You may be thinking of this case - it had a happy ending as the goofball district judge was overruled:
March 10, 1999
MCLU DISAPPOINTED IN MALL OF AMERICA – FREE SPEECH RULING
MCLU Executive Director Chuck Samuelson expressed disappointment over the Minnesota Supreme Court’s refusal, in State v. Wicklund, et. al., to hold that the Minnesota Constitution protects the right to free speech in privately owned shopping centers such as the Mall of America. "We are saddened that the Minnesota Supreme Court did not seize this opportunity to resoundingly affirm the Free Speech rights of all Minnesotans. We believe that the common areas at the Mall of America, even though privately owned, are no different from the public sidewalks on the Nicollet Mall, which are built and maintained by the adjacent property owners." The MCLU submitted an amicus curiae brief with the Court, urging them to hold that individuals have a right to engage in non-disruptive free speech activities at the Mall of America. In its decision, issued today, the Minnesota Supreme Court declined to hold that Minnesota’s Constitution provides greater protection than the U.S. Constitution, which has not been extended to protect the right to free speech in privately owned malls and shopping centers.
BACKGROUND
In May 1996, a group of about 10 students were in the common areas outside Macy's department store in the Mall distributing leaflets and carrying signs protesting the sale of fur. Mall of America security guards approached the protesters and asked them to leave. Four protesters, Freeman Wicklund, Alissa Eggert, Peter Eckholtd, and Alethea Schaffer stayed and were charged with trespassing. They challenged the charges as a violation of their right to free speech. Because the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the U.S. Constitution does not protect speech in privately owned shopping centers, the protestors argued that the Minnesota constitutional right to free speech provides them with a claim of right to engage in free speech activities at the Mall. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the. The MCLU submitted amicus curiae briefs in support of their argument with the District Court, the Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court.
On July 24, 1997 Hennepin County District Judge Jack Nordby held that individuals have a right to engage in free speech activities inside the Mall of America. In his decision, Judge Nordby held that the Minnesota Constitution protects more than the abridgment of free speech by the government, and that, while it does not apply to purely private parties and property, there is a middle ground in which private property, that is subsidized in part by the government, is subject to free speech protections guaranteed by the Minnesota Constitution.
[ ED. You probably live on a government subsidized street with government subsidized utilities - your back yard part of this middle ground?]
Because state constitutions are free to provide greater protections for the rights of individuals, Nordby found it significant that the framers of the Minnesota Constitution placed the free speech clause at the very beginning of the document. Also significant is the fact that Article 1 Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution is worded more broadly than its counterpart in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Finally, Judge Nordby held that, because the Mall of America received a significant amount of public funds, they may not infringe the individual’s Minnesota constitutional right to free speech.
[ed. This was the straw Norby grasped at to justify the decision he wanted going in.]
As such, the Mall of America may not arbitrarily exclude free speech activities, but may impose reasonable time, place and manner restrictions as any government agency would be entitled to impose.
The City of Bloomington appealed Nordby’s decision on the free speech issue. On April 7, 1998, Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s decision. The Court held that that Article 1 Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution only protects expressive speech from infringement by state action. The court ruled that $186 million in public financing from the City of Bloomington and the Bloomington Port Authority did not constitute state action, so the Mall of America is not under the same obligation as the State to respect Minnesotans’ freedom of expression. The Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals ruling and remanded the case for trial.
.
.
.
mnclu.org |
