1.The judge stated that to protect free speech and petitioning is a goal that surely matches "the protecting of health and safety, the environment, aesthetics, property value, and other social goals." Do you agree with the judge's statement? Is free speech rights the same as the right to health and safety?

7. The judge, in reaching its conclusion, stated that "public interest in peaceful speech outweighs the desire of property owners for control over their property" and that "shopping centers to which the public is invited can provide an essential and invaluable forum for exercising the right to free speech as proclaimed by California Constitution." Therefore, "we conclude that the California Constitution protects speech reasonably exercised in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned." First, do you agree, and why? Second, even if you agree, play the role of a dissenting justice. How would you make a counterargument?