78. Should the protesters prevail?

During shopping hours, a group of 10 protesters gathered in the pedestrian area near the entrance to a department store to denounce the sale of animal fur products in that store. The protesters were peaceful and did not interfere with traffic into or out of the store, but they carried signs and vocally communicated their message to people walking in the area. Mall management quickly broke up the protest and required the protesters to leave the mall. The protesters have sued the mall, claiming that their right to freedom of speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments was violated.

A large privately owned and operated shopping mall is open to the public and includes small shops, major department stores, and restaurants that are located around a pedestrian area. It also has several movie theaters, an ice-skating rink, a small amusement park, and a branch of the local public library. The mall is advertised as «a small town with a big-town feel.»

No, because the mall is private property, and there was no state action to which the freedom of speech guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments apply
No, because the prohibition of protests adjacent to the entrance of a department store during shopping hours is a constitutionally proper limitation on the time, place, and manner of speech
Yes, because the mall is functionally equivalent to a town and, therefore, its actions are subject to the Constitution’s guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly
Yes, because the mall’s restriction on the protesters’ speech was broader than necessary to ensure proper access to the department store

« PreviousSkipNext »

Show clarification Download PDF

Comments (0)

There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it

78. Should the protesters prevail?

Comments (0)

Trial period expired