Opinion ID: 1135610
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plaintiff's Forum Contention

Text: Plaintiff contends, in addition, that compelling it to provide a forum for positions with which it disagrees or wishes to remain neutral violates its rights and those of its tenants under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution [2] and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Again, plaintiff does not suggest any different analysis under the Oregon Constitution than under the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, we assume, without deciding, that the analysis would be the same under both constitutions. Dept. of Trans. v. Lundberg, supra, 312 Or. at 572 n. 4, 825 P.2d 641. Requiring the Lloyd Corporation to permit persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions to have reasonable access to the common areas of the Lloyd Center would not, as contended by Lloyd Corporation, [c]ompel[] the Lloyd Center to provide a forum on its private property for positions with which it disagrees or on which it wishes to remain neutral[,] violat[ing] its rights and those of its tenants under Article I, Section 8 of the Oregon Constitution and the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Again, in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, supra, 447 U.S. at 85, 100 S.Ct. at 2043, the Supreme Court of the United States considered and decided this same question and stated that: Appellants finally contend that a private property owner has a First Amendment right not to be forced by the State to use his property as a forum for the speech of others. After discussion of that contention, the Court held: We conclude that neither appellants' federally recognized property rights nor their First Amendment rights have been infringed by the California Supreme Court's decision recognizing a right of appellees to exercise state-protected rights of expression and petition on appellants' property. Id. at 88, 100 S.Ct. at 2044. Again, assuming that the analysis under Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution is the same as the analysis under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the result under Article I, section 8, is the same as the result under the First Amendment in PruneYard. Plaintiff makes no separate or different contention. Plaintiff's constitutional rights to free expression are not infringed by the activities permitted to defendants in this opinion.