Talk:Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins

Link to USSC Cases Vol 331

I removed a wikilink to List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 331 that was listed under "See Also". I don't see any reason to have a link to that volume - Pruneyard vs Robins is in volume 447 anyway, as shown in the article itself. I didn't add a link to Volume 447 as I'd see no reason to do this - none of the other cases there have any bearing on this one from what I can see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny252 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

International Society for Krishna Conscious v. City of Los Angeles

The addition of the reference to International Society for Krishna Conscious v. City of Los Angeles IS RELEVANT to Pruneyard because Pruneyard is the main argument for the International Society for Krishna Conscious with regard the a "public forum." THEY did reach Pruneyard in International Society for Krishna Conscious v. City of Los Angeles, it is even cited in the opinion. Their conclusion was that the exchanging of funds was not speech, and hence was not covered by Pruneyard. Please stop deleting the reference. It is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.142.209 (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh my. You are so, so funny. You mixed up the majority opinion by Moreno with Kennard's concurrence. ONLY Kennard discussed Pruneyard, but NO OTHER JUSTICE joined her concurrence. That means IT'S NOT THE LAW. SO IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Any justice can say what they want in a concurring opinion but it doesn't become the law unless they can get someone else on the court to agree with it. If the majority had thought Pruneyard was relevant (it was briefed by the parties, I read the briefs when they were published online shortly before oral argument), then Justice Moreno would have discussed it in his majority opinion. But he didn't even go there because he didn't need to. Any lawyer can see that.

Do you even know the critical difference between a majority opinion and a concurring opinion? You're clearly not a lawyer, nor do you have any understanding of the law or how to read legal opinions. How sad. I suggest you visit a law library and spend a couple of days reading some books on legal analysis.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be permanently blocked and all your edits will be reverted on sight. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Nonetheless, it still is relevant, and its presence, insofar, does not harm anything about the article. Hence, it is not vandalism. If you think there is a better place for the information or a more appropriate way to present, you are free to suggest one. However, carelessly marking a serious addition as vandalism simply because it does not meet your standards is not warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.132.142.209 (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the point is that it is NOT RELEVANT. You have not yet articulated a coherent explanation for WHY it is relevant. You clearly are a nonlawyer (indeed, probably not even a college graduate), and you definitely have NO legal training. Any competent attorney knows that lawyers make wild arguments with citations to cases all over the place ALL THE TIME (that's their job), but only a handful of arguments are actually adopted by courts and become the law (and therefore can legitimately be considered progeny of the older cases argued by the parties). The Pruneyard argument was just one of several arguments made by the parties, but it NEVER became the law. Hence, it is NOT relevant to this article. If you were to argue before any judge that International Society for Krishna Consciousness is among Pruneyard's direct progeny (when the majority opinion NEVER cited Pruneyard), you would be laughed out of court. If you were to make that argument in writing in any law school constitutional law or legal writing course, you would get a C grade at best---only because the professor would feel sorry for you.

Wikipedia is NOT a collection of random information. First of all, the case is not even relevant to this article when no intelligent attorney nor the Supreme Court of California would consider it to be among Pruneyard's progeny. Second, relevance is a necessary but not a sufficient requirement for content inclusion. See core policies WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. Repeated edits in violation of core policies are vandalism and are reverted on sight. ArbCom has banned numerous editors who failed to conform their conduct to Wikipedia policies. See User:Ericsaindon2, a particularly troublesome editor whom I had the pleasure of prosecuting before ArbCom. He attempted to evade the temporary ban imposed by ArbCom, so his ban is now permanent. If you fail to conform your conduct to Wikipedia policies (which I am far more familiar with than you, having contributed to the project for over five years), you too will be banned permanently. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, one more point. Try Shepardizing Pruneyard and see what's the most recent appellate court decision that cites it. That is, if you even know what Shepardizing is. Trust me, International Society will NOT be on that list. If you don't know how to read a Shepard's Citations or KeyCite report, you're WAY out of your league on this one. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I will not be bullied!

I have specifically asked you to discuss the matter, and come to a meaningful consensus. All you have done is willfully bully, harass, and threaten another editor in order to conform to your opinion on the matter. I have specifically asked you to comment on an appropriate placement of the information added, however, you have yet to do that. The fact of the matter is that someone did cite it, and hence, to perhaps the smallest degree, is relevant. Some people are interested in the differences in free speech policy between California and the rest of the nation; and even though it is not well determined where that line is, it is important, at the least to the people at large, that California law does not protect "the immediate exchange of funds" (i.e., panhandling) on quasi-public private property (i.e., a shopping center, etc.). If you believe there is better way or place to express this difference, please suggest one. However, intimidating me with threats of bannings, etc. is not appropriate.

If you have in fact you have been an editor for over five years, you should know that one of the main pillars of WIkipeida: WP:5P, WP:CIV is Civility. Which, to be blunt, you have not at all engaged in. You mislabeled a CLEARLY serious edit as "vandalism" and reverted such an edit numerous times without using the talk page. My edits, in fact, are not vandalism: WP:VAND#NOT.

Lastly, your attitude here, without a thought, sincerely discourages other editors from participating on this project. Please reconsider you attitude and tone towards other editors. 71.132.142.209 (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You're so funny. You still don't understand that the court in the International Society NEVER reached the free speech issue. Which means you didn't read the decision. How can you even argue with a straight face about a document you clearly haven't read?

Here's the relevant paragraph from Justice Carlos Moreno's majority opinion: "For the reasons that follow, we conclude that whether or not Los Angeles International Airport is a public forum for free expression under the California Constitution, the ordinance is valid as a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction of expressive rights to the extent that it prohibits soliciting the immediate receipt of funds. Accordingly, we do not determine whether Los Angeles International Airport is a public forum under the liberty of speech clause of the California Constitution, because the resolution of that question could not determine the outcome of the present matter."

Notice the words "WHETHER OR NOT" and "WE DO NOT DETERMINE." He's saying that whether or not the airport is a public forum, it doesn't matter because we don't need to go there. And he confirms that he's not going there with the words "WE DO NOT DETERMINE" whether LAX is a public forum. He could not have made it more clear!

So there's no relevance between Pruneyard and that case at all, especially since LAX is a PUBLIC facility operated by a government agency. The entire importance of Pruneyard in constitutional law stems from the fact that it established a free speech right on PRIVATE property, which was and is still breathtaking. Before it was decided, free speech jurisprudence had generally focused on PUBLIC property as forums (e.g., the right to protest on public streets). This is a really obvious difference.

For you to argue that there is or should be a connection between the cases, without any supporting citation, is original research in violation of Wikipedia's strict policy against no original research. To fill the missing link and make your proposed edit acceptable, you would need to find some kind of published law review article discussing the arc of Pruneyard's progeny that specifically notes that the parties in the International Society case briefed the Pruneyard issue but the court refused to touch it. I'm not going to do the work for you because (1) I don't think it's even relevant, for the reasons already noted, and (2) it's YOUR burden as the editor trying to make a weak or nonobvious connection to find some kind of supporting citation for it.

Anyway, the likely reason the court refused to go there (though this is unsupported speculation on my part) is because Pruneyard is still a sore issue for the current justices. If you read Justice Chin's sarcastic dissenting opinion in the 2007 Fashion Valley Mall case, you can see hints of the internecine debate that must have taken place among the justices as each faction tried to convert one justice from the other. The fascinating question is going to be where incoming Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye stands. She recently authored a Court of Appeal opinion applying Pruneyard to religious speech in a shopping center (actually, I'm going to go ahead and add a citation to that now), but in that case she had to treat Pruneyard as established law because an intermediate court must apply controlling decisions of a higher court. Now that she's on top, she has the power to overrule Pruneyard if she personally thinks it's bad public policy.

As for the other issue you raised, you might want to consider posting that information to the article Freedom of speech in the United States, although I'm not sure it's relevant there, either.

Well. I've tried in good faith to explain what's wrong with your edits. If you still can't understand what should be obvious, at least I tried. --Coolcaesar (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Split" "Subsequent developments" in California are a distinct topic from what happens in other jurisdictions

Legal decisions are never binding outside their jurisdiction. The article in its current state blurs interpretation of related issues in jurisdictions other than California with "subsequent developments". The subsequent case law, particularly Ralphs vs UFCW, is an important topic which deserves to be set forth without muddling.Optimized nuerons (talk) 21:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Inappropriate nonfree image

An inappropriate use of a nonfree image (Image:Pleasedonotcontributesign.jpg) has been removed from the article, as it fails several of the nonfree content criteria. It first fails #1, replaceability, as the point made by the image is also made by the following text: Because of the Pruneyard case, people who visit shopping centers in California may regularly encounter people seeking money or attention for various causes, including charitable solicitations, qualifying petitions for amendments to the state constitution, voter registration drives, and sometimes a beggar. In turn, many shopping centers have posted signs to explain that they do not endorse the views of people exercising their right to free speech, and that if patrons do not give them money, the speakers will go away. Therefore, the image is not needed for understanding of that point. While failing one criteria is sufficient for removal, it also then fails #8 (being replaceable, the image's use is decorative), and #3a (one nonfree image should not be used when free text suffices), and #10c (its nonfree rationale is incomplete). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)