Say no evil

Discussion in 'The Okie Corral' started by TBO, Feb 10, 2010.

  1. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    Messages:
    56,643
    Likes Received:
    47,313
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    1504 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55454
    Man Sues California Mall After Guard Arrests Him for Having Conversation About God

    Imagine getting arrested for just striking up a conversation about religion in public.

    That’s what happened to California resident Matthew Snatchko in 2006 when the youth pastor initiated a conversation about God with three shoppers at the Roseville Galleria mall.

    The women gave Snatchko permission to broach the subject, but a nearby store employee said they "looked nervous," so he ordered the evangelist to leave. After Snatchko refused, mall security arrested him.

    "He was put in handcuffs and hauled down to the mall’s security station and later booked at the local jail," said Snatchko’s attorney Matthew McReynolds of the Pacific Justice Institute, a legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom.

    Snatchko was later released and never charged with a crime, but he and the Justice Institute decided to challenge the constitutionality of Roseville Galleria's restrictions on conversations about topics such as religion and politics.

    "He wanted to make sure that neither he nor anybody else got harassed again at this mall or the 55 other malls this company owns throughout the United States," said McReynolds.
    In 2008, a California superior court ruled that the mall's ban on controversial conversations with strangers didn’t violate freedom of speech.

    But late last month Snatchko and the Justice Institute appealed to the state’s 3rd Appellate District in Sacramento. All parties in the case are now waiting for the court to schedule a date for oral arguments or issue a ruling.

    Katie Dickey, spokeswoman for the Westfield Corporation, which owns the mall, would not comment on the case but issued a company statement saying that "everyone — regardless of race, color, creed, gender or religious belief — is welcome at our shopping centers."

    Court documents claim that Westfield’s policy simply limits activities that have a "political, religious or other noncommercial purpose" to designated areas within the mall, in order to "minimize congestion." Speakers must submit a written application at least four days in advance. Access to the designated areas is then awarded on a "first come, first selected" basis.

    Westfield argues in the court documents that mall security guards warned Snatchko on a number of occasions that he was violating the mall's Courtesy Guidelines by discussing religion with strangers. During one of his visits, guards even gave him a copy of the guidelines, but Snatchko continued striking up the same conversations without applying for a permit or sticking to the designated areas.

    "By roaming the mall and randomly approaching other mall visitors, plaintiff effectively circumvents any attempt by Westfield to reasonably regulate his expressive activities in the mall’s common areas," the court document reads.

    McReynolds confirmed Snatchko had been given the Courtesy Guidelines prior to his arrest but said the pastor "believed he was complying with them, and that they were being misinterpreted by the security guards who accused him of 'soliticing,' even though he was not selling anything."

    McReynolds added that the mall has no right to regulate the kind of speech Snatchko was initiating.

    "He’s never pushy, he doesn’t haul out the megaphone or large placards or anything like that -- he just asks people if they mind talking to him about issues of faith,” Snatchko said.

    But California-based constitutional attorney Bo Links says the mall's restrictions are appropriate and fall within state guidelines.
    "Their rules appear to be content-neutral, reasonable time, place and manner restrictions which are allowed," Links told FoxNews.com. "The fellow who was arrested clearly has free speech rights, and those rights apply to a shopping mall, but they're subject to reasonable regulation such as what the shopping mall seems to have had in place."

    "It’s obviously a sensitive issue," he added, "but the shopping mall has a right to protect the people who are leasing stores and make sure there’s order in the marketplace and there was a way for this fellow to proselytize if he wanted to proselytize, he just didn’t want to do it the way the mall set it up."

    But constitutional attorney John Eastman says that "to require a permit to even speak about your religious faith to anybody in the mall starts looking like it's unreasonable and might well be unconstitutional."

    Eastman, a professor at California's Chapman University School of Law, says because Snatchko was seemingly engaged in a private conversation and not a public address, his speech would not have violated mall rules were it not for its content.

    "There’s a decent argument that if the mall is not consistently applying this to all kinds of speech but is targeting religious speech or political speech then it is a content-based restriction ... and a content-based restriction like that would be unconstitutional," he told FoxNews.com.

    McReynolds calls the incident a "national issue," especially because Westfield owns malls all over the country, but he says California is the best place to tackle it.

    "Out here in California, because of the way our state constitution words its own free-speech clause, it’s been extended beyond the realm of just government property to large public venues like shopping malls."

    Eastman warns that even if Snatchko wins his case, people outside of the state of California could find themselves in the same predicament.

    "In other states, unless they’ve take the step in interpreting their own constitution that California took ... those malls are going to be treated as private property where they’ll have more control over the people who enter onto their property and a greater ability to set rules like these."

    McReynolds said the ban is a "don’t talk to strangers" rule for adults. "We think that’s beyond the pale of what the constitution allows and what free speech allows in this country and certainly in the state of California."
     
  2. Glock20 10mm

    Glock20 10mm Use Linux!

    Messages:
    15,639
    Likes Received:
    1,558
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2005
    Location:
    Land of Idiots and Libtards
    Now that's just stupid.
     

  3. shavedape

    shavedape

    Messages:
    1,892
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2009
    Location:
    Whoville
    Meh, no big deal really. Having dealt with this exact same situation before myself I know how some of these people get. Granted, I never had to toss out a religious nut job (and that's what he is) but I have had to intervene and ask them not to bother customers (these religious nut jobs were NOT customers, they came into the store with the sole intent of proselytizing) and to please leave my staff alone, whom they were trying to engage in religious arguments with. AND they always start off by asking a religious question to snare the unwary person into conversation and/or debate. Granted some of my staff wasn't smart enough to just beg off the interaction and that's where I had to play peace maker. Oddly enough not one single time did any of these religious nut jobs ever make a purchase.

    Bottom line: This guy wasn't shopping at all, he was loitering and preaching and becoming a public nuisance. Should he be tossed in jail? Nah, but he should be tossed out of the mall if he ever tries it again...And he should be punched in the fruit basket just because.
     
  4. hill billy

    hill billy Head Case

    Messages:
    2,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2008
    He wasn't arrested for what he was saying, he was arrested for refusing to leave, trespassing, if you will.
     
  5. Brian Lee

    Brian Lee Drop those nuts

    Messages:
    9,539
    Likes Received:
    436
    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2008
    Location:
    Up a tree.
    EXACTLY.

    I'm religious, but lets not pretend this is something it isn't. The guy was probably a pushy weirdo who was freaking out customers, and if he was really that much of a "man of God" he'd have recognized their right to ask him to leave. The fact that he refused, shows there was something wrong with other aspects of his behavior.

    I'd have arrested him myself.
     
  6. TBO

    TBO Why so serious? CLM

    Messages:
    56,643
    Likes Received:
    47,313
    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    1504 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55454
    Bless you. :tbo:
     
  7. okie

    okie GT Mayor

    Messages:
    64,670
    Likes Received:
    1,547
    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2001
    Location:
    Muskogee Ok.
    What I got out of that was that the cat was arrested not for talkin bout God, but for refusing to leave the place:headscratch: