At 10:58 PM 3/5/03 +0100, Anonymous wrote: >On Wed, 05 Mar 2003 09:58:31 -0800, you wrote: >> Steve is right. Free speech is tested by wearing "Fuck the Army" >> t-shirts [1] >> in public places, not "Peace" while in some private store. > >Not too fast. What about "nonobvious involvement of the state"? >Don't prematurely assume this is private, non-state conduct. > >What connections exist, if any, which link the state to that >mall? For example, was the construction of the mall, or the >awarding of the permit, or the environmental exceptions made, >etc., such that the state has a sufficient role in the existence >of the mall so as to implicate by that link the fourteenth >amendment's extention of the first amendment to that operation >of that mall? Some research should be done to determine the
Yes, you are correct. For instance, there was a case last year of a govt-sponsored arena tossing lesbians for kissing, whereas intersex kissing was permitted. The arena wisely caved and brownosed rather than face a lawsuit. However malls generally don't take state money, the flow is in the other direction. My house's yard, the whole neighborhood was "approved", "licensed", "regulated", "zoned" by all kinds of bureaushits, and pinks would say I receive benefits by virtue of using roads (etc) but that doesn't mean some random taxpayer can plant a sign on my lawn. The only state involvement here was the Police observing someone refusing to leave private property when asked. Having observed that, which defines trespass, the cop enforced trespass law. It doesn't matter why the trespasser was asked to leave.
