Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/03/05

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Interesting in relation to photo ops in Malls etc.
From: Jerry Lehrer <jerryleh@pacbell.net>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 13:35:21 -0800
References: <r01050300-0920-7BFDC6004EF211D7A8C130D6B4F659B4@[66.239.169.139]> <3E66282B.129443A1@earthlink.net> <5.1.1.6.0.20030305122253.009fd020@pop-server.twcny.rr.com> <3E663EDD.7070105@ldp.com> <5.1.1.6.0.20030305134203.009ff1b0@pop-server.twcny.rr.com> <3E6655A1.6070202@ldp.com>

Rolf, Ernest etc.

In reference to public access;  I recall that here in California a
publicly accessible place is permitted to stay private by having
it closed for X number of days per year.

Do you think a shopping mall would be willing to be closed for
a day, just to be called private?

When I lived in downtown La Jolla, I recall that the common alley
behind my apartment was closed for one day per year and patrolled
by Rent-A-Cops to prevent access.  I was not permitted to drive
my Porsche out of my garage on those days!

Jerry

Rolfe Tessem wrote:

> Ernest Nitka wrote:
> > Amilcar - with all due respect what happened at a private Mall is just
> > that - if the facts are as stated it was stupidity on the part of some
> > idiots looking to impose their view on this father /son - this is quite
> > another thing to start calling the USA a police state.  Also there is
> > always the possibility that the facts of the case are wrong - i.e if the
> > pair in question were attempting to have a pro-peace rally in a private
> > Mall they should've been escorted out of the building.
> >
> > ernie
>
> The facts of the case as reported are correct -- this is a local story
> for me here in the Berkshires in western Massachusetts and it has been
> extensively reported on local radio and television today. Obviously, it
> was an overreaction by the mall management, but what has created the
> climate that encourages such overreaction?
>
> Ironically, so many local residents were so outraged by the mall's
> action that a couple hundred showed up at the mall today wearing tee
> shirts with similar messages. This happened earlier today and as far as
> I know, nobody was arrested. I think the mall learned its lesson on bad
> publicity with the first incident.
>
> Also, malls may not be as completely private for the purposes of free
> speech as the owners contend. There have been some interesting court
> decisions relating to this. The one that comes to mind involves the land
> that the Mormon Church owns on downtown Salt Lake City. It is a common
> area that people use every day, but the church attempted to control
> speech on the property. They lost their case but I think it may still be
> working its way through the appeals courts.
>
> The court basically took the attitude that if it walks like public
> space, and talks like public space, then it must be treated like public
> space for the purposes of free speech.
>
> Rolfe
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

In reply to: Message from George Lottermoser <imagist@concentric.net> ([Leica] Interesting in relation to photo ops in Malls etc.)
Message from Slobodan Dimitrov <sld@earthlink.net> (Re: [Leica] Interesting in relation to photo ops in Malls etc.)
Message from Ernest Nitka <enitka@twcny.rr.com> (Re: [Leica] Interesting in relation to photo ops in Malls etc.)
Message from Rolfe Tessem <rolfe@ldp.com> (Re: [Leica] Interesting in relation to photo ops in Malls etc.)
Message from Ernest Nitka <enitka@twcny.rr.com> (Re: [Leica] Interesting in relation to photo ops in Malls etc.)
Message from Rolfe Tessem <rolfe@ldp.com> (Re: [Leica] Interesting in relation to photo ops in Malls etc.)