Conference back40::soapbox

[author unknown]

        In the little recognized (but nonetheless landmark) case of 
Gaudiya Vaishnava Society v. City and County of San Francisco (952
F.2d 1059, 1990), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit
held that the sale by charitable organizations of merchandise
which carries or constitutes a political, religious or
philosophical message, may be fully protected non-commercial
speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This
may pose a special threat to retail shopping center operators.

         The Gaudiya case involved the sale of various types of  "message
bearing" merchandise, including T-shirts, stuffed animals and even
bananas stamped with the words "Karma Free." The court's
conclusion was based on a finding that, because the commercial and
free speech elements of the activities were "inextricably
intertwined," they were entitled to the full protection of the
First Amendment. The holding in that case has taken root in
Florida recently with One World One Family Now v. City of Key
West, Case No. 94-10020-CIV-King (S.D. Fla. 1994).

        An independent line of U.S. Supreme Court cases hold generally
that First Amendment protections extend to activities in "public
forums" and areas which are the functional equivalent thereof. 
The common areas of shopping centers have been deemed by some
courts in other parts of the nation to be the functional
equivalent of public forums for First Amendment purposes.

        Given the delicate mix of retail uses which comprise the typical
regional shopping center mall (not to mention the fierce
competition and low profit margins confronting tenants), the
arrival of ideological groups engaged in the sale of merchandise
could be extremely disruptive.  Certain tenants would face
competition from groups not paying rent. Mall operators could find
exclusive use clauses in existing leases violated and percentage
rent revenues lost.

        Should ideological groups be allowed access to common areas of
shopping centers for the purpose of engaging in the sale of
"message bearing" merchandise?  Where should the line be drawn
between activities legitimately entitled to First Amendment
protection and those designed merely to provide access to
restricted areas for engaging in what are essentially commercial
business purposes? Comments?                                            

[author unknown]

I had a chance, over the long weekend, to read the state Supreme
Court's Dec. 20 opinion in N.J. Coalition Against War in the
Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corporation, which forces malls to
permit leafletting by "issue-oriented groups" on their premises,
subject to certain restrictions. The full text is in the LIBRARY.

The bulk of the opinion is a utilitarian argument that goes
something like this: People used to be able to distribute leaflets
in downtown business/shopping districts. But those downtown areas
are shriveling up [insert statistics and reports] which deprives
the leafletters of a important forum for speech. At the same time
(and not just coincidentally) the malls are doing quite well. And
here's the payoff: "We hope they [the malls] recognize the
legitimacy of the constitutional concern that in the process of
creating new downtown business districts, they will have seriously
diminished the value of free speech if it can be shut off at
their centers. Their commercial success has been striking but
with that success goes a constitutional responsibility."

In other words, the malls decimated Main Street, so they owe a
societal debt of constitutional dimension.

What surprises me, though, is how little attention the courts
below-- and hence the Supreme Court -- gave to the Fifth Amendment
"takings" argument. Here's the sum total of the Supreme Court's
mention of it:

"The trial court ruled, in effect, that defendants retained the
right to exclude those not invited to its premises to the same
extent as any other private property owner. Given that
judgment, the trial court found it unnecessary to rule on
defendants' contention that the relief sought by plaintiff, if
granted, would constitute a taking of their property without
just compensation, would deprive them of their property
without due process of law, and would abridge their freedom of
speech by forcing them to provide a forum for the speech of
others, all in violation of the Federal and State
Constitutions."

But as I read the opinion, the Supreme Court is NOT recognizing a
right to exclude uninvited leafletters. So why isn't there a
takings claim to the extent the mall owners can show a that the
state has engrafted upon their ownership a third party's license
or right-of-way? Has the U.S. Supreme Court encountered this
question?

Appended by: Lewis Goldshore -- Goldshore & Wolf - Lawrenceville
Date: Tue Dec 27 23:22:35 1994
Subject: Malled

I just did a quick read of the mall decision and the following are
some of my initial impressions:

* it only applies to "regional malls" [I don't have the precise
count but that should only be a dozen or two];

* it applies to leafletting and associated speech in support or
opposition to causes, candidates and parties [the type of speech
that the mall owners would rather have go outside];

* the reason why there is no "taking" is because the majority says
that when free speech and property rights collide, free speech
wins; yes, there really is a hierarchy of rights;

* the decision strikes me as being somewhat result-oriented; that
is, the majority believed that free speech should not be limited
to those  "really" public spaces (that are no longer frequented by
the multitudes);

* the mall owners may not like the decision but they will be able
to live with it; after all, they still have the right to regulate
the "time, place and manner" of the activities and, who was it
that said, "the devil is in the details";

* life will go on and someone will have to pick up all those
leaflets.

Appended by: Ron Fleury -- NJ Law Journal - Newark
Date: Wed Dec 28 14:10:02 1994
Subject: Follow the Bouncing Rights

I agree with Lew that the decision is result-oriented, but I don't
think it's enough to say that because the majority found speech
and property rights in conflict, there's no compensation due the
property owner. That conflict exists only if you accept the
"functional equivalent of Main Street" theory, which requires an
alteration of traditional property rights. "Alteration" as in
"diminishment."  If the owners can prove a corresponding loss of
value, i.e., the very presence of leafletters, no matter how
polite and peaceful, intimidates some impulse buyers from
strolling the malls, why is that any different from other forms of
taking to achieve a governmental purpose?

Appended by: Lewis Goldshore -- Goldshore & Wolf - Lawrenceville
Date: Wed Dec 28 15:12:33 1994
Subject: No Pay

There two problems with the taking argument here.  First, the
government does not pay when its regulations diminish property
values -- payment is only due when the property owner is deprived
of all reasonable use.  Second, and in any event, I think there
would be a proof problem in demonstrating that the fair market
value of the regional mall was diminished by the unobtrusive
presence of leafletters.

And, Ron, you how to consider those regulations that limit the
time, manner and means of leafletting.  Like you have to tell the
owner 30 days before you want to do it; there won't be more than
one leafletter around per day; it is OK to be there from 9am-10am
only; you gotta be outside (inside only when the temperature dips
below 5 degrees or during the monsoon season); you have to pay for
police protection; you have to post a bond; you have to pick up
the leaflets, etc.

Appended by: Mark Schuman -- McCarter & English - Newark
Date: Fri Jan  6 11:22:28 1995
Subject: Takings

Mr. Goldshore is, unfortunately, correct about the current state
of takings law (as I understand it).  When the state leaves SOME
economic value, it appears likely that no taking will be found.

Diminishment of market value cannot be the only measure of taking,
however.  Ownership includes control of use and ability to
exclude, not merely right to resell.  The takings issue got short
shrift here, but that is not suprising in NJ.

Unfortunately, the disappointing result in Lucas, wherein as long
as any economically viable use is left there is not taking,
probably means no remedy here.  I hope I am wrong . . . .

Malls are public only in that the owners give license to enter
fairly freely.  They remain private property -- owners pay the
bills, taxes, etc.  Malls did not "destroy" downtowns -- people
free choose to go to them rather than to the downtowns.  If the
results of free choice of others is deemed aggressive violence, do
not hope for a vibrant, productive economy or happy individuals
and families -- you will get a "planned" one instead.

Of course, this is no first amendment issue.  That amendment
restricts government from impinging on speech; this case is about
government restricting owners control of their property, and about
one group of private individuals desiring to use the property of
another.  If the first amendment is relevant at all, it is the
owners' right to express itself on its property which is
implicated, and impaired, by the decision.  We know from Barnett,
the pledge of allegiance case, that the first amendment also
restricts what government may force us to say.  

Malls will survive, yes.  But tyranny of the state marches on, and
all our freedoms are, today, a bit more suspect than yesterday. 
Nothing new here, but another short, incremental step away from
liberty, freedom, and our ability to order our lives the way
we, not government, wish.

MAS

Why is it Cincinnati always seems to be on the bleeding edge of stupidity?
Makes me very glad I left there a long time ago.

Seems to me that shopping malls are private property and like any other
property owner, they can decide who is allowed on their property and who isn't.
I don't buy that 'town center' stuff.  And what is a 'regional mall'?

I don't know that I know the whole story about what happened to John Covert at
the Natick mall, but it seems that if the property owners didn't want him there,
they should have simply asked him to leave and only called the police if he
refused.

Bob

    That, I surmise from the sketchy evidence posted thus far by Covertski,
    is eggzackly what seems to have happened.
                                    

	Maybe he will tell us everything, and leave nothing out? Well, maybe..

	i'm just all goosey pimpley waiting to see if john will
	reply.  yes, indeedy.

    
    RE: .10
    
    My sentiments exactly!!! :) :) :) :)
    

	He's back! Welcome to the afternoon session Andy! Glad to have ya
aboard!


Glen

    Many malls have signs which say "No soliciting."  One should not
    solicit in these malls, I think.

    Picture this. You're a security guard at a mall. You might
    be educated, to some degree, but most likely you're not.
    If you're like most of your associates, you have all the
    talent and ambition of a loaf of bread. Everyone laughs
    at you because you're an adult with an extremely dorky
    job. The biggest excitement you get is telling teenagers
    not to play in the fountain. Along comes John, in costume,
    doing something vaguely against the rules. You pounce.
    Somehow, the excitement in your life has just reached
    new heights. Of course you're going to surround the perp
    and apply every measure of mall rule enforcement that
    you've been taught. If you do real well, you might get
    to wear a hat.
    
    -b

    
    
    	hehehehehehehe....that was beautiful....:)
    
    
    

    
    .15:
    
    In general, I would have more use for the loaf of bread.  :^)
    

Hmmm....  reminds me of Beavis and Butthead's time
at the mall on Career Day.

	Jack Martin probably knows that episode by heart! :-)

	Brian, for a minute there I thought you were being serious.

    
    
    So. what if it was just a T-shirt with the same information on it?
    
    
    This ain't right.  

| <<< Note 337.20 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>



| So. what if it was just a T-shirt with the same information on it?


	Well, in 12.2838 he said walking around the mall wearing a sign.... is
a sign a t-shirt? 



Glen

    
    Why, /john is here at work today in his white socks, sandals, jeans,
    and sandwich board.
    
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    RE: .21
    
    So... if you wore a T-shirt to the Mall that stated:
    
     Support AIDS research!! Call 1-800-XXX-XXXX and it had a red ribbon on
    it... 
    
     Should you expect to be arrested?
    

    
>     Should you expect to be arrested?

    only if that's all you were wearing.
    

    
    RE: .24
    
    Funny... :)
    
     Then am I to assume /john was just wearing a T-shirt? and that's why
    he got arrested? Not because he was "advertising"?
    

>    only if that's all you were wearing.

Considering John's height, a T-shirt should suffice to hide the naughty bits.

    ZZZ        Jack Martin probably knows that episode by heart! :-)
    
    You boys know anything about security?
    
    Uhhhh...is it like work or something.
    
    You watch TV all day.
    
    WOOAAAA....we're there dude!

	 .26  true enough ;>

| <<< Note 337.23 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>


| So... if you wore a T-shirt to the Mall that stated:

	John stated he had a sign Andy. BIG difference.

	Hell, I have on today a t-shirt that was for an AIDS rally we did last 
year here. So far only one person has asked about it. There was a t-shirt that
was banned from one particular mall if memory serves me correct. 

| Should you expect to be arrested?

	No. If they object to the clothing I am wearing, I leave. I may make a
stink about it later, but their policies are set for while I am there. If I
were carrying a sign, and John didn't leave out any details such as he was
asked to leave, then yes.


Glen

| <<< Note 337.25 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>


| Then am I to assume /john was just wearing a T-shirt? and that's why
| he got arrested? Not because he was "advertising"?

	It might have been taken as advertising.... :-)

	I knew you would know it Jack! :-)

    
    well is /john ever going to tell us what made him public enemy number
    1 or not??
    
    Mark

    
    
    Mark...You mean you don't know??  Get with the program!
    
    
    
    :*)
    

    
    
    Glen, you are a bassoon (how's that for a nasserism). 
    
    
    It's called freedom of speech, but I forgot, you're only for that when
    it fits into your agenda......
    
    
    Mike

     Who was the mall guard? Is Ito moonlighting?
    
     Chip :-)

    
    .33 er Terrie, I would like to hear the whole story not just bits and
    pieces. Is this better??
    
    Mark

    
    
    	Mark, I believe you will find the note back a ways in the Things to
    Hate Today note...
    
    jim
    

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 12.2829                  Things to Hate Today                  2829 of 2863
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      19 lines  11-MAR-1995 23:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know about people leafletting in malls (see the new topic on malls).
I wasn't leafletting.

I was only wearing a sign, had no leaflets, and was not approaching
people or selling tickets.  I was in costume; no makeup.

I had lunch at the mall (resto called Great Stuff, which I like), and then
planned to walk around the top once or twice and the bottom once or twice
and then go somewhere else.  Just like any shopper.

I was less than 1/4th way around the top level when mall security
arrived in force (six or seven, maybe).  The rest is the subject of a
criminal complaint for trespassing which is before the court.  The
police repeatedly told me how polite I was being, and I wouldn't be
surprised if the arresting officer comes to the show.  The bail
commissioner had just gotten back from Tokyo and advised me on the
proper way to tie an obe.

/john

    Is there a multi-million dollar lawsuit in the offing here --
    for all that emotional suffering, etc.?

    Who would do the suing?  A class action suit against John would be a
    little harsh don't you think?

    
    In Canada, they have a hate crimes law.. correct?
    
     What would be the difference re: that law wrt someone carrying a
    sign saying:
    
      "I hate faggits and queers"
    
    and someone wearing a t-shirt saying the same thing?

    
    I believe John's court date was this morning, so perhaps we'll
    hear from him this afternoon.   

	i'm fairly giddy with anticipation.

| <<< Note 337.34 by GRANPA::MWANNEMACHER "NRA member in good standing" >>>

| Glen, you are a bassoon (how's that for a nasserism).

	Are you sure you don't mean buffoon? :-)

| It's called freedom of speech, but I forgot, you're only for that when it fits
| into your agenda......

	If a place has a no soliciting sign up, then you have to obey the
rules, regardless of ones agenda.


Glen

| <<< Note 337.41 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>


| "I hate faggits and queers"
| and someone wearing a t-shirt saying the same thing?

	Andy, do you know the difference between advertising FOR something, and
something that promotes hate? I'll help you out here. One is a form of
soliciting FOR something, the other is showing people how you feel. 



Glen

>>	Are you sure you don't mean buffoon? :-)


	it was a nasserism, you doodlehead.  ;>

    Not only that, it was something nasser would say.

    
    RE: .45
    
    So... wearing a t-shirt that has any sort of mfg. logo such as Nike or
    Reebok or Joe's Construction Company can be construed as
    "advertising"... no?
    

    "Fagott" is German for "bassoon".
    
    Dave
    ====
    

| <<< Note 337.46 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "no, i'm aluminuming 'um, mum" >>>


| it was a nasserism, you doodlehead.  ;>

	Now there is a name I can identify with.... doodlehead! Thanks my Lady!


Glen

| <<< Note 337.48 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>



| So... wearing a t-shirt that has any sort of mfg. logo such as Nike or Reebok 
| or Joe's Construction Company can be construed as "advertising"... no?

	The key word is CAN Andy. It comes down to the place making the
judgement call on what is or is not acceptable. If they say it is not
acceptable, we have to go with what they say. If they want us to leave,
we leave. If we want to take it up with management, we can do that as
well. 



Glen

| <<< Note 337.49 by PEKING::SULLIVAND "Not gauche, just sinister" >>>


| "Fagott" is German for "bassoon".

	Then I guess I am a bassoon. :-)

    Maybe we should all go to the mall today  and walk around with T-shirts
    that say "FREE JOHN NOW".
    
    

    
      So have they freed "the Tewksbury One" yet ?
    
      bb
    

>>    Maybe we should all go to the mall today  and walk around with T-shirts
>>    that say "FREE JOHN NOW".

    But the restrooms at the mall are already free, aren't they?
    
    

    PpPpPpPpPpPpPpPpPpPpPpPpPpP
    

    
    RE: .51
    
    But that is not what happened. He was arrested... He was not asked to
    leave because the mall didn't agree with his "ad"...
    
     Methinks /john may have a nice lawsuit pending...
    

    <----   "Geezz John. You are walking a little funny today. Did ya hurt
    yer back 'r sumthin'?" 
    
    Yep, if some dip can spill coffee on herself and get a coupl'a million
    ... 'could be time to call "attorney James Sokolov".
    
    

Re: nasserisms

I recently learned that these can be great fun to employ in written
correspondence. I had a situation where I agreed to cover a bill that
one of my kids owed to a creditor. I wrote an initial letter indicating
that I intended to make four equal payments over four months to satisfy
the bill, and a subsequent letter each month with the remaining three
payments. I ensured that each letter was replete with nasserisms,
homonyms, malapropisms, etc. Not only were they a blast to write, but
I got great satisfaction thinking about how I'd pulled one on the
dweebs at the other end of the mail.

/Nasser was a classic.

>>/Nasser was a classic.

	\nasser

    
    Him too.
    

I guess it's a good thing I didn't have to bring him into the letters,
then . . . 

    I have a goose on my arm just remembering all those nasserisms.
    
    
    Hope this helps.
    
    

    
    John *was* asked to leave by the mall security; they said he was
    soliciting, he said he wasn't.  Therein lies the disagreement:  how
    broad is the legal definition of soliciting?

| <<< Note 337.64 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces" >>>


| John *was* asked to leave by the mall security; 

	Well, there was one piece of the puzzle I was looking for. 

| they said he was soliciting, he said he wasn't.  

	Here is the other piece. I think they need to make a new movie, "The
world according to Covert"! :-)  It seemed kind of weird that they would just
arrest him for nothing. But getting arrested for this is still kind of
puzzling. Not from why he was arrested so much as from why he let it get blown
so far out of proportion. Good publicity for the event....

|Therein lies the disagreement: how broad is the legal definition of soliciting?

	Well, for a mall it would be up to them to define what is or what
isn't. On a street it would be up to the city or town. At someone's house it
would be up to them. It does not mean that any of these people are right, and
one can try to change the policy if they feel they aren't. What John did, was
classic John though. :-)


Glen

    
    I think you're missing my point, Glen.  According to John (and forgive
    me, John, for speaking for you), he was *not* soliciting.  He had no
    flyers, no tickets, no money, etc.  He wasn't handing things out or
    trying to sell things.  He was simply walking around the mall wearing a
    sign.  According to John, this is not soliciting.  According to the
    mall, it is.  They asked him to leave because he was soliciting.  He
    demurred because he was not soliciting.  With me?
                                                     
    So my question remains:  what is the legal definition of soliciting?

	Deb, I understand that John did not think he was soliciting. But John
does not own the property and therefor can not set the standard.


Glen

    /john was wrong if he did not think he was soliciting.  even w9ncd
    includes "to strongly urge (as one's cause)" in its definitions of
    soliciting.

RE:               <<< Note 337.67 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>




>	Deb, I understand that John did not think he was soliciting. But John
>does not own the property and therefor can not set the standard.


Fascinating.  



Jim

    
    Then I suggest that anyone wearing a Nike t-shirt that states:
    
     "Just do it"
    
    
      is soliciting... for what I don't know, but it's a solicitation
    nontheless...
    

	Then Andy, if someone comes onto your property and you feel this way,
you can tell them to either take it off, or leave.


Glen

    Wearing clothes is a normal act; everyone does it, when they're in a
    mall (or they don't stay in the mall long).  Carrying a sign is not a
    normal, typical act.  That's why it is more easily construed as
    soliciting -- it stands out (as it's supposed to).

    They should ban assault sandwich boards.  

There's a difference between wearing a T-shirt and wearing a sandwich board.

A T-shirt is primarily an item of clothing.  T-shirts with messages have
become so ubiquitous that the message has to be pretty shocking for anyone
to pay attention.

What purpose does a sandwich board serve other than solicitation?

Oh no!  I agree with Chelsea!

    Not only that, you said almost the same thing.

    
    So my question remains...does anyone know...is there one...bla bla
    bla...
    
    What is the LEGAL definition of soliciting?  I mean, what will the
    judge use as his/her definition of whether or not Covert was
    soliciting, if that enters into the equation?

We could ask DIGITAL Worldwide Human Resources whether or not they feel
/john was soliciting by _their_ standards. I understand they have experts
on the matter.

    
    Re: .77
    
    you are looking for a legal opinion in the Box!
    you must like living dangerously.

Does anyone know (if I read it, I've forgotten) what he was charged with?
Was it for soliciting (which may be questionable and left to interpretation),
or for failing to vacate the premises when so requested by appropriate
authorities (which seems clear)?

	Deb, I really think it will come down to whether the store's policy
says he was soliciting. If they said he was, and he did not leave, then he
would be at fault. If they just arrested him without saying anything to him,
THEN he would have a chance.

    
    
    Jack has hit the nail right on the noggin.  What was he charged with? 
    Terspassing?  Is there a law against soliciting?  
    
    
    

    Terspassing? Is that going to the bathroom, but not going
    very much? :-)
    
    -b

    No Brian, that's going while angry.

================================================================================
>>Note 12.2829                  Things to Hate Today                  2829 of 2863
>>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      19 lines  11-MAR-1995 23:56
...

>>I was less than 1/4th way around the top level when mall security
>>arrived in force (six or seven, maybe).  The rest is the subject of a
>>criminal complaint for trespassing which is before the court.

...

Soliciting is a crime if it's for prostitution.  Was John wearing fishnet
stockings and a miniskirt under his sandwich board?

    Wait a minute!  
    
    Are you guys saying our beloved Covert is a hooker???
    
    I don't believe it!!!
    
    

>    Are you guys saying our beloved Covert is a hooker???

Of course not.  That would be Overt.

 What kinda sandwich was it?

    egg salad

    >  Overt ...
    
    Of course. Silly me.
    
    	:^/
    

    Re .79:
    
    > We could ask DIGITAL Worldwide Human Resources whether or not they
    > feel /john was soliciting by _their_ standards. I understand they have
    > experts on the matter.
    
    No, they don't.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

| <<< Note 337.84 by MPGS::MARKEY "Send John Thomas some doughnuts" >>>

| Terspassing? Is that going to the bathroom, but not going very much? :-)

	No Brian, that's pee shy.

    
    The mall, being private property, is established to serve the business
    ends of the merchants and the management/owner.  What John said/wore is
    not the issue...the issue is: what was he using the mall for?  If it
    was to purchase the goods or services of the merchants therein, then
    fine.  If it was to promote his own personal agenda, then he requires
    (IMHO) the advance permission of mall management.  I'm sure he can wear
    any damn slogan on any shirt or board he wants as long as he's there to
    spend some cash.  If he's just there to display the slogan, then he is
    abusing the private property of others, and I think he knows this.  The
    law in Canada hold this position, and I'm willing to bet the law in the
    US is roughly similar.
    
    My guess is that the real problem John has is with the way the mall
    security/management handled the situation.
    
    jc
    

    
    Wasn't the Natick Mall one of the malls that banished the Salvation
    Army?
    
    								-mr. bill

	What Joan said! 

    Yeahbut, !Joan... John ate in a restaurant there; that was in
    his original note... so he can at least claim he was there to
    spend money.
    
    -b

>							I'm sure he can wear
>    any damn slogan on any shirt or board he wants as long as he's there to
>    spend some cash.

Didn't he say he'd just finished eating his lunch there?

    
    Was he ASKED to leave, and then arrested when he refused, or was he
    arrested without the option?

    
    This cane thing -- it raises entire new vistas.

>    The malls are private property. You can be asked to leave at any time
>    for any reason. Same as whomever you invite into your house - you tell
>    them to leave they have to leave. If they don't then hit 'em with a
>    cane.

"Hey you.  We don't allow your kind in this here mall."  If the person
spoken to is a member of a protected minority, the mall's in big trouble.

    
    Yes -- "for any reason" is much too wide.

>>  <<< Note 337.104 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

>>>    The malls are private property. You can be asked to leave at any time
>>>    for any reason. Same as whomever you invite into your house - you tell
>>>    them to leave they have to leave. If they don't then hit 'em with a
>>>    cane.

>>"Hey you.  We don't allow your kind in this here mall."  If the person
>>spoken to is a member of a protected minority, the mall's in big trouble.

	Why did you mention malls in your reply and not the
	following?:

	private property
	at any time
	leave
	house
	hit 'em with a cane

    
    Jack/Brian,
    
    Yes, he did have lunch there.  But if he was done his spending (or even
    window shopping) activities for the day, then he should move on, or
    he's just loitering (pesky kids!!!  :^).  Saying that he had lunch
    there that day could just as easily be extended to: "I've spent
    hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars in this mall over the past year,
    and I've every right to use it to promote my <mumble>".
    
    John has honestly admitted that it was his intention to use the mall
    to promote his (I've forgotten, is this a musical we're talking about?),
    and as such I believe he requires the mall's advance permission.
    
    jc
    

	Well, he did enter a note recently, so hopefully he will fill us in.

It's imprudent to discuss cases currently before the courts.



:^)

	But I thought he went before the courts today.....

Well, I don't know - maybe he's assembling his dream team . . .

The judge scheduled a pre-trial conference for April 18th.

He also asked about tickets for the show.

/john

	Why, were you wearing your sign again???? :-)

   
>The judge scheduled a pre-trial conference for April 18th.


 Hey, that's my eldest son's birthday!




Jim

    
    If every 'boxer sends John one dollar...   :^)
    

	That would be like sending a dollar from your tax return to the
Presidential campaign fund... a waste.

    \john..was it you had some sort of bruhaha over a theatrical production
    of some kind last year or so....something to do with dec notes and
    solicitation or have I mistaken ..... damn I hate it getting old and 
    suffering from this mentalpause stuff!!

      <<< Note 337.90 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

> What kinda sandwich was it?

	Quite obviously it was HAM.

	;-)

Jim

re .117

Only vaguely related.  The moderators of another conference did not
want me to post the notice, but sent mail indicating that any other
employee could post the exact same note.

It was an audition notice, not a solicitation.

/john

    What an opportunity! I'm settin' up a 900 number now!
    
    "I have been reading John Covert's notes for a long time. He is NOT
    guilty of the terrible crime. Call me and I'll tell why. I'll also
    divulge to you all the intimate details of his secret postings ... "
    
    A'course, at LEAST 20% of the proceeds go to the JCDL (John Covert
    Defense League).
    
    /Intern
    

    
    I was really afraid they'd throw him in the pokey for 30 days and we'd
    be minus a bass on the stage next week 8^/.
    

    just exactly how much is /john's little snit over being asked to cease
    soliciting on private property going to cost you, the taxpayers of the
    prm?

Wasn't soliciting.

    
    Were too!!!!   :^)
    

>    I was really afraid they'd throw him in the pokey for 30 days and we'd
>    be minus a bass on the stage next week 8^/.
    
You could always substitute a porgy for a bass.  Just for the halibut.

    
    A porgy would flounder onstage.
    

    
    >> Wasn't soliciting.
    
    John, did security ruffed your sign you were wearing?

Well, in any case, the mall is no longer involved at all.

Whether I was soliciting or not might not even enter into the case.

The mall management does not have to be present in any of the proceedings
(neither in person nor by attorney).

The mall can't even drop charges.  The police would have to, and they won't.

This is now the People of Massachusetts vs. John Covert.  95 87 CR 358

/john

    
    The mall can't drop a trespassing charge?  Do the police feel 
    compelled to make an example of John `Knuckles' Covert?
    

The Natick Police Department Prosecutor said, "The mall is not involved in
this at all.  The [alleged] crime was committed in the presence of a police
officer, and it is our case."

/john

	They gave you presents????

    
    Well...I dunno...it seems to me that you're only trespassing if the
    mall says you're trespassing, and then it should be up to them to 
    pursue the charge.  Since when do the police arbitrarily decide who
    is trespassing in a mall?
      

	so, are we not getting the whole poop here?  it seems like
	we're somewhat poop-impaired, but maybe that's my imagination.

	My Lady, I thought the same. From earlier notes it seemed to be the
mall security were the ones who were pressing the charges, and now it seems he
did something in front of the policemenzezzzzz....

The mall told the police I was trespassing.

The police prosecutor says that the mall can now no longer change their
mind and say that they were wrong and that I wasn't really trespassing.

/john

    
    
    
    What are the formal charges, John?
    
    
    Did you save your receipt for the lunch?
    
    
    Mike

216.TRESPASS ON LAND, DEWLLING [sic], ETC. c266 s120

did without right enter or remain in or upon the improved or enclosed land,
dwelling house, building, boat, wharf, or pier of another after having been
forbidden so to do by the person who had the lawful control of said premises,
either directly or by notice posted thereon, or in violation of a court order
pursuant to G.L. c.208, s.34B or G.L. c.209A, s.4, in violation of G.L. c.266,
s.120.

So, did they ask you to leave first? And did you refuse to do so?

>>So, did they ask you to leave first? And did you refuse to do so?

      	;>  You could be on to something here, Columbo.  It's not hard
	to imagine such a scenario, shall we say.

    
    .115 True the city of Natick has unlimited resources to bring
         Mr Covert to trial.
    
    .116 I don't know it seems like I've gotten a $1 worth of entertainment
    from this. If I only knew his address.
    
                          
    P.S. John, be very afraid that the fine will be $100 but being hit with
    'Court costs' surcharge. They can hit you with this no matter
    what the outcome is. (Seems unfair eh?)  

    
    Well...I'd say John has learned his lesson and is no longer
    a danger to society.   :^)
    

>    .116 I don't know it seems like I've gotten a $1 worth of entertainment
>    from this. If I only knew his address.

All proceeds from any entertainment I provide are donated to the relief of
world hunger.

/john

    
    
    
    John,
    
    
    Have you been to the press yet?
    
    
    
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 337.142 by TROOA::COLLINS "The Forest City Madman" >>>


| Well...I'd say John has learned his lesson 

	An oxymoron statement if I ever heard one... :-)

Next time he'll wear a t-shirt over his kimono.

>    
>    Have you been to the press yet?
>    

Color photo on the front page of Monday's Middlesex News.  Lead article
with large B/W photo of me with smaller Mikado sign in the "local news"
section of the Framingham/Natick edition.  Page 1B.

West edition (Marlborough, Hudson, ...) has the front page photo but
the article is on page 2B.

The article omitted the key point: totally non-commercial, all-volunteer,
local community-based organization donating all proceeds to the relief
of world hunger (after paying the regional high school $5500 for the space).

/john

>Next time he'll wear a t-shirt over his kimono.

Pheasant Lane Mall management informed me that it is not whether it is
a sign or a t-shirt that is important, but whether it is an "intercept".

Thus they might allow an unobtrusive person to walk through the mall wearing
a t-shirt, but might ask a person with loud pants, a t-shirt, and a propellor
beanie to leave.

/john

    Dr. Dan can't go to that mall then.

Care to respond to any of the questions for which we await the answers?

Maybe his lawyer won't let him.

	i'd say it appears as if ::covert has reached his goal of free
	publicity, but then again, it may cost him $100+
	
	;-)

    I knew the Police State note should have been merged here.........

    
    Just as an exercise of curiousity, John might want to contact the mall
    and see whether or not they would give him permission to promote his
    charitable cause in some way.  Malls often have community noticeboards
    for this sort of thing.
    
    Also, individual retailers often allow charitable causes to put small
    posters in their windows facing the shoppers.
    

| <<< Note 337.147 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| The article omitted the key point: totally non-commercial, all-volunteer,
| local community-based organization donating all proceeds to the relief
| of world hunger (after paying the regional high school $5500 for the space).

	John, if it had something to do with the case, yeah, they forgot to
mention it. Otherwise, it has nothing to do with the case at all.

	Joan, now that makes perfect sense. It won't get it in the papers or
anything, but a great idea none the less. And besides, there is no controversy
your way, so maybe John won't do it.

>Malls often have community noticeboards for this sort of thing.

Yes.  Pheasant Lane Mall has asked me to give them a notice for their
community noticeboard.

Does anyone know where it's located in the mall?  Have you ever read
the notices on it?

/john

    
    
    Nope...never.
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

What, never?

    
    Not ever.
    

    
    John,
    
     Can you provide a phone number for the Mall that tossed you? I'd like
    to call them and inform them that my friends and me will not be doing
    business in their mall for a long while...
    
      Also, can you name some of the establishments who do buy floor space
    there? I may also send them some mail regarding how I feel about your
    treatment....

    
    .159
    
    Well....hardly ever.

	I guess until he answers the questions asked, we won't really know if
he should have been arrested or not. 


Glen

    Re: .161
    
    Apparently the mall didn't file charges.  So why punish the mall -- and
    all the shopkeepers who were entirely uninvolved in the dispute?

The policeman, summoned to the mall by mall security, asked the mall security
guard if he intended to press charges.  The mall security guard said, "Yes."

/john

If the mall hadn't called the cops, /john wouldn't have been arrested.
Nor would he have got a lot of free publicity.

    
    
    The security guard can not say that the mall is going to press charges. 
    That's up to the management, not some pee-on security guard.  That's
    not the mall's fault that someone said something stupid to someone who
    did something.....
    
    
    Terrie
    

>Can you provide a phone number for the Mall that tossed you?

Natick Mall.  Don't have the number handy at the office.

>Also, can you name some of the establishments who do buy floor space
>there?

It's a typical regional mall.  Filene's, Jordan Marsh, Lord & Taylor,
Great Stuff (resto I had lunch in), Brookstone, Warner Bros. Shops,
Levi's, and all the usual stores in big malls.

/john

    
    
    MODS!  That last note could be concidered slanderous to those places.
    Isn't there a rule against that somewhere in here????
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    .167, Terrie:
    
    Actually, security guards/companies are usually empowered to act as
    agents for mall ownership/management, and as such are empowered to lay
    minor charges like trespassing and shoplifting.
    
    John...the cops asked the guards if they wanted to press charges?
    I thought the cops were acting on their own in that regard.
    

    The old Natick Mall would not even have notice John.  The new 
    Natick Mall is now considered an up-scale mall and has been
    religious in its efforts to keep it that way.  Mall rats used
    to be everywhere in the old mall.  

    

	John, was the head of security there when you got arrested? I would
imagine that he would have the authority to say that they are going to press
charges.


Glen

    
    
    RE: .169 How could that be considered slanerous, Terrie?  Someone asked
    the question of what stores were there and the question was answered. 
    Where's the slander?
    
    
    Mike

    I'm always quite cautious of mall security guards actually. I figure
    it's prolly either their first job (in which case they might make a lot
    of mistakes) or it is about all they're qualified to do (in which case
    there's a possible Moron Alert). 

 Seems as if Mr. Silva's obsession for Misters Benson and Oppelt has been
 transferred to Mr. Covert.




Jim

| <<< Note 337.175 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| Seems as if Mr. Silva's obsession for Misters Benson and Oppelt has been
| transferred to Mr. Covert.

	But I know enough to stay away from the muppet man! :-)

	Mike, I may be wrong, but I think Terrie was just kidding.... 

    
    
    oops, mea culpa, Terrie.  I just didn't see wher ethe slander was and
    for good reason I guess. :')

    
    
    Yup, just a joke.  My sarcastic other half took over for a moment...
    
    
    
    :*)
    
    
    Terrie
    

	Terrie, I like when that happens.... :-)

    
    
    Yup, I even leave words off the ends of sentences when
    the other me really starts taking over.   :*)
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    RE: .164
    
    Ummmmmm.... cause I feel like it???
    
    Ummmmm... it's my prerogative???

	Wondering why Andy's note, which I had already read, reappeared on my
screen again.....

    
    
    me too...
    

    
    A kind person noticed a spelling correction... I edited it and
    re-entered it...
    
    NBD...
    

    Well maybe I can't set FOOT therein, but I think I'll buzz the joint.
    
    Let's see em catch ME & arrest me...
    
    ......zzzzzzZZZZZZZOOOOOOOOMMMM-wwwwwwhhiirrrrRRRRRRRRRRR => ==> ===> |-{:-)
                                                

    re: .185
    
    But the FAA would not take kindly to your non-waivered low-altitude
    aerobatics.
    
    Bob

    
    
    DrDan,
    
    
    You been able to get the outside loop perfected yet?
    
    
    

    Re: .179
    
    >Ummmmmm.... cause I feel like it???
    
    Oh, there's a great reason to cause someone harm.

    
    <-----
    
    Right.....
    
     If you've got a table at a flea market and I walk past it because I
    don't want to buy anything from you for whatever reason.... what harm
    am I causing you??
    

	You probably did a lot to help her by walking past.....

    re .185
    
    As long as he's not carrying his AMSG* laser pointer, he should
    be ok
    _bill
    
    
    *Anti-Mall Security Guard
    
    :-)

    Re: .189
    
    Look, you said you were going to boycott the mall and the stores.  That
    implies that you normally do at least some of your shopping there.  So
    if you boycott, you're taking away business you would normally do
    there.  That's different from refraining to do new business with
    someone.  Remember -- if a boycott didn't do any harm, there wouldn't
    be any point to doing it, now would there?

    Would you believe that the little mfg's label on my laser pointer sez
    it's from a company called AMSG?
    
    Would you believe Edmund Scientific Corporation, NJ?
    
    As far as outside loops, I think I'd best save that attempt for after a
    coupla MzDeb-administered boilermakers.
                                           .
    
                                            .
    
    
                                             .
    
                                              sppplattttphhhfft \-{:-<
                                                                      

    
    RE: .192
    
    Fine Chels.... I'm harming them and taking food out of their children's
    mouths... 
    
      Just like them Big Blue Meanie Republicans are doing...

    You have three choices:
    
    1.  You're harming them.
    2.  You're not sending them a message or registering your disapproval.
    3.  You have no idea what "boycott" means.
    
    Take your pick.

    
    I hope the trial will be on CNN, cause we don't get CourtTV over here.
    
    Heiko

    Do you get "The Peoples Court?"  That is where this will most likely
    end up right after the neighbor vs neighbor squabble over the barking
    Chihuahua.  
    
    

    
    No.
    Perhaps I need to move away from cable and get a satellite dish. But
    then if I won't get "The Peoples Court" I'll have to watch these 
    02:00am - 04:00am swedish and danish channels instead. 
    (On the nights I suffer from, err, insomnia.)
    
    Heiko
    
    

    
    
    Feeling a little better last night, I decided to go shopping
    for a birthday gift for my son.  With this note in mind, I 
    purposfully went off to the Natick Mall and spent gobs of
    money there.  
    
    
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    

    
    
    mall snarf
    

    
    RE: .195
    
    No... those are YOUR choices.. not mine....
    
    I CHOOSE to take my business elsewhere because of certain decisions
    they've made...
    
      They are harming themselves...
      They are sending a message vis. their policies...
      They have no idea that their policies may "harm" their businesses...

I have just spoken to the Mall Manager; he informs me that there is
nothing he can do about the charges of trespassing; as he understands
it they were brought by the police and not the mall.  Until I informed
him, he was not aware that one of his employees had told the police
that the mall would press charges.  He doesn't see any way that he
can stop the police from continuing to prosecute the case.

/john

    hmmmm, the police prosecuting trespass charges on private property
    (i assume)... something is smelly here...
    
    Chip

    
    I suspect John violently resisted arrest and was taken down in a 
    flurry of tonfa sticks.  I won't be happy 'til he's breaking rocks
    at Leavenworth.
    
    :^)
    

    
    Damn!!!  Why didn't I video tape it!!!!!!!!

	Terrie, that was too funny! I can just picture you going in there with
a crazed look spending all sorts of money! Hey, did anyone take your
temperature?


Glen

    
    
    No, no temperature takers Glen, however, while in the 
    Warner Bros. store, I did kind of sound like I belonged
    there as a sale item....you'd have to hear my voice right
    now to understand.
    
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    

    Re: .201
    
    >those are YOUR choices.. not mine....
    
    Wrong.  Those are the only possible explanations for the situation. 
    One of them must be true.  I'm letting you decide which one.
    
    >I CHOOSE to take my business elsewhere because of certain decisions
    >they've made...
    
    You made a _choice_.  They didn't force you, or it wouldn't be your
    choice.  So, you think you're boycotting.  If you really are, then
    you're harming them.  If you actually aren't, then you aren't sending
    them a message.  If you're not sure, you don't know what a boycott is.
    
    You're the only one who can tell us which it is.  Speak up.

    
    Before I "speak up", am I to understand that you understand
    every/any/all boycotts as harming someone?
    

    That's the whole idea.  A boycott is negative reinforcement.  If it
    doesn't cause pain, it ain't doing anything.
    
    Looks like you've spoken for choice #3.  Fine.

           <<< Note 337.210 by OOTOOL::CHELSEA "Mostly harmless." >>>

>    That's the whole idea.  A boycott is negative reinforcement.  If it
>    doesn't cause pain, it ain't doing anything.
 
	A boycott, on an individual level, may only serve the "needs" of
	the individual.

	An example, Because of Bill Ruger Sr.'s stand on gun control, I
	will not purchase any Ruger firearm. Now, Ruger probably doesn't
	care, but it is important to me.

Jim

| <<< Note 337.209 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>


| Before I "speak up", am I to understand that you understand
| every/any/all boycotts as harming someone?

	Andy, in this case a boycott is only real if you had given that place
your business before. If you did not, then you not going there is gonna do
nothing. 



Glen

    
    RE: .210
    
     > Looks like you've spoken for choice #3.  Fine.
    
    Wrong...
    
     First you said "harm"...   Now you say "pain"...
    
    Which is it? 
    
     
      

    
    .211
    
    I agree.  I "boycott" a couple of things/companies for my own personal
    reasons.  I'm sure they don't give a flying <r.o.> at a rolling donut.

| <<< Note 337.214 by POWDML::LAUER "Little Chamber of Fuzzy Faces" >>>


| I'm sure they don't give a flying <r.o.> at a rolling donut.
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	But I bet a cop would follow one of those!!!

    Re: .213
    
    >First you said "harm"...   Now you say "pain"...
    >
    >Which is it? 
    
    Both.  They are not incompatible.  If you're going to let an
    insignificant detail like that keep you from answering, don't bother. 
    Your answer won't be worth my effort to read it.

    
    
    Come on, be nice to Mailroom in his absence. :*)
    
    
    Terrie
    

I have to agree about having personal reasons for boycotting something
regardless of concern as to how (or whether) the supplier perceives it.
There's something to be said for one's own personal integrity. I've
neither purchased nor eaten any sort of commercially available tuna
fish in over 25 years. I don't know whether or not this has had any
effect on the fishing procedures or the longevity of aquatic mammals
but I still don't buy or eat the stuff.

Then again, I've learned that I don't particularly care for it, either . . . 

Supreme Court denies appeal over leaflets at malls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

WASHINGTON (Oct 2, 1995 - 21:54 EDT) - The Supreme Court Monday let stand a
ruling that shopping malls must permit protestors to pass out leaflets on
contentious social issues.

The high court rejected an appeal by the owner of a New Jersey mall claiming
the ruling violates its constitutional free-speech rights and represents an
unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation.

At issue was a New Jersey Supreme Court decision last year declaring that
malls must permit leafletting on social issues, subject to certain
reasonable conditions. The case was brought by a coalition of activist
groups opposed to U.S. involvement in the Gulf war after Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait in 1990. Coalition members wanted to hand out leaflets at 10 malls
throughout New Jersey.

The state high court said the passing out of leaflets must be allowed but
malls may impose reasonable regulations to prevent any harassment of
shoppers. It found a constitutional obligation to allow the leaflets and
said a ruling against the protestors "would block a channel of free speech
that could reach hundreds of thousands of people, carrying societal messages
that are at its very core."

The owner of the mall in Short Hills appealed to the Supreme Court to hear
the case, saying the ruling violates First Amendment rights by requiring the
mall to furnish a valuable part of its private property to political and
social action groups that espouse causes it opposes.

The mall also argued that allowing the groups to occupy part of the mall to
pass out leaflets effectively represents an unconstitutional taking of
private property without just payment. The owners "must be compensated in
full for the expenses and lost revenues associated with the taking of their
property; they may not be told that they alone must bear the costs generated
by others," it said.

But attorneys for the protestors replied that there was no evidence the
leafletting had resulted in any loss of business. They said requiring the
mall to accommodate leafletters does not represent an unconstitutional state
compulsion of speech in violation of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court, siding with the protestors, denied the mall's appeal
without comment or dissent.

    
    Get out that sandwich board!
    
    

    Ahhhhh, vindicated at last eh John?  Good for you.  

 John is a free man!

    
    John is a menace 2 society.
    

    I think the SCOTUS screwed up.  It's private property.  They have no
    obligation to provide a soapbox for anyone.
    
    Bob

    
    I 'gree wit Bob.
    

Ackshully, I still have a not-guilty plea active in the court.

Prosecutor wanted me to "admit to sufficient facts for a finding
of guilty" or he would demand the expense of a full trial.

The judge told me I didn't have to do that, didn't have to admit
anything, and allowed me to retain my not-guilty plea, promising
to dismiss the case on 17 October.

/john

>> It found a constitutional obligation to allow the leaflets and
>> said a ruling against the protestors "would block a channel of free speech
>> that could reach hundreds of thousands of people, carrying societal messages
>> that are at its very core.
    
    Using this logic, places like Disneyworld would also have to allow
    leaflet-passers and other bothersome types.  This is absurd.  Is
    there any such thing as private property anymore?
    
    Sometimes people go to places like malls or amusement parks to get away
    from stuff like this.  I guess that was a bit too much for the court to
    handle.
    
    Chris

  .228  yes, i know for myself that i always go to malls or amusement
	parks to get away from annoying people. ;>

       
       Maybe the Supreme Court sees a mall as the functional equivalent
       of a public pedestrian street, where people can walk or mill about
       and to which there's no admission charge.  Perhaps the Court's
       rationale is that the corridors of, say, the Natick Mall aren't
       conceptually different from, say, the sidewalks of Newbury Street.
       
       I'd be surprised if the Court looked the same way either at places
       for which there is a fee charged, or places that aren't the
       functional equivalent of a pedestrian street.
       
       --Mr Topaz

    
    .230

       >Maybe the Supreme Court sees a mall as the functional equivalent
       >of a public pedestrian street, where people can walk or mill about
       >and to which there's no admission charge.
    
    One wonders whether they'd feel the same way in a civil case involving
    a broken hip from slipping on a over-waxed floor, or some such thing.
    
    I think this sets a bad precedent.  The owners are responsible for the
    property, but are not empowered to control it as they see fit?
    
    What *else* can people do in the mall with impunity?  Hold parades?
    Busk?                                     
    

  .231  i am wichoo, !joan.

       Hello, wichoo, I am Mr Topaz.

    
    The real question is who is responsible for picking up the leaflets
    that get dumped on the ground?  Can the mall owner bill the leafletting
    organization?
    

    
    Dan,
    
    That isn't the real question.  
    
    I am sending the Hare Krishnas over to your place this very moment.
    
    --- Barry
    
    

    
    
    > I am sending the Hare Krishnas over to your place this very moment.

    COOOOOOL ! ! !  <rummage>...<rummage>... You are sending over more than
    twenty I hope! <oh boy, I get to use the box mag again!>... Could you
    arrange to send say forty, or sixty even ! ? !

    :-)))))