Opinion ID: 2066887
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Minnesota Constitution

Text: Even though First Amendment protection for expressive behavior on private property is unavailable to appellants however, the states may apply their own constitutional protection more expansively as long as the restrictions on private property do not amount to a taking without just compensation or contravene any other federal constitutional provision. PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 81, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980). The Supreme Court ruled that the federal rights of the property owners were adequately protected through the permitted use of reasonable time, place and manner regulations. Id. at 83, 88, 100 S.Ct. 2035. We have long recognized that we may articulate independent and more protective standards under our state constitution than are accorded under comparable provisions of the Federal Constitution. See State v. Oman, 261 Minn. 10, 21, 110 N.W.2d 514, 522-23 (1961) (Minnesota's due process standard may be developed independent of federal law); Matter of the Welfare of E.D.J., 502 N.W.2d 779, 783 (Minn.1993) (declining to lower Minnesota's standards for searches and seizures to federal level); State v. Russell, 477 N.W.2d 886, 889 (Minn.1991) (equal protection analysis under Minnesota law more stringent than federal law); State v. Hershberger, 462 N.W.2d 393, 397-98 (Minn. 1990) (greater religious liberties under state law than under federal law); State v. Hamm, 423 N.W.2d 379, 380-81 (Minn.1988) (12-member jury required under state but not federal law). Our first consideration therefore is to inquire whether the significant difference in terminology between the federal and state free speech provisions suggests that the framers of the Minnesota Constitution intended the free speech protection to be more broadly applied than its federal counterpart. The Federal Constitution prohibits Congress from passing laws abridging the freedom of speech   . U.S. Const. amend. I. The Minnesota Constitution provides that all persons may freely speak    on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of such right. Minn. Const. art. I, § 3. A brief historical journey compels the conclusion that the inference cannot be drawn that our framers intended a more expansive application. The published discussions on the free speech provision at the 1857 Minnesota constitutional conventions  there were two conventions because Republican and Democratic delegates refused to meet jointly  make it clear that delegates from both parties were primarily concerned with the constitutional treatment of libel suits [4] and the delegates' intent regarding the scope of protection for speech is, at best, unclear. It is far easier to support the conclusion that the language of Article I, Section 3 was copied from elsewhere, an assumption which is supported by repeated references to the provisions of other constitutions by the delegates. For example: Mr. Wilson: The first Constitution in this book of Constitutions, which I hold in my hand, has in it such a [free speech] provision as we contemplate; and the last has it also, and it runs through most of them. Debates and Proceedings of the Constitutional Convention for the Territory of Minnesota 94 (T. Andrews, rep., St. Paul 1858). As the court of appeals appropriately noted, the language of Article I, Section 3 is not unique. Wicklund, 576 N.W.2d at 756. In fact, the state constitutions of 33 other states contain language nearly identical to our own. Id. at 756. The majority of courts having virtually identical language have interpreted the free speech provisions of their constitutions as coextensive with that of the First Amendment. [5] Finding nothing from either the 1857 debates or decisions of other states having similar or identical provisions to suggest that our state's free speech protection was intended to be applied more broadly than its federal counterpart, we conclude that there is nothing inherent in the language of Article I, Section 3 which requires more expansive protection for free speech than does the First Amendment. Our next question then is even if the history or language of Article I, Section 3 doesn't suggest a broader state application as we have concluded, is there sound reason to do so. Mere preference for a different outcome is not enough. We have characterized it as a significant undertaking for any state court to hold that a state constitution offers broader protection than similar federal provisions, and it is certainly not sufficient `to reject a [U.S.] Supreme Court opinion on the comparable federal clause merely because one prefers the opposite result.' Women of the State of Minn. by Doe v. Gomez, 542 N.W.2d 17, 30 (Minn.1995) (quoting Hans A. Linde, First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bills of Rights, 9 U.Balt.L.Rev. 379, 392 (1980)). In Women of Minnesota, we extended the right of privacy to cover the right to abortion funding for those on public assistance  a protection not available under federal law, [6] but one we determined should be accorded in Minnesota because of this state's long tradition of affording persons on the periphery of society a greater measure of government protection and support than may be available elsewhere. Id. at 30. We have also extended the right to counsel under the Minnesota Constitution beyond that required under federal law based on this state's long tradition of expansive protection of fair trial rights. Friedman v. Comm'r of Pub. Safety, 473 N.W.2d 828, 831-32 (Minn.1991). In the areas of commercial speech, obscenity, and freedom of the press, we have interpreted Article I, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution more restrictively. In State by Spannaus v. Century Camera, Inc., 309 N.W.2d 735 (Minn.1981), we considered whether a state statute prohibiting employers from requiring their employees to submit to polygraph and other tests purporting to evaluate the employee's honesty was unconstitutionally overbroad or vague under both the Federal Constitution and Article I, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution. Id. at 737-38. We analyzed the statute under federal standards and held that [t]he protection of freedom of speech guaranteed by Minn. Const. art. I, § 3 is no more extensive in this case than the protection provided by the first amendment to the United States Constitution. Id. at 738 n. 6. We held that the statute was neither vague nor overbroad under the federal standard for commercial speech. Id. at 740-44. Similarly in State by Humphrey v. Casino Marketing Group, Inc., 491 N.W.2d 882 (Minn.1992), we held that a statute regulating telephone calls made by automated equipment withstood state constitutional scrutiny since we are in general accord with the United States Supreme Court's declination to extend the full force of free speech protection to commercial speech. Id. at 885 n. 2. We have also declined to extend state constitutional protection to obscene speech beyond that offered by the First Amendment: The [U.S.] Supreme Court has held that obscenity is not protected speech.    We see no reason to apply our constitution differently. Accordingly we hold that while art. I, § 3 of the Minnesota Constitution may offer broader protection than the federal first amendment, such protection does not extend to obscenity. State v. Davidson, 481 N.W.2d 51, 57 (Minn. 1992) (citation and footnote omitted); see also Knudtson v. City of Coates, 519 N.W.2d 166, 169 (Minn.1994) (holding city prohibition on nude dancing in bars did not violate Minn. Const. art. I, § 3). In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 479 N.W.2d 387 (Minn.1992), we considered whether freedom of the press under Article I, Section 3 should be more expansively protected than under the Federal Constitution. Id. at 390. We declined to do so, holding that the differences in language between the free press protections of the Minnesota Constitution and the Federal Constitution were insufficient to warrant expanded protection. Id. at 390-91. Likewise in State v. Turner, 550 N.W.2d 622 (Minn.1996), we applied the Supreme Court's analysis in Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 92 S.Ct. 2646, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972), under the Federal Constitution to reject the argument that a newspaper photographer who witnessed criminal activity enjoyed a state constitutional privilege to refuse to testify at trial. Turner at 628. As we previously noted, rulings from other jurisdictions hold that most of the free speech provisions of other state constitutions are applied to provide no broader protection than that offered by the First Amendment. Many of these state rulings follow the logic of the Connecticut Supreme Court when it declined to extend the state's constitutional protections to a political advocacy group attempting to distribute literature and solicit signatures in a regional shopping mall. Cologne v. Westfarms Assocs., 192 Conn. 48, 469 A.2d 1201, 1209 (1984). The court found no legal basis for distinguishing shopping centers from other places where large numbers of people congregate such as stadiums, convention centers, theatres, and other large buildings. Id. The small minority of state courts interpreting their constitutions to offer broader protection for speech in shopping malls do so only under very limited conditions, and usually under the cloak of another constitutional provision. Massachusetts, for example, extends state constitutional protections to the solicitation of signatures in large shopping malls, but the right is limited to ballot access and not with any claim of right to exercise free speech rights apart from the question of ballot access. Batchelder v. Allied Stores International, Inc., 388 Mass. 83, 445 N.E.2d 590, 595 (1983). California bases its protection of speech inside privately owned shopping malls on two state constitutional provisions  the right to free speech and the right to petition. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d 899, 153 Cal. Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341, 347 (1979), aff'd 447 U.S. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980). Oregon limits state constitutional protection to persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions in common areas of large shopping centers. Lloyd Corp., Ltd. v. Whiffen, 315 Or. 500, 849 P.2d 446, 454 (1993). Protection extended under the New Jersey constitution is limited to leafletting and associate speech in support of, or in opposition to causes, candidates, and parties. New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 138 N.J. 326, 650 A.2d 757, 781 (1994). Absent here is any rationale for the significant undertaking we identified in Women of Minnesota to compel a conclusion that our state constitution free speech protection should be more broadly applied than its federal counterpart. There is no historical basis for making such a distinction nor do we consider in today's balance of free speech versus property rights that free speech should have any more exalted a position than is accorded it under our Federal Constitution. Appellants' speech was directed at persuading shoppers to forgo buying fur products and to boycott Macy's in an attempt to effect change in the retail and fur industries. Its purpose was not to achieve some political goal such as a ballot initiative  it is best characterized as protest speech, intended to be provocative. We decline to extend the free speech protections of Article I, Section 3 of the Minnesota Constitution beyond those protections offered by the First Amendment.