Sure. Pruneyard isn't the stereotypical shopping mall. It's an outdoor shopping and office complex. There are two tall buildings (maybe 20 storeys each). Some parts of the ground level of those buildings and other smaller ones are filled with retail and commercial stores and storefronts. About half of the ground floor looks like something more akin to a city park That area is accessible from the street.
There is (or was when this took place, and tbh I haven't been there in probably 25 years myself) a fair amount of foot traffic through the sort-of park-like ground floor areas, and it's my understanding that this part is where the schoolkids were handing out their pamphlets.
It's kind of unusual, because a private property owner has an interest in posting signs or other indicators with something like "Right to pass by permission of owner" -- as a way of protecting themselves from foot traffic leading to a prescriptive easement. Similar to adverse possession, you can't obtain a prescriptive easement when the property owner is aware of and allows you to walk through. In big cities, you'll often see a metal plaque embedded in the sidewalk near any opening you can walk through. It's kind of odd that Pruneyard didn't have one.
It's not that I don't see the potential for harm. It's that the US Constitution does not provide for the problem to be solved in the form of co-opting private property for public use (without, perhaps, an eminent domain "taking").
This clarifies an important point: The first amendment restricts the government. It does not restrict private behavior. In some future years, this will be looked back on as the right decision.
It's not to say that the problems of oligarchs being in charge of the mainstream channels of mass communication aren't important. It's simply that if you want to get to Dublin, you can't start from here.
It is so frustrating to see that even you can't get the Pruneyard case right.
It did not establish that malls are public places. It established that on that day, under a specific set of conditions Pruneyard was a public forum.
Critical to the ruling was that the girls had no way to know that they were entering private property, because Pruneyard had no signs providing notice that entry or activity was permitted by permission only.
Pruneyard subsequently put up signs just as you'd expect to see, saying something to the effect of "Right to pass is by permission of...". Had those signs been up -- just this one little detail -- Pruneyard would have gone the other way.
It provides exactly no help to people who think online fora should be treated as public. It is not an example of the Supreme Court co-opting private property for public use.
A second key detail is that when Pruneyard indicated it did not object to the content of the girls' pamphlets, it was taken as a waiver of a claim against being forced to associate with opinions it did not like. That's a minor holding in the case.
For sites like Google, Reddit, Patreon, etc., it is impossible for a situation to arise that is comparable to the Pruneyard case, because everyone must apply for a user account prior to being able to make public comments or post content. This is going to involve clicking through pages that, whether read or not, put the user on notice that access is by permission only. That takes it completely out of the ambit of Pruneyard.
I appreciate that you guys seem to be taking the sober approach on this issue, but even saying something as simply wrong as "establishing that malls are public forums", you create an opportunity for armchair legal experts to misapply the law in some other context.
This ruling should surprise exactly zero people who have been paying attention to case law in this area.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by andybisct.
Re: Re: Pruneyard --
Sure. Pruneyard isn't the stereotypical shopping mall. It's an outdoor shopping and office complex. There are two tall buildings (maybe 20 storeys each). Some parts of the ground level of those buildings and other smaller ones are filled with retail and commercial stores and storefronts. About half of the ground floor looks like something more akin to a city park That area is accessible from the street.
There is (or was when this took place, and tbh I haven't been there in probably 25 years myself) a fair amount of foot traffic through the sort-of park-like ground floor areas, and it's my understanding that this part is where the schoolkids were handing out their pamphlets.
It's kind of unusual, because a private property owner has an interest in posting signs or other indicators with something like "Right to pass by permission of owner" -- as a way of protecting themselves from foot traffic leading to a prescriptive easement. Similar to adverse possession, you can't obtain a prescriptive easement when the property owner is aware of and allows you to walk through. In big cities, you'll often see a metal plaque embedded in the sidewalk near any opening you can walk through. It's kind of odd that Pruneyard didn't have one.
Re: Re: 'Now go away or we shall taunt you a second time.'
It's not that I don't see the potential for harm. It's that the US Constitution does not provide for the problem to be solved in the form of co-opting private property for public use (without, perhaps, an eminent domain "taking").
This clarifies an important point: The first amendment restricts the government. It does not restrict private behavior. In some future years, this will be looked back on as the right decision.
It's not to say that the problems of oligarchs being in charge of the mainstream channels of mass communication aren't important. It's simply that if you want to get to Dublin, you can't start from here.
Pruneyard --
It is so frustrating to see that even you can't get the Pruneyard case right.
It did not establish that malls are public places. It established that on that day, under a specific set of conditions Pruneyard was a public forum.
Critical to the ruling was that the girls had no way to know that they were entering private property, because Pruneyard had no signs providing notice that entry or activity was permitted by permission only.
Pruneyard subsequently put up signs just as you'd expect to see, saying something to the effect of "Right to pass is by permission of...". Had those signs been up -- just this one little detail -- Pruneyard would have gone the other way.
It provides exactly no help to people who think online fora should be treated as public. It is not an example of the Supreme Court co-opting private property for public use.
A second key detail is that when Pruneyard indicated it did not object to the content of the girls' pamphlets, it was taken as a waiver of a claim against being forced to associate with opinions it did not like. That's a minor holding in the case.
For sites like Google, Reddit, Patreon, etc., it is impossible for a situation to arise that is comparable to the Pruneyard case, because everyone must apply for a user account prior to being able to make public comments or post content. This is going to involve clicking through pages that, whether read or not, put the user on notice that access is by permission only. That takes it completely out of the ambit of Pruneyard.
I appreciate that you guys seem to be taking the sober approach on this issue, but even saying something as simply wrong as "establishing that malls are public forums", you create an opportunity for armchair legal experts to misapply the law in some other context.
This ruling should surprise exactly zero people who have been paying attention to case law in this area.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by andybisct.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt