Robert.Berry@samba (Robert Berry) (12/19/90)
Actually, as far as I know, the most recent precedent regarding the public forum status of shopping malls is the case of Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner in 1972. In that case the Supreme Court denied that shopping malls were sufficiently dedicated to public use to make them public forums. In that sense, then, they can "restrict free-speech activities," although there is no First Amendment question involved -- no state action. As far as Prodigy goes, they are free to use whatever criteria they wish in deciding what to publish on their system and what to do with any information submitted to it. As far as I am concerned that includes reading mail messages, unless they have agreed contractually not to do so. (And of course I would much prefer that they did.)
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (12/20/90)
In article <1977@beguine.UUCP> Robert.Berry@samba (Robert Berry) writes: >Actually, as far as I know, the most recent precedent regarding the public >forum status of shopping malls is the case of Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner in 1972. Try Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980). --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@eff.org | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (12/20/90)
The Supreme Court recently overturned Lloyd, but it ruled that individual states may pass free-speech constitutional amendments that expand the "public forum" concept's application to malls and shopping centers. Bob Jacobson
cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu (Robert Jacobson) (12/20/90)
Pruneyard is an example of a state (California) doing just that.
Robert.Berry@samba (Robert Berry) (12/21/90)
Mike, maybe I'm misreading the case, but my understanding of Pruneyard is that it is grounded in the California constitution, not the federal constitution. I don't have the complete text of the case at my disposal, so I may well be wrong. At any rate, that's why I didn't interpret it as overturning Lloyd.
mnemonic@eff.org (Mike Godwin) (12/22/90)
In article <2012@beguine.UUCP> Robert.Berry@samba (Robert Berry) writes: >Mike, maybe I'm misreading the case, but my understanding of Pruneyard >is that it is grounded in the California constitution, not the federal >constitution. I don't have the complete text of the case at my disposal, >so I may well be wrong. At any rate, that's why I didn't interpret it >as overturning Lloyd. Your understanding is almost correct. Pruneyard *is* based on the California constitution, but the interests in involved (e.g., property rights) also implicated federal constitutional issues. That is why the case was heard in the U.S. Supreme Court, which otherwise would have no jurisdiction to hear claims based on the California constitution. Mike Bob says check it out. --Mike -- Mike Godwin, (617) 864-0665 |"If the doors of perception were cleansed mnemonic@eff.org | every thing would appear to man as it is, Electronic Frontier | infinite." Foundation | --Blake
wizz.trm@pro-harvest.cts.com (The Wizard) (01/26/91)
In-Reply-To: message from cyberoid@milton.u.washington.edu
A agree with whoever said that the EFF should set up a hotline which one could
call if they get into trouble and need legal help. I, being a minor, would be
forced to use my parents lawyer. That would mean that I'm dead. Why?
Because my parent's lawyer is like 80 and doesn't know anything about
computers. So I'd like competent people at my side
<Not that the feds would have any reason to raid my house. The most
subversive thing i have is the latest issue of CuD.>
Wizz
______________________________________________________________________________
|
ProLine: wizz.trm@pro-harvest | "And with thine holy hand grenade,
Internet: wizz.trm@pro-harvest.cts.com | thou shalt blow thine enemies to
UUCP: crash!pro-harvest!wizz.trm | smithereens...."
ARPA:crash!pro-harvest!wizz.trm@nosc.mil | --Monty Python And The Holy Grail
_________________________________________|____________________________________