Opinion ID: 1244797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The PruneYard Case

Text: In Robins v. PruneYard Shopping Center, supra , the California court, in a decision affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980), held that free speech and signing of initiative petitions must be permitted in shopping centers under Article I, section 2, of the California Constitution. In that case, the California court held that: Though the framers could have adopted the words of the federal Bill of Rights they chose not to do so. (See Note, Rediscovering the California Declaration of Rights (1974) 26 Hastings L.J. 481.) Special protections thus accorded speech are marked in this court's opinions. Wilson v. Superior Court (1975) 13 Cal.3d 652, 658, 119 Cal.Rptr. 468, 472, 532 P.2d 116, 120, for instance, noted that `[a] protective provision more definitive and inclusive than the First Amendment is contained in our state constitutional guarantee of the right of free speech and press.' 153 Cal.Rptr. at 859, 592 P.2d at 346. Based upon that conclusion, and without reference to any law or state action that might be applicable, the California court held that owners of the large shopping center in that case had no right to evict persons attempting to exercise rights of free speech in that shopping center and that such persons had the right to do so, subject to reasonable regulations to assure that these activities do not interfere with normal business operations. 153 Cal. Rptr. at 860-61, 592 P.2d at 347-48. Except for the fact that the two sentences of the California Constitution are in reverse order when compared with the two phrases of Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution, quoted supra, the two constitutional provisions are remarkably similar. Article I, section 2, of the California Constitution provides: 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. First, it is to be noted that this article of the California Constitution includes the provision that [a] law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or press[,] just as Article I, section 8, of the Oregon Constitution provides that [n]o law shall be passed restraining the free expression   . Similarly, although in reverse order compared to our Article I, section 8, Article I, section 2, of the California Constitution provides that [e]very person    being responsible for the abuse of that right[,] just as our Article I, section 8, provides that    every person shall be responsible for abuse of that right. As previously noted, the California Supreme Court quoted with approval a previous decision by that court, holding that [a] protective provision more definite and inclusive than the First Amendment is contained in our constitutional guarantee of the right of free speech and press. 592 P.2d at 346. Thus, because Article I, section 2, of the California Constitution is a provision which contains no state action requirement, it follows, in my opinion, that our Article I, section 8, should also be interpreted as not requiring state action to trigger its guarantee of free speech because of its added provision that  every person shall be responsible for the abuse of that right.