A Northern California shopping mall lost its bid to stop a pastor from addressing shoppers about topics other than shopping. The appellate decision held that the state constitution protected “peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers.” -db
San Francisco Chronicle
October 21, 2010
By Bob Egelko
The state Supreme Court rejected a shopping mall’s challenge Wednesday to a ruling that allows people at the mall – a pastor, in this case – to approach strangers and talk about subjects other than shopping.
The court denied review of an appellate decision written by its chief-justice nominee, Tani Cantil-Sakauye, who found the mall’s restrictions violated free-speech rights. Justices Marvin Baxter and Ming Chin voted to hear the case, two short of the majority needed for review.
The ruling underscored California’s constitutional protections for free expression, which are broader than First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution. The state’s high court ruled in 1979 that free speech rights protected non-disruptive leafleting at a shopping center, in contrast with U.S. Supreme Court rulings that have protected speakers only against government restraints.
Pastor Matthew Snatchko relied on that ruling in his suit against Westfield, owner of the Galleria mall in Roseville (Placer County), where he was arrested in 2006.
Snatchko approached three teenage girls at the indoor mall and, with their consent, spoke to them about his religion, but a security guard told him he was violating the Galleria’s rules. Those rules required a permit from management for “expressive activity,” including selling, recruiting or talking to strangers, unless the mall or one of its stores sponsored the activity.
The pastor refused and was led away in handcuffs, but prosecutors dropped the case and he sued. A Superior Court judge upheld the mall’s rules, but the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento disagreed in August.
The rules prohibited not merely unwanted sales pitches but also “peaceful, consensual, spontaneous conversations between strangers … pure free speech” on topics as innocuous as baseball scores, Cantil-Sakauye wrote in the 3-0 ruling.
She said the mall regulated speech based on its content, allowing conversations about shopping but not “impromptu chitchat” about religion or the weather. Those distinctions, the justice said, undermined Westfield’s argument that regulations were needed to protect patrons and keep common areas free of congestion.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who appointed Cantil-Sakauye to the appeals court in 2005, nominated her in July to succeed the Supreme Court’s chief justice, Ronald George, who is retiring in January. Voters will decide Nov. 2 whether to confirm her for a 12-year term.
In seeking state Supreme Court review, Westfield said the appellate ruling would prevent malls from intervening while “the safe, calm atmosphere they created is transformed into a common flea market.”
The company’s lawyer, Miriam Vogel, also argued that the ruling would allow state law to diminish a shopping center’s property value, a potential constitutional issue that Westfield could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Spokeswoman Catharine Dickey said the company was reviewing its options.
The case is Snatchko vs. Westfield, S186415.
© 2010 Hearst Communications Inc. FAC Content Use Policy
One Comment
This is outrageous. I meet people al the time who stop and chat politics, weather, sales, religion, blessings, or problems…all strangers wanting to just share with and perhaps make a new friend, or perhaps only needs a listening ear when lonely
Would the Mall prohibit Moslem attire which definately makes a religious statement or is it just the Christian they are targeting? What happened to FREE SPEECH? Be careful when you attempt to silence a man of God for proclaiming peace, joy and happiness…to a hurting world. If he were cussing and making ugly remarks, perhaps that would be accepted. For SHAME. SHAME!
Comments are closed.