parking lots and malls. 22/
In a significant deviation from federal constitutional law, the California Supreme Court has ruled
that the public areas of shopping centers and shopping malls are open to free speech activity
under Article I, Sections 2 and 3 of the California Constitution. 23/ The Court stressed the
importance of shopping centers in contemporary society as gathering places for large numbers of
people. Since the owners had given unlimited access to the public to the center, they could not
completely exclude those members of the public who wanted to engage in speech there that
would not interfere with the center’s primary commercial purposes.
It is unclear whether the California Supreme Court will extend the free speech rights recognized
in Pruneyard to other types of private property beyond large shopping malls. The Court recently
reaffirmed Pruneyard, but refused to extend it to a tenants’ association seeking to distribute its
newsletter door-to-door to fellow tenants in apartments in a high rise building; the Court
reasoned that the property was not “freely and openly accessible to the public.” 24/ This will
pose an obstacle to extending constitutional free speech rights to other private developments and
gated communities. The Courts of Appeal have refused to extend Pruneyard to the parking lots
and walkways of medical office buildings or to the private walkway directly in front of large
“big box” free-standing stores such as Waremart and Costco; however, the latter issue is now
pending before the California Supreme Court. 25/
The Pruneyard decision makes it clear that shopping centers can impose reasonable time, place
and manner regulations on free speech uses of their facilities. Many shopping centers have
responded by imposing very burdensome permit systems, including strict numerical limits (e.g.,
two persons at one table) and high insurance requirements. These requirements can be
challenged with similar arguments discussed above with respect to march and rally permits. (See
part I (A) above). 26/ Also, once private property has been opened to free speech activity, it can
be argued that all other groups should have “equal access” to engage in the same activity. 27/

Constitutional arguments are crucial in challenging burdensome restrictions on the marches or
rallies, whether they are imposed by a permit ordinance or by an ad hoc order of a police officer.
Restrictions can be opposed by arguing (a) that they go beyond time, place and manner
regulations; (b) that they are not necessary or even reasonable for any legitimate governmental
purpose – i.e., traffic control; and/or (c) that they will interfere with effective and meaningful
communication. The following are examples of types of restrictions that you may face when
applying for a permit involving free speech activities:
1. Excessive Discretion – When First Amendment activities are involved, a
permit ordinance must have precise and specific standards for determining when the permit will
be issued or denied. A very common defect in local permit ordinances is that they have only
vague standards (i.e., “will not disturb others”; “in the public interest”) or no standards at all,
thus leaving the decision to the discretion of a public official. Such an ordinance is
unconstitutional on its face. 2/ California law has established that you cannot be criminally
punished for violating or disregarding a permit ordinance (or court injunction) that is
unconstitutional on its face. 3/
2
2. Advance Notice – Most permit ordinances require that the application be
submitted a certain number of days in advance. Any advance notice period beyond several days
can be challenged as unnecessary for traffic control or public protection, and unreasonably
burdensome on the exercise of First Amendment rights by preventing demonstrations in timely
response to emerging events or crises. 4/
3. March Route – Attempts to limit marches to routes away from downtown
crowds or main streets, or to place a rally in an obscure city park, can be challenged as
preventing effective communication with the public. A demonstration should be allowed to take
place within “sight and sound” of its intended audience or the object of the protest (e.g., City
Hall). 5/
4. Financial Requirements – Demonstrators are increasingly being
confronted with various financial requirements including (a) liability insurance to protect the city
from any claims arising from the event; (b) requiring a “financially responsible” individual to
sign a “hold harmless” agreement promising to indemnify the city for any liability arising out of
the event; (c) an advance deposit of a certain amount (sometimes called a “performance bond”)
to pay for any property damage or clean- up costs; or (d) payment for costs of police protection or
overtime.
While courts have upheld small permit fees that cover the actual costs of processing and
applications, these more burdensome charges have been successfully challenged in some (though
not all) cases as unreasonable time, place and manner restrictions of speech. Arguments that
have been accepted by courts include the following:
a). The imposition and amount of the fee are not based on objective criteria but vest too
much discretion in the city officials;
b) The regulation is content-based (rather than content-neutral) because the amount or
premium charged increases if the event is controversial or a hostile reaction is anticipated
(thereby requiring more police);
c) It is not narrowly tailored because there are other non- financial alternatives that would
protect the city’s legitimate interests;
d) The regulation must include a waiver for groups that cannot afford the financial charge
(or insurance premium);.
e) The regulation is discriminatory because the charge has not been levied on similar,
non-controversial events; or
f) There is no legal justification for requiring or imposing strict liability on the
demonstrators with an indemnification agreement; at most their liability should extend to injuries
caused by their own actions or negligence (and not, for example, from a pothole in the street or a
hostile counter-demonstration). 6/
5. Past Conduct – Prior instances of illegal activity or disruption during
marches or rallies are not alone grounds to deny a permit. 7/
3
6. Discriminatory Enforcement – Whenever a restriction has not been
imposed on similar events in the past (such as a Memorial Day parade), you can argue that you
are being discriminated against because of the content of your message, in violation of your
constitutional rights of free speech and equal protection of the laws.

Addt. info.

More info. from the ACLU:
The ACLU also has this posted:
Do shopping malls count as private property?
Shopping malls are an exception to the rule. In California, the courts recognize
big malls as the modern-day “functional equivalent” of a traditional public
gathering place, because they have “common areas that would invite the public to
meet, congregate, or engage in other activities typical of a public forum. . . .”52
The California Constitution does protect your free-speech rights in privately
owned shopping centers—as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the
primary commercial purpose of the mall.

Can shopping centers regulate my expressive
activities?
Yes. The courts have approved a slew of “reasonable” time, manner and place
regulations, some of which present obstacles for effective communication. Most
large malls have rules restricting free speech activities, although the California
Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fashion Valley Mall v. N.RB calls into
question some of these restrictions.54 The Court invalidated a rule that prohibited
a union from handing out leaflets at a San Diego mall calling for a boycott of
a particular store, finding that the union’s interest in getting its message across
outweighed the economic interests of the mall.55
What if I violate a shopping center’s rules?
If you exercise your free-speech rights in violation of these rules, you may be
excluded from the mall. However, you should not be arrested for trespass under
state law in an area that’s open to the public unless you intentionally interfere
with the establishment’s business, for example, by obstructing or intimidating its
customers.56

Restrictions in shopping centers
The courts have made it clear that shopping centers can and should adopt
written “reasonable” rules and regulations for free speech activity. Most large
shopping malls have adopted a set of written regulations, which are available
at the center’s offices. The standard for what is a “reasonable” shopping
center rule is the same as the standard for the government regulating speech
in a public forum—the rule must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored
and leave open alternative avenues of communication.57
The court decisions applying this standard have not been consistent, so the
state of the law is unclear at this time. Many of the large shopping centers
adopted rules that were complicated and burdensome to advocacy groups,
but many of these rules were upheld in state court decisions.58 Such rules
included:
w Requiring a permit in advance to give the center prior notice of the
activity
w Limiting free speech activity to designated free speech areas
(usually 2 or 3)
w Imposing strict limits on the number of participants (usually 2 or 3)
w Requiring advance approval of signs and literature
w Prohibiting all free speech activity during certain busy periods
(e.g. Thanksgiving to Christmas)
w Prohibiting direct solicitation of any monetary donations
A more recent federal court decision, relying on the California Supreme
Court’s ruling in the Fashion Valley case, rejected the reasoning of these state
court decisions, thus calling into question many of these same rules. The
court specifically rejected the following rules as either impermissible content
discrimination or as not narrowly tailored.59
w Prohibition on speech activities that identify or single out the mall or
a mall tenant by name (e.g. content-based)
w Prohibition on the carrying or wearing of signs, including picket signs
w Prohibition on any activity on the exterior walkways
w Ban on activities during holiday periods

This is how I came to my understanding of the current laws on this. Have I not understood this correctly. I feel I don't have to sign the restrictive permit/application if I am working on the walkways outside and not breaking penal code 602.1 with my conduct.

I collect petition signatures of non-offensive nature for a job.

Click to expand...

as long as your activity doesn’t interfere with the
primary commercial purpose of the mall

Click to expand...

You're outta there!!!!

OHRoadwarrior said:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It says nothing about private businesses restricting you.

Click to expand...

And had you paid attention to the OP's posts, you'd have noticed that this is in California where the state courts HAVE ruled that private businesses such as malls and shopping centers must allow with reasonable restrictions, petitioners, assemblies, etc.

OHRoadwarrior said:

You're outta there!!!!

Click to expand...

Sounds like Dave hit another home run.