|
''Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins'', , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which arose out of a free speech dispute between the Pruneyard Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379).〔Linda Greenhouse, "Petitioning Upheld at Shopping Malls: High Court Says States May Order Access to Back Free Speech," ''New York Times'', 10 June 1980, A1.〕 ==Case== In American constitutional law, this case is famous for its role in establishing two important rules: * under the California Constitution, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of ''private'' shopping centers regularly held open to the public, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers * under the U.S. Constitution, states can provide their citizens with broader rights in their constitutions than under the federal Constitution, so long as those rights do not infringe on any federal constitutional rights This holding was possible because California's constitution contains an ''affirmative'' right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a ''negative'' command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech. This distinction was significant because the U.S. Supreme Court had already held that under the ''federal'' First Amendment, there was no implied right of free speech within a private shopping center.〔''Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner'', .〕 The ''Pruneyard'' case, therefore, raised the question of whether an implied right of free speech could arise under a state constitution without conflicting with the federal Constitution. In answering yes to that question, the Court rejected the shopping center's argument that California's broader free speech right amounted to a "taking" of the shopping center under federal constitutional law. Footnote two of the decision quotes the relevant portions of the California Constitution, which states in Article 1, § 2 and Article 1, § 3 The vote to uphold the California decision was unanimous, although four justices disagreed with part of the reasoning in Justice William Rehnquist's opinion for the majority. Justices Thurgood Marshall, Byron White, and Lewis Powell filed separate concurring opinions. Justice Harry Blackmun filed a brief "statement" indicating that he was joining in all of Justice Rehnquist's opinion except for one sentence. 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. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|