Amicus Curiae Brief — Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner

IN THE:

7 Supreme Court of the Mite 8 States. ,

OcTOBER TERM, 5 ihe WF, nS

No. 71-492. |

8 9 “—->

A <

oan o ia i?

a LLOYD Corporation, May epry RCLERK

. A —

)

= LPetttroner ’

v.

DONALD, M. TANNER, ET AL.,

Respondents:

_ BRIEF OF PEOPLE'S LOBBY, INC., AS -

AMICUS CURIAE, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS

On Writ of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals

sisal The Ninth Circuit

ROGER JON DIAMOND.

‘Pacific Palisades,

“California 90272

(213) 454-1351

Lobby

15415 Sunset* Boulevard

Attorney for People es -

a ans

Panne os OA

Peewee some

~

A a or ees

- Page

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE..s.+-+04- 1

WRONG... sol ss ivsaaeen ch eah- eso oatne. 4

$0 8 Fe

ee FIRST AMENDMENT PERMITS _

+» ORDERLY AND PEACEFUL HANDBILLING, ©

PICKETING, AND SIGNATURE

‘ GATHERING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY

- WHICH HAS BEEN GENERALLY OPENED _ ,

TO THE PUBLIC.» + oo eessry beets ters 4

II -- THERE ARE NO REASONABLE “ALTER-

NATIVES. ee etee eect eteeeneneeccees 7

[II - REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT BE

“s a veer BY BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENT. .— “43.

CONCLUSIONS. di (oer 14°:

“Diamond v. piind) O7: Gabvipeccéucse ss.

~

<banns ine ie). State, 3980.8). INT. + 6). css

‘TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Amalgamated Food Employees v. Logan

a valley dates Bsns :. BOBS rede riers.”

bevel Vv. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,

. Calif. :Sup.ct. WEC 24032(L.A. County) .: + .

- Diamond v. Bland, 3 Cal.3d 653........3,

_Homart Development CO. > Vs. bt amones, pias he Ges

402 U. S., MBB eee tree eect eee tee ends f

In re. Hoffman, 67 Cal ./ 2a" 45. pekaa ee

In re Lane,. 71: Cal. 2a tL ee noe e ew ey. te

In xe Wallace, 3 dal. 3a. 289......0.6.3.

Lamont v. Postmaster General,

. 381 U<S. cole dh eadenarag eee ay ee ee PO

Marsh v. ‘Alabama, 326 U.S. Mie

basgia ¥. eae. No. A-332.

Calif. Super. Court. (Riverside County) —

re

: *

Port of New York Authority v. Wolin, --

392 F.2d B38. eevee sees ee ee ee perenne

Schwartz-Torrance. cane Corp. v.-

Bakery &. Confectionery Workers's

: Union, . 61 cal’. 2d TOG. voce cece ee eeceen

State v. “Miller, 280° Minn, 566.-0.4-5.+-

Sutherland :v, south Cannes Ghegetus

" ‘Center, 3 Waeb.. £60. B33 i675 6 ic 05.055 xo

a

a

oe

< |

a Same

Cases gree

"4

‘Tanner v. Lloyd Corp.’ 446

California Constitution:

2

cee ee ee

Art. se. Sec. Lewcscvee

:

Art. 2V,, ‘Sec. ; 22 es ee 7 nee

Pirst Amendment, U.S. :

Constitution. os. sccescves

*

. ° STATUTES

|. California-Electians Code

sf Section 3507 - sais : ° oe eee

. Section 3520. os ° 7. ; *.@¢ soe

/ etre, CONSTITUTION _

‘\Art. I, Seen 22-753 3: s

.., Page -:

F.2d 545.. 5

Tet eee 688 8

oeeeeeeees 9

2D eS ee 6S 9

686,70 <°

ee me SD ,13, 14

Rare + m ee eee : 10

eee oe °, ; 10

f.,

’s

O-@

°

¢. o.,

an . °

.

>

se.

. z ° f : :

. ‘

; rte ‘

| ” :

os i P 1 *

‘ ‘

'

uk ; 2°?

; ; a

oe J s

© Se

a ae ‘ . ;

< ‘

.

cd

aie “A” altahion ‘volving “person’s home, no meaning- . ; |

jl ie iA “\ ful Gaim te to. protec on of a right of privacy can |

- vk advanced by respondents here. Nor on the facts —

set of ‘the normal busimes& cmt of the property |

a te . “be/faised.. Naked title-is ressent ang all that is tr

= — Mine @ as : 7 ieee

rights and the. ordinar USES ¢ of its. property. are evi- .°

ay tife union members. i in Logan’ Valley."

of the case can vany significant claim of protection |

je We greater pee Pecan yi Loyd: Comp’ S. property eae f

-denit in this. case than. the. picketing and eenine ae

~-TS permpit ‘shopping, ‘center owners. to. aan }

en a " peaceful and orderly communication to the public by: / ,

lents of ‘public sidewalks ofa business district would ~

bea large: step. backward i in the protection heretofore. |

oe ‘by the First and. Fourteenth Amendments ok

uae of: — and. Doss for all | ncnaed |

“CONCLUSION

“The ¢. judginent: of the Court. cof dela: for. the uf

- Ninth Cireuit in this case should be. affirmed, FEA

= of. handbills on, the functional eqiiva~

ee a ‘ea

a, fo

a ee SPs Sof : ~ Respectfully submited,

Tah Wena

" Counsel for Respondents °

eal % Weg ie :

Saseron JAY ROSEN che re See eee

Ot Counsel. hy ya a

= sont a eH |

OcToser TERM, 1971 | ‘

$ : Re iD : “”

” 4?

me ees! foes <2 . eS, .

on See Lao CORPORATION, Lm, ae

: z = Kia sath: oe titi

ve

4 CS DONALD M. ‘TANNER, ET AL.,. Th sts a ae

ene, :

a

On Writ of ‘Certiorari To The United States Court of. “pa

se Syeaes ’ For The Ninth Cireuit me

x ’

- #.

BRIEF OF PEOPLES LOBBY, INC.,.AS.

AMICUS CURIAE, IN SURPORT OF RESPONDENTS -:.

: . ‘ ae E x

=

ve amicus briet is Pilea by People's

° Lobby, ("People' s Lobby" ) pursuant to

written - permission of counsel for petitioner.

_ (who gave his ‘consent after this Court ‘granted

-the motions of Homart. Development Co., and —

“American Retail’ Federation) and counsel for

manag lair tints at 8 ,

°

.

INTEREST “OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

peupie* s Lobby is a non prorat California

corporation consisting of volunteer citizens —

who utilize California,'s initiative process for |

the purpose. of r dirget legislation. For the

»

. . ‘ cs

. . J . @ . -

* .

eS >. . . * —s

XA : - .

2 : . * . ies ww ’

& eo. . ‘ *

e °

-the* collection of thousands of registered

--vwoters' signatures. on petitions gontaining ;

. 1 : - : Ps - <> °

: _ -

e e a . z . . aes

war 2 ee . :

sd > * ° rH

° . - ? : : " : i

_Purpose of direct legislation: For the past

two and. one half. years People's Lobby has

conducted ‘anti pollution campaigns through -

AceATELA CS and. the - initiative. process.

; & :

Simply stated, the initiative process.

in California consists of the placemerit ‘of

‘proposed legislation on the statewide (or |

county or. city) . ‘ballot for voter approval by :

the legislative Brepowal,: ees

The People! <8 Lobby astincilaa » its first

campaign in ‘August. 1969 ‘by attempting ‘to place

‘two _environmental measures ‘on the June or

November. 1970 statewide ballot. “In order. sto pe

.! collect the ‘required number of: signatures‘

(520, 000) ¥or’ the proposed state constitutional

amendment and 325,000 for .the proposed statute.

ahendments) -in the short period allowed by law

(150 days) ‘People’ s Lobby» volunteer petition

carriers. were forced to go where substantial

‘ pumbexs of persons frequented on. foot, e.g.,-:

shapping centers. . Thus, Inland Center, a huge

75 store shopping center located in San Bernar-

dino County and. .owited by Homart Development - Cass

-betdme the site-of signature gathering eatil’. > -

~ Peoplet s ‘Lobby volunteers were compelled to

- leave in:October 1970. That prompted the filing

to- enjoin ihterference with the right to collect

. Signatures on the premises of Inland Center,

‘which was rejected first by the Superior Court, |

and. then by the Court of Appeal, Fourth..

eee ere District,, Diamond v. Bland, 87 Cal.

"he the meantime the signature

drive ended in failure and the measures did

not appess _on. the ballot.

‘mevertheleas. People’ s Lobby» pursued ‘the.

matter in the California Supreme Court because

of its intention to try again. ‘On December 7,~

1970 a new initiative drive was launched <a

qualify the "Clean -Environment Act" for. ow

“Eeet seesrer statewide elec ion: This new :

. j +

ee. ey 3 mE 2 a4 ; ba Nea

| > the drive was conducted peacefully and without

\ ee bed

- drivetwas mettioned by the Cai stocaii Siptias: es

" Court on December « 16, 1970 when it reversed the .

Superior Court decision (the Court of Appeal

decision having previously been’ vacated when -

the Supreme Court originally “granted a-hearing) ©

and held that the Peoplé“s Lobby did in fact.

have. the right, gubject td reasonable. regula-

tion, to go onto the premises of Inland Center

for the _purpose of the peaceful and orderly

| ‘gathering of signatures on petitions and

“* dissemination: of. .information = ‘connection

therewith: ©

" "...¢P)laintiffs have filed a Tse:

petition with the. Secretary |

_. . State and have announced sanueicioa

a campaign to qualify‘an initia- ,.

tive méasure for the next state. ’

, Re es election." =. . oe

Bae es : Diamond v.. Bland, 3 Cal. 3a 653, 7

“OST ERS IO} «FRITS ia,

Greatly aseistea by this decision, the

People's Lobby proceeded to gather over Bee ee

326,000 valid signatures of Eegistered voters

. and in May 1971 the Ciean Environment Act” s

qualified for the June 6, 1972 California fet sy

statewide election. During the signature

gathering campaign throughout California

hundreds of volunteer petition carriers went

. forth to gather the signatures of fellow

citizens who, dissatisfied. with the failure

-of the. California legislature. to enaet.

-wmeaningful environmental . is ion, eagerly

signed the vironment Act petitions.

the violence a frustrated public might engage

_in if denied the opportunity to’ participate

cin the direct democratic Progess of" the —

oe initiative. sei i

Just as the reapondents in Homart |

Development Co. v. Diamond, cert. den. 402

aes -<

as U. se 988. ‘Way’: 3 Wy 1971) acted peatetuliy. ana

orderly. at all times, voluntarily ‘leaving the ‘

premises of-Inlana. Center when requested to

do so, and then’ seeking redress in the courts,’

-other Péople's. Lobby volunteers have also

acteds peacefully. ; “a; | — i

ae i : 2 Pe a ge “ .

° ee summary, the.: ‘inte rest of a People’ s

“Lobby~ lies in its utilization’ Of. large commer- @

cial shopping centé) ‘3 hot unlike the one invol+

‘ved in the instant case. A decision adverse to

respéndents herein could very well terminate

_ the-People' s Lobby 8 initiative activities in

neti California. - ah f

ARGUMENT :

. ‘s

THE PIRST AMENDMENT PERMITS. = 9 j

| ORDERLY AND: PEACEFUL HANDBILLING, © |

_ PICKETING, ‘SIGNATURE GATHERING .

. ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN ,

. GENERALLY )PENED TO THE. PUBLIC — 2a.

onde this. couse te Sechtion in: Marsh Ve

Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946) is accepted as

« valid precedent, it must then be. recognized

es cote ce ‘most constitutional litigation, a

i oe must be struck that will accomodate .

ee the ‘interests of all concerned. ‘In attemp-

ting to-strike the proper constitutional

balance between the First and Fifth. Amend- —.

ments, one must:consider not only the benefit

i SOc the one side “but, the detriment to. the.

other. | ‘4

The benefit. to those ‘maintain to engage

ae First Amendment conduct is easily perceived,

.. especially when the reality of modern day life

is recognized. The ‘advent of the automobile.

and the. growth of the suburbs’ have created a.

_situation wherein most members of the public

are accessible only. when they leave their | >

, automobiles and venture: onto shopping center

eo 8 A ty j

‘ ©. ve LEP ES BOE NLT BY IE it Sg OT

', keaflet. If a customer goes to a shopping

. “« Aa zi

; pay ee N y

.. Sidewalks and-malls. Pérsons seeking to.

communicate with their fellow citizens can |

no longer. reach them except in $0 far as they

are on foot at shopping : rs. “In’ Capift-—

ornia the people drive everywhere. They .

obviously cannot -be. Teieteel a in their auto-

mobiles. They cannot be reached while they

are. ‘at’ work, and more and more homeowners * “

and ‘tenants are’ prohibiting door'to door |-°

solicitation, which is much too time consun- |

‘ ing in any. event... Thus, those seeking to.

- communicate with others greatly benefit Wien.

permitted to do’ so on shopping centers. With-

out@shopping center access, such. persons would

. be- effectively prevented from communicating.

‘their message. Television, radio, mewspaper,

and magazine media are: beyond the range ‘of |

“most persons who must. rely: on the whopping |

center as a ROE UM:

: | The iio to shopping center

owners is non existent. No one buys less.

.good simply because. he has taken the oppor

tunity to sign a petition or receive a

center to purcahse’ a particular item, there

is no reason to supposé he will leave empty

handed merely because he read the -message on

a picket. There would be no detriment if”

all. shopping centers were subjected to the

same sha Scores ue

elt Numerous. shoobine centers have already

been prohibited from denying ‘access to those

‘seeking to exercise First Amendment freedoms,

and none have suffered. Diamond iv. Bland, 3

Cal.3a 653(1970), cert. den.. sub nom. Homart

Development Co. v. Diamond, 402 U.S. 9881971) ;

‘Sutherland v. South Center Shopping Center,

_ 3 Wash. App. .833(1971) 5 State. ‘vy. Miller, 280

Minn. 566(1968); Tanner v. Lloyd Corp., 446.

F.2d 545(9th Cir. 1971) 3 Schwaftz-Torrance .

. Investment Corp. v.: Bakery & Confectionery

7

sr, .- A reversal by this Court will lead to

-+ “feelings of frustration and hopelessness on

the part of those persons who cannot afford

to resort to television, radio) newspapers,

or magazines to disseminate their message.

Indeed, these “alternatives" are not even

‘available to those like the People's Lobby.

who come within a particular provision of the

. First Amendment not capable of being exercised

ed way af ‘the media: the petition clause.

.

- THERE ARE HO" REASOWABLE ALTERNATIVES

The American \Retail pedaectian amicus:

‘curiae in- support of petitioner. Lloyd, ‘proposes

an unworkable and meaningless rule. It states

‘that First Amendment activities may. not be >

conducted on private premises open to the :

publi c Unless there are no reasonable "effective

alter ative means of communication" available...

Seepael. s Lobby ‘subaits that as a matter

of constitutional law there are no reasonably

effective, alternatives to shopping centers.

They have replaced the downtown business dis-.

trict as the center of commercial activity..

Those seeking. to-exercise First Amendment

rights go to them because they provide access

-to large numbers: of: persons.. ;

The proposed ‘rule would increase liti-—

gation and involve difficult fact ‘questions.

The ‘proposed rule provides’ no standards. How

would the existence of. reasonable alternatives °

be-determined.. Who would determine whether

they were reasonable? - Would,. for example, a

football stadium with a large crowd-on a-

Sunday afternoon five miles from, a shopping

center be a reasonable alternative? oe

the’ football fan, rushing to make AR ae a

kickoff or fleeing to “beat the crowd" after .

° . ‘ ‘ . *

‘ .@ . , °

, ec.

the game be compared to the. shopper | leisurely

strolling through a mall and pepratne at- -the

- windows?

* °

The proposed rule would apparently

require a movie theatre operator to permit

First. Amendment activity in the premises if —

there were no other business establishment

within a. substantial distance.

‘The. rule would make no sense, and could

not be. applied: to the . type of activity involved

in Diamond vw.‘ Bland, supra, where the People's

' Lobby was not merely "communicating" ideas

'. (the speech clause'of the Pirst Amendment) but

was collecting signatutes on environmental

initiative. petitions (the petition clause, “OF <':

the. First Amendment). ; The “petition clause"

is frequently overlooked in discussions

involving First Amendment free speech issues. —

Certainly the right to petition is not the |

same as free speech: . they -are mentioned sepa-

rately in the. First Amendment : —

- "Congress shall make no law... |

“abridging the freedom of speech,

or of the press; or the‘right of

the people peaceably to assemble, —

and to petition the Government

for a redress of grievances.”

ee (Emphasis , added:)

the. Galisornte cigtint 4 eat SEH also

recognizes the importance of the right. to.

petition, and goes ‘so far as to provide for

direct legislation the people.

Article I, Geter 2 of the California

Constitution pr vides as follows: -

“AL.. poli ical pevet’ ié inherent:

ople.* Government ‘is.

instituted for the Aticieiteibaree I

-

SOE (UNA Aare nee

i el a a

\ . |

. =

| , Woe

: ‘e

»

: a .

. .

.

‘ i |

, .

‘

, . » | ;

: »

‘

, : .

“4

\ ‘

\

.

Constitution provides in part. as. follows:

325,000 signatures for statute initiatives

and 520,000 BASRAERE OR, for constitutional

¢d

vA

f

was

people, and they have the

- .xight to alter ox reform the

‘aerioin IV; Section 1, ‘of ‘the California:

| Constitution BEGTACOE as follows:

Legislaturd which. consists-of the

Bos." at & initiative and referen-

that sets forth the text of the -

_ proposed Statute or amendment: to

~to have been signed by electors

. equal.in number to. 5 percent in -

‘the case of a.statute, and 8

“to the Constitution, of the voers

) cae ae : on

La

security and benefit of ‘the

same whenever. the public ee

good may require it." a: on te

"The legislative power of’ this : ‘ © =

State is vested in the of: pean

Senate’ and Assembly; but the

people re ‘to themselves the .

um.

4

Article IV, ‘Section 22. of mG California

"(a) The initiative is the ‘power

of. the electors to propose statutes

and amendments to the Constitution

and to adopt or Pisin them.*

"(e) ‘An initiative ‘measure’ may

be prepared by presenting to the

Secretary of. State a petition

the Constitution and is certified

percent in the case of an amendment °

for all candidates for Governér at

the last gubernatorial election"

In California thes figures, are generally

“10

4

initiatives. California Elections: Code .

Section 3507 provides that all signatures

| must be gathered within 90 days, and |

Section. 3520 provides for a. supplemental

. period of: 40 days. Other provisions of

the Elections Céde provide for the possibi-

lity of an additional 20 days. Accordingly,

“at the most, People's Lobby, and other.

groups seeking tO "petition the Government"

by the California initiative: process are ‘

. afforded 150 days. ‘to gather the necessary 2.

signatures of registered ‘voters.: Experience

-has‘*indicated that approximately 1/3 of all

signatures: gathered are invalid, - which means

‘substantially more than the numbers mentioned

above must be gathered within 150° days ee

- qualify a measure for the ballot.

/

‘Phe great ‘number of signatures

“required and the short’ period of time alloted

render. illusory any contention that. alterna-

tive means of communication may preclude

access to. shopping centers. The California

- Supreme Court recognized this in Diamond. Vv.

——- = Cal. eecet 660, n. 2: :

"Defendants also attempt to.

distinguigh Marsh by insisting.

these plaintiffs can assert — ae

i . their Pirst Amendment rights ~

' by means of. mass‘ media. It

- geems evident that mass media

are particularly inappropriate

for plaintiffs' purposes: ho

one has suggested how signatures

‘can be obtained on initiative ©

petitions by means of news- —

ie Sarde Pc gare Rita yard talon oo :

When petition Ss rbar atin. is’ 1G0s8eea:

it is meanifigless to consider alternatives. ©

Generally,-all available locations must be |

used, and ‘time pressures dictate that shopping

centers, with their large number of persons

on foot, | ws visited. ae ;

\

a

s

1d;

‘ 5 RR aes

a People’ s Lobby recognizes that Gow

- California initiative process is not necess- ~

arily coexténsive with rights protected by

‘the First Amendment. Nevertheless, for all

“practical purposes the. right to petition is ~

.° gimilar to California's initiative petition

right because both involve the need. for face

to face contact. While non initiative |.

_ petition campaigns dq not necessarily have

built in‘legal time limitations, they do-

nevertheless require speedy action. To show _

the’ President of the United States or. Coggress |

concern for a particular issue within a

reasonable time after its. occurence it a8:

important. for a citizen or an organization

_to’collect thousands of ihc Musca an a

: short period of time.

“Zt should be pointed wit: that the.

right to petition differs from handbilling *

in that no. litter is created because no , eee

literature is As aseinconiasstiin distributed.

P vs ”

ais " Shopping’ coater owners: who have, by

local zoning. laws and building permits, been .

permitted by. local governments to establish

huge ‘commercial centers which attract the

public from downtown . businesses, should not .

be. permitted | to prevent accéss un ch persons .

_ who were formerly accessible in. owntown

“areas. If shopping center owners rages to

bring the public to théir premises by the,

thousands ,. they should be.obligated to allow.

‘those members of the public to continue.to -

_@xercise ‘Pirst Amendment ‘freedoms formerly

hesaesdadnd cteteepce at ‘the down town bed sind ence district.

te should | be noted that the First

‘Amendment includes ‘the right to receive

information as well as the right to dissemi-

nate. it, Lamont v. PostmastemGeneral, 382. ,

U.S. 301 (1965), and. presumably the right

to sign petitions as well as the Sage to.

bo 5 ; °

7

sae

6.

Sf,

orker's Union, ‘61 Cal,. 2d 766(1964) ,. cert.

_/ .d@n. 380 U. S., wndehe dao Fe por oe

= ee ere Nena uhiere: are. riumerous | ‘non- shopping.

er -cases. wherein courts have ruled in favor of

_pthose™ seeking to. exercise ‘First ‘Amendment

. rights on various kinds of Property: In re

Lange, 71 Cal.2d 872(1969) (labor union activity.

: single freestanding. store); In re Hoffman,

- 67 Cal.2da.845(1967) ("unrelated speech" ‘in

. enclosed railroad*station owned by three —

“private railroad companies)’; In re Wallace, .-

3 Cal.3d 289(1970) (“unrelated speech” within.

county fairgrounds open only upon payment of

fee); Wolin v, ‘Port ‘of New York Authority,

392 F.2d 83(2nd Cir. ), cert. den sub non

_ Port.of New York Authority. v. Wolin,.393 U.S. |

940 (1968) (“unrelated speech" in enclosed bus

terminal); Brayshaw and People's Lobby v. ;

Sears, Roebuck aaa Ge... California Superior

¢ Court (Los Angeles County):, WEC 24032("unre-

, lated speech" at single free statiding store).

Reversal by this Cotirrt of the instant ©

case can only léad to confusion and chaos for.

it-is clear that the public. believes that .-

First Amendment activities‘ may be conducted

at. those premises where substantial numbers .

of persons congregate in a manner that permits

such activities without interference with or

obstruction to other activities.

Voter registrars, volunteer leaflet.

distributors, petition circulators, and

others who have, at various times, gone onto.

“private property" such..as. parking lots, ‘

shopping center malls, county fairgrounds

‘for the noble purpose gf communicating ideas

wa their fellow citizens, will-be shocked Ca

. this Court, at ‘this late date, tells them _

.- that they have been guilty -of criminal —

‘trespass and ought. not. to repeat their past

transgressions. : -

©

(

Ya

*

. ‘ .

. . - ¥

. “ e % 7 . ° . *, ’

: } a) - ae -

. » . ‘ . e

. 7 ° . « . e =

. . . ; . - €

e ‘7° : . e «

” ® " 7 ° P ,

. . . Loe : ry 4

. \ e. P ; 4

° - ° ry

; . . \ -t : es . ,

2” . 7 . F . 7 :

. ° .

pss z . . . ‘ ‘ ‘

e ,. . , , «@ . ° rom. . : - “ 3 > rn

. . - * . ;

— o - . ~ J .

. ; ‘ é ’

: 7 * * -

| . ‘ - 2 . Po

° ci . . ‘ ». .

. . . ‘ a re .

aa “ . } e : ’ % s

‘ . * ° . . .

| . . . °

, ” . . . .

é - ° , .

. 7

‘ \ Sal .

. ° , * eo, t .

. . ¢ dl . ” i

. . e J & . 3

‘ ° a Mg ° * :

Py é . . . -% ‘ . i ,

7 ; ;

. 7 p : °

* . , . . .

° 7 ;

° * - s al 1 . £ .

. ~& . . e e .

. - - 3 Pa ‘ an ~~ > of

A Mas é ow ® : *: ‘ a ’

: : ‘ . ? ane -@.¢

) é

. ™ . ” * ° . < ,

: J A

. . .

3 ‘ . : ’

’ as _ Fi

one omen pies m - = 4 éi ” . ‘

! . : ‘ . ; “id

. . . . é ”

. . ; ;

- *

‘ . : ° - é 4

. ; . . 4 ¥ . od

‘ : /

eae /

13 anes

The rule suggested by the American Retail

Federation also ignores this Court's admoni-.

tion in Schneider v.. State, 308 U.S. 147, °°

163 (1939): ° One is not to have the liberty

of expression in appropriate places. abridged

on the plea that it may be a saiaha pie in -

/ some other place."

4

“II ves | 7 . ie

REGULATIONS ‘SHOULD NOT BE, IMPOSED ©

, _ BY: BUSINESS ESTABLISHMENTS

‘pedpie® s Lobby obviously ‘concedes

that ail First “Amendment activities must

be peaceful and. ‘orderly. That is true whether

_ they are conducted on private property ae .:

public streets. However, existing; laws already

prevent ‘the disruption or disturbance of the-

peace. Anti litter ordinances already exist. —

If more laws, are needed, the local governing

bodies may adopt. them. ‘These laws are appli-

cable to private property: as well as Public

/ PESOSESY

- 6

“The state or: ‘dandeioniia, involved

rather than a private, self interested pro-

| pertY owner should. adopt the rules or regula-

S - - *tiohs in order to permit citizen participation '

; in.the promulgation of such rules and regula-

tions. Otherwise, persons seeking to exercise

First Amendment rights will be subjected to

prior restraints. In People v. Brayshaw, No.

és A-332 (California Superior Court; Riverside

des County), a petitioner solicitor for the.

_. People's Lobby was. convicted of criminal

- trespass for refusing to agree in advance

to certain regulations. The conviction was

reversed because the regulations were found 2

to be unreasonable. In the meantime the

- solicitor was denied access to a aOeSe .

Rint center.

i ee sien

Seopie' s ‘Sanka would still acieen’

a ‘dewtaton permitting the shopping centers.

to enact reasonable regulations than a

. @ecision permitting them to absolutely bar .

First Amendment activities from their :

promises.

Shopping centers are not. incapable

_ of promulgating regulations. Indeed, in

response to the numerous decisions previously

mentioned, shopping, centers have developed >

rules: to govern conduct on their premises,

and no. significant. problems have resulted

therefrom. .

on

Since this Court's decision in

Amalgamated Food Employees vs. Logan Valley

Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S.. 308(1968), First

Amendment activities have been conducted —

on- numerous shopping centers throughout the

country without incident. Many people, in

' fact, believed that this Court's decision

in Logan Valley covered all First. Amendment

activity, and was not limited to labor ges

union picketing. The public will surely be

. surprised. if this Court abruptly halts a

_ tradition consistent with the spirit and.

eergees of the First Amendment. ;

| CONCLUSION

For the reasons. stated bersin . ‘as.

well -‘as.those urged by Respondents, the

‘ Court is requested to affirm the decision

of the court below. : .

Respectfully. submitted,

“eenge bee Stdeale

(15415 Sunset Blvd.,—

Pacific Palisades,.Ca 90272

Attorney for People's |

. Lobby, Inc. .. wae

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

- .I, Roger Jon Diamond, Seckare as follows: .

I. am an attorney at law duly admitted te. :

° practice before the Supreme Court of the

United States, and I am the attorney for

amicus curiae People's Lobby, Inc., with

respect. to the accompanying Amicus: Curiae

brief. <<

Fever ~

—— aN ARS

eo:

ec

7

on March es +705 /pisSeane to Rule

33 of the Supreme Court Rules, I caused the

. within Brief of People's Lobby, Inc., as

y Amicus Curiae to be served on Petitioners,

Respondents, and amici curiae American

Retail Federation and Homart Development

Co. by placing three copies thereof enclosed

‘in a sealed envelope with first class postage

thereon fully prepaid, in ‘the United States.

mail at Los Angeles California, addressed _

as follows: : ae

Carin. Neil :

.c/O0 American Civil Liberties s7, &

Union of Oregon |

Ninth Ploor,. poyaity BIdg.

Portland, Oregon 97204

Cadeye Black, a ft

Robert J. Miller. , Soe

Black, Kendall, Tremaine, —

Boothe & Higgins 7

520.S.W. Sixth Avenue = 3

Portland, Oregon 97204 . cng e? cag

John H. Pickering -

Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering.

900 17th Street, N.W.

Waap ington, D.C. ‘20006

Lawrence M. Cohen

. Lederer, Fox and Grove

111 West Washington Street.

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Jerry Kronenberg

Borovsky, Elirlich & Kronenberg -

! - 170 S. LaSalle Street _

SOR ice oe Chicago, Illinois 60603

Gerarda\c. Smetana.

925. S./Homan Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60607

AXan ‘Raywia.

Cole, syldtrs. & serosa.

2011 Eye Street, N.W. Piggy Se:

-Washington, D. c. 20006 Be

J.S. eli Sage":

Homart Development Co.

925 SH Homan Avenue.

Cateneds Illinois 60607. -

Allen s) Gresham Sate

Lonergan, Jordan, Gresham

‘& Varner _

398 West Fourth Street ;

San steed arash neat California 92401

A a

‘I declare wahew penalty of eiesaue:

that the foregoing is true and OOEESeRe

° {is . °

"'\, = Buecuted on’ March 31, 1972 at aN

Los. } Angeles, California op Se ee : a

tf

f

Rohr Jon: mes oF

-

fee ©