Mall Flap Called a Blow for Free Speech : Civil liberties: Marijuana activists will be allowed to gather signatures in a Palmdale shopping center.

By JEANNETTE REGALADO

April 1, 1994 12 AM PT

TIMES STAFF WRITER

LOS ANGELES — The outcome of a civil dispute between hemp activists and the owners of the Antelope Valley Mall has led to the recognition that political activists have the right to exercise free speech activities inside privately owned malls, lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union said Thursday.

The settlement stems from the Jan. 17 arrests of two Antelope Valley men, volunteers for the California Hemp Initiative, who attempted to gather signatures for a marijuana-legalization petition at the Palmdale shopping center.

Ronald Tisbert, 46, of Palmdale, and Donovan Taylor, 23, of Lancaster, claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated when Antelope Valley Mall security personnel denied them access to the mall to gather signatures for their petition and told them to reserve space at a community table at a later date. The men argued with security and were arrested later that day for trespassing and disturbing the peace.

Specific terms of the agreement were kept confidential as part of the settlement, but during a news conference at the ACLU’s Downtown Los Angeles office, it was suggested that the Antelope Valley Mall may have revised its rules. The charges against the men were dropped this week and the pair will be allowed to return to the mall to gather signatures after a brief waiting period.

“I am disappointed,” Tisbert said. “We had to compromise a lot.”

Thomas J. Leanse of the Los Angeles law firm of Katten, Muschin, Zavis & Weitzman, which represents mall owner Forest City Enterprises, said: “My clients will continue their time, place and manner rule, but they recognize that individuals have certain rights to come into the shopping center and engage in non-commercial activities.”

Alan Friel, the ACLU attorney representing the Antelope Valley men, said the mall has agreed to narrowly restrict free speech rights and that his clients “are frustrated when there are any restrictions on their free speech rights.”

At the news conference, ACLU lawyers distributed brochures that outline free speech laws in California and how they apply to shopping centers. The brochure states that in large, enclosed malls, the common area is “protected” for free speech but reasonable restrictions on time, place and manner of speech can be imposed.

“We get several complaints every week from activists who are having problems with access to private property,” Friel said. “We hope to educate shopping center owners with these brochures on the laws concerning free speech in privately owned malls.”

In 1979, the Supreme Court recognized that shopping centers were the modern-day equivalent of a town square and should be accessible to political activists as long as they followed reasonable rules of the owner.