Mall

Calif. Mall Forbids the Discussion of Religion and Politics

Article by Pacific Justice Institute
(February 01, 2010) in Religion / Religion in Society

SACRAMENTO --- The California Court of Appeal is considering the constitutionality of a Sacramento-area shopping mall's attempt to prevent adult patrons from talking to each other about hot-button topics such as religion and politics.

The case arose after a youth pastor, Matthew Snatchko, was arrested at the Roseville Galleria Mall in 2007 for striking up a casual conversation with two other shoppers about faith. Although Snatchko had first obtained the shoppers' permission to broach the subject, a nearby store employee disapproved and called mall security guards, who arrested Snatchko. Criminal charges were later dropped, but attorneys with Pacific Justice Institute filed suit to challenge the mall's tight restrictions on speech.

Under the mall's rules, shoppers are not allowed to engage in conversations about potentially controversial topics like religion or politics, unless they already know the person they are talking to. Another mall rule bans the wearing of any clothing with religious or political messages.

After a Placer County Superior Court judge upheld the mall's rules in 2008, Pacific Justice Institute appealed to the Third Appellate District in Sacramento. Written briefing at the Court of Appeal concluded last week. The case is proceeding in state court and is based on state constitutional provisions because those provisions, unlike the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, extend free speech protections to some non-governmental settings like shopping malls.

PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds, who submitted the appellate briefs, has been mystified by the mall's adherence to its draconian rules. "It's surprising that mall owners think they can arrest patrons for engaging in casual conversations," he said. "While a 'don't talk to strangers' rule may be good for kids, enforcing it against adults is absurd, and we think it violates California’s free speech guarantees.”

PJI President Brad Dacus commented, "Singling out religious speech for punishment violates our most basic principles of free expression. If anyone can be arrested for wearing a Christian t-shirt or mentioning God in a shopping mall, we have lost not only our freedom, but our sanity as a society."

PJI affiliate attorney Timothy Smith, of the Sacramento firm McKinley & Smith, served pro bono as Snatchko’s lead counsel in the trial court and continues to serve as part of the appellate team.

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Doublecheck
    And the great pumpkin?

    Sorry, too good an opportunity to pass up.

    - DoublecheckUS February 1, 2010 11:06AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • crimsonaviator
    It comes down to the state constitution.

    The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarentees that the government cannot impede those freedoms. As far as the federal government is concerned this mall can restrict whatever speach they please. However, arresting someone for it is a totally different matter. I am interested to see how the state's courts rule on this.

    - crimsonaviatorUS February 1, 2010 2:13PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • Big O
      English really isn't difficult to understand

      CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
      ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

      SEC. 2. (a) Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press.

      What don't you understand?

      - Big OUS February 3, 2010 12:38PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • JKM121
        public vs. private

        While I hope that people would value their freedom enough to shop somewhere else, nothing in your post prohibits private institutions from enacting rules against particular forms of speech .

        - JKM121US February 3, 2010 1:43PM

        Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • rrjam10
        Malls don't make laws

        A mall rule and a law are two different things.

        - rrjam10US February 3, 2010 11:07PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • moby clarke
    Sure

    The mall can attempt to prohibit speech , what they can not do is have someone arrested for breaking their rules. The power to arrest is backed by breaking a law and further, backed by governmental authority. The mall's rules are just that and they have no governmental authority. They could have escorted the pastor out the door, but they could not have him arrested or detained in any way by mall security . As to their policy, they are idiots, but what do you expect in California.

    - moby clarkeUS February 2, 2010 11:59PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • ufcarazy
    Dumb

    I would have more understanding of why the mall made these rules if multiple patrons complained about strangers talking to them about politics and religion . But the pastor was arrested because an observer employee did not like what he saw, and that is incredibly stupid.

    - ufcarazyUS February 3, 2010 12:59PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • tbcass
    Private business

    This is private property and as such they have the right to prohibit free speech on their property. I might not agree with it but it is their right.

    - tbcassUS February 3, 2010 1:17PM

    Reply to this Recommend (2) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • GermyJ
    Um... seems simple to me

    And like this is blown way out of proportion. The mall has that rule to STOP SOLICITATION of their customers. How do you think the businesses within the mall feel when their customers are harassed by this pastor or this activist group trying to get them to donate/join/etc. The solicitors are not paying rent to be there... and yet they are soliciting business... The mall and store employees have every right to kick them out. And as the above commenter stated already... a mall cop cannot arrest someone. This article is full of lies written to make it look like the pastor was entirely innocent and being persecuted. I'm sure it is not so.

    - GermyJUS February 3, 2010 1:30PM

    Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • TB3
    Maybe...Maybe not

    If the mall had, in the past, suffered damage/destruction because of other people expressing their opinions on matters that the mall had nothing to do with (ex: riots), then there may be a reason for limiting speech to some degree. However, having been a security guard myself, the only thing I could do was give the person a talking to. If there was dangerous behavior involved (eg riding a skateboard and knocking people over), then security's job is to call the police , and in big malls there generally are police stations. The pastor appears to have attempted to go through all the proper channels to get permission to talk as he did, and he apparently got that permission from the mall. Perhaps the offended employee didn't know that, or wasn't aware that the mall issued such permission.

    - TB3US February 3, 2010 1:35PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Rashi18
    Some people are just . . .

    We have a guy in our community who is a diagnosed Schizophrenic. He rides around on his bicycle from place to place to hand out religious tracts, sing songs to people who are trying to enjoy their lunch, tell people that are going to Hell if they don't believe in Jesus, etc. He has probably been banned from so many establishments, its hard to keep count. I know that he does not frequent places that I go, but he used to. The rules in the mall apply to folks like him. I hope that it survives the constitutional test.

    On the other hand, in this section of the backside of the Bible Belt, government institutions (get that - institutions) continue to have prayer and invocations "in Jesus name" even though these clearly have been repeatedly prohibited by court cases. There is nothing wrong with a moment of SILENCE so that EVERYONE can pray or meditate or do nothing according to the dictates of their own hearts and minds.

    - Rashi18US February 3, 2010 1:51PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • jochanaan
      There's a difference...

      ...between free speech and being a public nuisance. It reads as if Pastor Snatchko, unlike your schizophrenic tract-passer, was not being a public nuisance; he asked permission before beginning his "pitch." So while the mall probably would have had the right to throw him out of their business space, he should never have been arrested .

      - jochanaanUS February 3, 2010 5:59PM

      Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Rashi18
        Difference

        I once visited the Maryland State Fair with some family members (it was within the last 5 years). There was a booth offering free soft drinks. The people operating the stand left their station to ask people if they were "thirsty." They suckered in a bunch of people. Not me, I'm skeptical of "free" things. Those who "made the choice" to get a free drink were subjected to some intense proselytizing. IMHO, deceptive witnessing like this is all a part of a package. It is better for them to stand on street corners in white robes secured with rope proclaiming the benefits of their version of religion than annoying people. Heck, if it rains they always have an acolyte hold an umbrella over their head as a sign of dedication.

        - Rashi18US February 4, 2010 6:40AM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • jochanaan
          You'll get no argument from me

          That kind of witnessing is a public nuisance. At least, these drink providers should have put up a sign saying which church or organization they were with. *rolls eyes*

          - jochanaanUS February 4, 2010 6:53AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Ronald Punch
    Not the right forum

    Let Catholics, Christians , Muslims and politicians trumpet their views in their own forums. As to teen abstinence , Catholics will never overcome teen hormones. Condoms rule!

    - Ronald PunchUS February 3, 2010 2:12PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • call me Roy
    Calif. Mall Forbids the Discussion of Religion and Politics

    The crimson aviator is correct. The government can't impede free- speech freedoms. A mall is private property. This goes to the state law . Unfortunitly, the state is California. The state is the worst run in our country's history, why? According to Chief Executive magazine, all the CEO's said California is the Worst State in Which to Start a Business. ABC News asked the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities to look at the budget gaps, Coming in at the top of the busted list is California. According to City-Data.com, California was listed first in the worst state to raise kids . Then theres the Progressive Left politicans! Wake up California

    - call me RoyUS February 3, 2010 3:09PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Khannea Suntzu
    Disaster waiting to happen

    While I'd be the first to emphasize that I regard being accosted with a religious topic extremely offensive (after all, it's a religious with integral concentration camps) I can suggest how to implode this sillyness.

    Get some people together. Then start argueing
    day one - your favorite astrophysical theories.
    day two - logical positivism versus objectivism
    day three - the superiority of dog breeds
    day four - what cuisine is superior
    day five - whether or not lady Gaga is a medically rejuvenated madonna
    day six - Star Trek versus Star Wars.

    Things have become SO MUCH clearer after reading 'hot, flat & crowded'.

    - Khannea SuntzuNL February 3, 2010 5:06PM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

  • Gregory
    Anti-religious activism

    If two people at a mall engage in POLITE conversation, and they are both clearly willing to do so, then what difference does it make WHAT they talk about? What you have here is a case of anti-religious activism interfering with peaceful discourse. The employee is most likely the sort of person who looks for christians to persecute. It's all too common nowadays that innocent christian behaviour is painted as something evil. Thank your television and public school brainwashing for that.

    I really believe that this opposition to faith in Christ is of a spiritual origin itself, a malevolent one. These secularists and atheists and agnostics believe they serve no god at all, but every christian who has read his bible knows that the devil uses atheists and such as patsies to stifle the gospel of Jesus. Otherwise, why the hot, hateful reaction to anything Jesus. And why the cool tolerant reaction to buddhism and islam and such?

    It's a war , and Christians are honest about why they share their faith(because they care about you), but the bad guys come from all angles, because Satan has no restrictions concerning honesty.

    - GregoryUS February 4, 2010 8:12AM

    Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

    Thank You for your Comment

    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

    • The Celestial Teapot
      So you believe in the Devil...

      ...and that we atheists are his/her tools? Gosh, I feel quite important and powerful now! And there I was thinking that we just didn't believe in a supernatural deity...

      I don't suppose that the fact that less than 4% of Americans are Muslim or Buddhist has anything to do with the secularlist focus on Christianity, which comprises 78.5%? Nah...it must be the Devil.

      - The Celestial TeapotCA February 4, 2010 11:30AM

      Reply to this Recommend (1) Icon flag

      Thank You for your Comment

      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

      • Gregory
        Ah, so that's what you call it.

        I'm feeling the heat from your "secularist focus on christianity " ha, ha, ha!
        Neither of your arguments really hit the mark for me, because no matter what you "believe", I assert that you "serve" satan unwittingly. That means that you are driven spiritually to "focus on" (silence) any mention of Christ. This is how I explain the employee going far out of her way to see that a rule intended only for keeping the peace was twisted into a way to silence any discourse concerning Jesus Christ. It's not enough to be an atheist yourself, you must silence those who believe. Without a spiritual impetus, there's just no logical reason for an intelligent atheist to go out of his way to do such a thing.
        I do think that if people are being badgered or hounded, or detained beyond what common courtesy allows, that the owners ought to step in and ask the christians to stop it. Christians need to know that a horse can be shown the water , but they can't be made to drink it. Me an my brother tried that with a dog once when we were kids and nearly got bit. ha, ha!
        So now, have I persecuted you with my opinions, and harmed you with my speech ? Am I entitled to express my beliefs, or must I also be silenced?

        - GregoryUS February 4, 2010 2:40PM

        Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

        Thank You for your Comment

        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

        • The Celestial Teapot
          The problem of assertions with no evidence

          ...is that you can make them up as you go along. For example, if I 'assert' that you are the reincarnation of Lord Vishnu, or that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has cast a spell over you making you think you are Chrisitan, how would you disprove me?

          This is why the burden of proof relies on the person making the claim. You are claiming ('asserting') that I serve Satan, but you are not providing any evidence for that claim. Until you do, your claim is worthless.

          As for your supernatural explanation for this employee's actions (he was serving Satan), I think I have a better naturalistic one: this employee did not like this gentleman proseltysing innocent shoppers. This simple explanation covers all of the facts, and does not need to invoke supernatural forces.

          I am sure that if it were a Muslim or Buddhist proseltysing (seems unlikely) he/she would have done the same thing.

          You claim that 'without a spiritual impetus' there is no logical reason for an atheist to 'go out of his way to do such a thing', but in fact there are a number: he saw the rules of the mall being broken and reported it (the logic of the law -abiding citizen); he saw shoppers being distracted from shopping (the logic of commerce); he saw shopper's privacy being disturbed so he stopped it (what we might ironically call the logic of the Good Samaritan). You say there's no logic, but perhaps you aren't thinking hard enough - ther's plenty, if you care to look.

          Rather than wait until people are 'badgered or hounded' the mall instigated this very sensible pre-emptive rule.

          Your opinions have not persecuted me and your speech has not harmed me (I'm not sure why you would think it had), but then this is a forum designed precisely for such an exchange of views - unlike, say, a shopping mall.

          You are entitled to express your beliefs (I wasn't aware that anyone was trying to stop you), but you should not feel that your beliefs trump everyone else's - particularly when they are of the evidence-free variety.



          - The Celestial TeapotCA February 5, 2010 8:26AM

          Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

          Thank You for your Comment

          We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

          • Gregory
            prosela-whatever.

            I am always amazed at the depths people will go to to justify the actions of people they agree with. lol. So, let's see if I can picture this: The store employee looks up from from his horrible mall job and sees two people conversing peacefully in the mall. Then he's urged by his devotion to mall rules to call the police , ha,ha,ha. Oh my goodness! what a stretch! Have you ever been to a mall?
            Or this one: Young capitalist working for 5 dollars an hour sees mall visitors doing something besides shopping. In moral outrage over the 2 minute pause in shopping, he telephones mall security ! Capitalism is saved! Whoa! Better save that tale for bedtime stories! ha,ha,ha!

            And to put the icing on what passes for logic in the atheist mind, there's the good atheist samaritan, who protects the shopper's privacy by intruding it and discouraging it and stifling it!

            Oh goodness! that really is quite funny! You should do stand up! Do they have stand up in Canada?

            But Seriously friend, we both know what, or should I say who, encouraged this person to force his secularism onto those two people.

            lol, the good atheist samaritan! That's a good one..

            - GregoryUS February 5, 2010 9:09AM

            Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

            Thank You for your Comment

            We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

            • The Celestial Teapot
              Depths or did you mean lengths?

              Suffice it to say that trying to ridicule something is not actually the same as explaining what's wrong with it.

              I was merely pointing out that there are plenty of logical explanations - including ironic ones (glad you enjoyed my joke) - for this employee's behaviour, because you previously explained that you were unable to understand it without resorting to a 'spiritual impetus'.

              And was the mall employee trying to 'force his secularism' onto those two people'? What evidence do you have for this? It sounds to me like the Christian was the one doing the forcing here.

              I note that you have not addressed the problem of your evidence-free assertions, or the burden of proof, or the possibility of a naturalistic explanation for the mall employees behaviour.

              Not only do we have excellent stand -up comedy in Canada, when debating we also require 'assertions' to be supported by 'evidence' or 'facts' - you have those down south don't you?

              - The Celestial TeapotCA February 5, 2010 11:20AM

              Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

              Thank You for your Comment

              We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

              • Gregory
                That's the game.

                Q:And was the mall employee trying to 'force his secularism' onto those two people'? What evidence do you have for this? It sounds to me like the Christian was the one doing the forcing here.

                A: Although Snatchko had first obtained the shoppers' permission to broach the subject, a nearby store employee disapproved and called mall security guards,

                Checkmate. The only "force" in action here was that of the busybody employee who called in security to "force" them to stop talking about Jesus.
                He LITERALLY used FORCE to SILENCE those he DISAPPROVED of.

                I already showed how ridiculous your " atheist Samaritan" argument was, and how devoid of logic it was.

                I already told you that my assertion was what I believe, and that I am entitled to it with or without proof, though the evidence here suggests an unreasonable hatred of the gospel by a secularist activist bent on using whatever means necessary to persecute christian activity at a mall.

                No, I'm pretty sure I've heard all you have to say. Continuing would be fruitless, since you've already begun to repeat yourself.

                You're done, sir. the point and the game go to me. Better luck next time.

                - GregoryUS February 5, 2010 12:45PM

                Reply to this Recommend (0) Icon flag

                Thank You for your Comment

                We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

See Related...