| On October 30, 1969 the sheriff of San Bernardino County ordered volunteer signature gatherer William Duxler to leave Inland Shopping Center. People’s Lobby Attorney Roger Jon Diamond filed suit 11/5/69 and the case was appealed to the California Supreme Court where it was heard on 11/3/70. On 12/6/70 the State Supreme Ct reversed lower court by ruling “PL did have right to go on to shopping centers to collect signatures. The Diamond v Bland I, 1970 landmark ruling said
In Diamond v Bland II (April 25, 1974) the 1970 Diamond I (shopping center petitioners right to gather signatures ) was dissolved based on an opposite US Supreme Court 1972 Lloyd v Tanner decision. California Supreme Court overturned Diamond v Bland 1970 (I) based on U.S. Supreme Court Lloyd decision which held that petition gatherers couldn’t go onto shopping center grounds if their petitioning action is unrelated to the shopping center’s use. US Supreme Court in Lloyd Corp v Tanner (6-22-72) found that owners of shopping center in Oregon had the right to prohibit distribution of handbills unrelated to the operation of the shopping center. We (the California Supreme Court) conclude that Lloyd is indistinguishable from the instant case and, accordingly , reappraise out Diamond decision in the light of principles established in Lloyd. Lloyd’s argument was that there were “alternative, effective channels of communication, for the customers and employees of the center may be solicited on any public sidewalk, parks and streets adjacent to the Center and in the communities in which such persons reside.” 11CAl 3d p 335 Roger Diamond on Peoples Lobby video (available for sale) explaining Diamond v. Bland. “Basically, the issue was do shopping center as private property owners have the right to exclude anybody they want to from their privately owned shopping centers. The Supreme Court ruled that the shopping center, even though private property was the functional equivalent of the old town square; and therefore they could not exclude people. We got on the shopping center and got our initiative qualified for the 1972 ballot, which was the Clean Environment Act 2, after losing Clean Environment Act 1 in 1970, which was the initiative that started the law suit. By the time it got to the Supreme Court we were into the second initiative… “This was a private property v freedom of speech issue… We won on the ground that the first amendment gives us right of access. Now it gets real complicated after that and we have a 30 minute show (video) here. The bottom line is the way the law now is California allows access to shopping centers but the US Supreme Court said in other cases that the first amendment doesn’t do that. States are free to interpret their own constitutions more liberally than the way the federal Supreme Court interprets the Federal Constitnution. So people do have the right of access to shopping centers if they are in states such as California which allows it which was our victory.” Roger Diamond speaking on Peoples Lobby video 1994. Click here to read a summary of the Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner 1972 : Click here to read the full Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner 1972 case: |
