« on: December 22, 2015, 06:00:47 PM »
The case will turn out badly for the protesters.
They can protests outside the mall (so long as it is far enough outside to be public property). But the mall itself is private property. They can no more chose to protest there than they can in your house - they'd be subject to the same laws (trespass, etc.). Minnesota has no analogous laws to California.
I would also note that while this Court is, arguably, at the apex of Free Speech protection, it is close to the lowest in terms of protecting public forums (vis-a-vis the distinction between state and private actors). This doesn't seem very interesting from a ConLaw perspective- maybe back in the 60s.
Yes, that sounds right.
I'm drawing on conlaw that I haven't studied in several years, but I seem to remember that the "mall case" had to do with an outdoor, uncovered shopping center. An indoor covered mall is significantly different, if for no other reason that it's more difficult for shoppers to avoid noisy protestors if they don't want to be subjected to obnoxious chanting and ridicule.
The parking lot and sidewalk in front of the mall may be different, but inside is clearly private property.