To finish this discussion, please do the following:

1. Read textbook chapter 1.
2. Watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHuKXjHar6g

Real 105

Chapter 1

Is Private Property Really Private?

Study the case of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center in the textbook and answer the following

questions:

1. Large shopping centers in a community are an important part of the community's economic

wellbeing. The centers host commercial activities. Any interruption of commerce by

demonstrators could have a ripple effect that negatively impact the community's economy. In

this case, the demonstrators entered a large, privately owned shopping center to solicit support

from patrons for the demonstrators' own cause. What is your opinion on the issue?

2. The judge in this case stated that all private property is held subject to the power of the

government to regulate its use for the public welfare. How do you feel about the idea that the

government can regulate the use of your property for the public welfare? What constitutes

"public welfare"?

3. The judge stated that the rights preserved to the individual by these constitutional provisions

are held in subordination to the rights of society. What do you think will happen if these rights

are not held in subordination to the rights of society?

4. Under the creation of law doctrine (under the section heading Property as a Creation of Law of

chapter 1), it seems like the government has a lot of power to do whatever it pleases to its

citizen's private properties. The extent of your property rights protected by law is always being

challenged or diminished by more regulation. How do you feel about this power and how does

this relate to the electoral system?

5. The court may fear that people might use property rights as a shibboleth to cloak conducts that

adversely affect the health, safety, morals, or welfare of others. It stated that the government's

power to regulate property is "capable of expansion to meet new conditions of modern life."

How do you feel about the government's dynamically expanding power to regulate property?

Should there be other limitations besides the Fifth Amendment limitation on the taking of private

property? (Research "eminent domain" online if you do not know what it is). Provide an example

of "new conditions of modern life" that justify the government's passage of new regulations.

6. 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 counter argument?