No, no, no. I have already posted the Facebook message in its entirety. There was no reason whatsoever to post it again in it's entirety.
But apparently there was some reason to ommit a portion of what she was advised them to do in your subsequent statement.
Correct, and it is plainly stated in the text you quoted above. I saw no reason to post it again in its entirety, nor did I see any reason to be pedanticly verbose. Just because she gave them a choice of phone numbers call does not diminish the fact that she urged people to call 911.
Not only is hindsight 20/20, but it rewrites itself, as well. It's been proved that he didn't spend 12 hours or so staring into her campaign office, and he wasn't there for the particular purpose of staring into her office window. He was there to exercise his rights, campaign for Trump, and to hand out copies of the US Constitution.
That his claim, yes.
No reason to doubt his claim, as that's what he was actually doing and his actions didn't indicate a different purpose.
Case history mostly involves handbilling, picketting or protesting (free speech issues, all of them) usually political in nature. The courts have ruled “there is no open-ended invitation to the public to use the property for any and all purposes." In those cases, unless the nature of the free speech has a relation to any purpose for which the center was built and being used, it's not gonna be allowed (or at least the property owner can, if they wish, disallow it). But if there is a relationship between the purpose of the expressive activity and the business of the shopping center, the property rights of the center owner will overbalance the expressive rights to persons who would use their property for communicative purposes, and thus the expressive activity is protected.
There are significant problems with using a historical
recounting of the state of the law at various times to make a point - particularly when one uses some portion of that recounting that reflected what the law
was at some
past point - due to court holdings at a particular point in time - but does not reflect what the state of the law
is at
present.
That is very true.
The language above (in bold) which apparently you believe is controlling, was held in Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc. 391 U.S. 308 (1968)
There is a subsequent case - Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551 (1972) - which holds otherwise. Anyone can read the full decision at the link below:
The Tanner case specifically addressed the distribution of handbills where the handbilling was unrelated to any activity within the center. How could you quote all that from the Justia page and completely miss the paragraph that contained the actual ruling? You nailed the preceding paragraph perfectly, but missed the one starting with "Held:" The final sentence in that paragraph is the actual ruling, and the court states why it ruled that way.
"Under the circumstances present in this case, where the handbilling was unrelated to any activity within the center and where respondents had adequate alternative means of communication, the courts below erred in holding those decisions controlling."
(Here's the same link to Justia again, just for convenience -
Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Tanner 407 U.S. 551 (1972))
Virginia is one of 15 states (including Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, both Carolinas, Texas) with extremely narrow rules regarding the use of quasi-public space and they have declined to extend any right of free expression to privately owned property.
That's correct ... the specific controlling case as regards testing the issue in the State of Virginia appears to be Collins v. Shoppers' World, LLC, Va. Supreme Court. Here's a quick summary of what they held from the
Rutherford Institute:
Like I said, Virginia declined to extend (beyond that of already existing law) any right of free expression to privately owned property, which Rich Collins wanted them to do. That case also dealt with handbilling that was unrelated to any activity within the center.
That means no handing out of handbills or gathering signatures to get someone or something on the ballot, and no political protests, unless the expressive activity is in directly relation to the shopping center or a business at the center.
If you are basing that qualification (highlighted in bold above) on Supreme Court jurisprudence, then that reasoning is flawed ... because you have focused on what
used to be the state of the law under previous holdings (1968), rather than
subsequent findings which served to clarify
what the law is at present.
Nope, not flawed. Rock solid.
