Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> California Appellate Report

Federal Judiciary

: California Appellate Report

Snatchco v. Westfield LLC (Cal. Ct. App. - Aug. 11, 2010)

By Shaun Martin

You own a large shopping mall in California. Which of the following are you not allowed to do:

(1) Prohibit a union from passing out leaflets urging patrons to boycott one of the stores in the mall.
(2) Prohibit a preacher from initiating conversations with mall patrons in an attempt to "share his faith."
(3) Prohibit a male teenager from initiating conversations with female mall patrons in an attempt to ask them out on a date.

Answers:

(1) You can't do this. That's the California Supreme Court's decision in Fashion Valley Mall (which I briefly mentioned here). Over the dissent of three Justices who wanted to overrule Pruneyard.

(2) You can't do this either. That's today's decision by the Court of Appeal. In an opinion that is far, far to the left of the dissenters in Fashion Valley Mall.

(3) You presumably can't do this as well. Because there's very little difference between (2) and (3). People have a right -- at least in California -- to attempt to noncoercively "share their faith" just as much as they have the right (in California) to attempt to noncoercively "share their love".

So feel free to try to pick someone up in a shopping mall. On your own behalf, or on behalf of the Lord.

Full post as published by California Appellate Report on August 11, 2010 (boomark / email).