T1B

No one in the People's Republic of CA's government (regardless of branch) goes against the unions. Arnold's crushing defeat at the union's hands out front should have told you.

I'm not surprised at the decision, but some of the language in there was incredible.

To paraphrase:

Mall: Having picketers with signs, megaphones and chants will disrupt business at not only the targeted store, but at other stores as well.
Court: Too fucking bad.


I mean, are you kidding me? It's one thing for neighboring businesses to lose $$ as collateral damage indirectly due to the court's decision, but it's quite another for the court to specifically say that they not only know that it will happen, but that it's fine with them. Unbelievable...

Problem is, even though it's private property, it is open to the public. Ofcourse I wouldn't have any trouble with other folks breaking their fukking kneecaps.

Personally, boycotter types piss me off. As a general rule, if Im asked to boycott a place, I will go outta my way to drop a few dollars there.

smackaholic wrote:Personally, boycotter types piss me off. As a general rule, if Im asked to boycott a place, I will go outta my way to drop a few dollars there.

Same bodes true for IB and posting here.

Terrible ruling. I did like dissenting Justice Chin's use of the phrase "magnificent isolation," however.

Hinging the ruling on the argument that privately-owned shopping malls have, in essence, taken the place of the public square or sidewalks as forums for public expression is ludicrous. Private property is private property, regardless of size or purpose.

Jsc810 wrote:The whole concept of private property must be different in California than it is elsewhere.

How is this ruling different than Pruneyard? Has Pruneyard been overturned?

Smackie,
A) What shouldn't they be able to do on their property?
B) Should people who open up their property to the public have any of their property rights taken? Or should they just get benefit$ from opening it up to the public with no downside?

OCmike wrote:No one in the People's Republic of CA's government (regardless of branch) goes against the unions. Arnold's crushing defeat at the union's hands out front should have told you.

I'm not surprised at the decision, but some of the language in there was incredible.

To paraphrase:

Mall: Having picketers with signs, megaphones and chants will disrupt business at not only the targeted store, but at other stores as well.
Court: Too fucking bad.

Did you READ the decision?

"From all indications, the leafleters conducted their activity in a courteous and peaceful manner without a disruption of any kind and without hindrance to customers entering and leaving..."

Nice job of paraphrasing.

You do realize that it is not enough for a plaintiff to simply make a claim without any proof?

Moving Sale wrote:Smackie,
A) What shouldn't they be able to do on their property?

Short answer: See Justice Chin's dissenting discussion, which lays out compelling and convincing arguments that a) Pruneyard should be overturned, and b) even if Pruneyard is accepted as being a "correct" ruling, a distinction can be made between it and this case that doesn't violate stare decisis.

Shorter answer: My house, my rules. You, as a member of the public, are welcome to avail yourself of my property if you obey minimal, reasonable, and lawful rules.

The mall owner derives income from the rent paid by tenants of the property, so it's in the best interest of the owner to maximize the profitability of the businesses that pay those rents. Allowing protesters to advocate the boycotting of any of those rent payers is antithetical to maximizing profits. By forbidding such protests on private property, the owner is in no way violating free speech rights.

B) Should people who open up their property to the public have any of their property rights taken?

No. Why should they? What precedents are there on which to base a ruling that public access should lead to a reduction of rights? Pruneyard isn't even based on this argument. It's based on California's affirmative right of free speech. While reduced property rights was a result, it is not the point of law on which the ruling was based.

Or should they just get benefit$ from opening it up to the public with no downside?

There is always a downside when the public is allowed access: liability. But the right to implement and enforce reasonable rules protecting those paying the rent, while not infringing on anyone's rights, should not be part of the downside. The justices in the majority seemed to be leaning on two arguments: 1) Stare decisis using Pruneyard prevented them from ruling in favor of the mall, and 2) privately-owned shopping malls have replaced public property as venues for expressive activity, and are therefore subject to the same or similar legal treatment as public property. The argument against (1) is that the activity in Pruneyard (collecting petition signatures) was not inimical to the purpose of the private property, whereas the activity in Fashion Valley was; therefore, ruling in the mall's favor would not be in violation of stare decisis. The argument against (2) is that it is still private property, and should not be subject to laws governing use of public land.

Smackie Chan wrote:By forbidding such protests on private property, the owner is in no way violating free speech rights.

And if you wanna get really technical, if the building is owned by a publicly traded company, they would be reasonably required by law to create the most profitable environment for their tennants, which would lead to eventual rent increases, which leads to greater shareholder profitability -- which is required by law.


Welcome to the Socialist States of America. First, they take your money and distribute it as they see fit... then, they tell you what you can and can't do with/on your private property, regardless whether it æffects anyone elses' "persuit of life, liberty, and happiness"... then...

Well, use your imagination. The sky's the limit once you get people tyo give that first inch on their "inalienable" Rights.

What precedents are there on which to base a ruling that public access should lead to a reduction of rights?

Marsh. You read the ruling eh?

While reduced property rights was a result, it is not the point of law on which the ruling was based.

The Rule of Unintended Consequences is always part of a ConLaw question. In this case if there are no lost property rights there is no case because I do have the right to speech of the kind mentioned in the case.

There is always a downside when the public is allowed access: liability.

So you do believe that rights can be forfeited merely by opening one’s property to the public? In your example it would be the right to not fix up your dump. The penalty would be a suit. Enforced by the Government. How about Code violations? Been around for quite some time right? Penalty for a violation? Enforced by the Government?

The argument against (2) is that it is still private property, and should not be subject to laws governing use of public land.

So again. Code violations? I get it that you are unwilling to make the leap that malls today are the de facto “meeting place” and hence subject to “Time, Place and Manner” restrictions. The questions is: do you admit that opening one’s property up to the public gives the Government the ability to impose added restrictions on what that person can and can’t do on their once private property? How about the notion that those restrictions have been imposed for quite some time?

~ ~ ~

Welcome to the Socialist States of America

When children are educated by the State
only Socialists will get educated…by the State.


If you are unwilling to kill that Golden Goose you are part of the problem.

The sky's the limit once you get people tyo give that first inch on their "inalienable" Rights.

May or may not be true but it IS a fallacy to cite the slippery slope. True that it is a hard one to keep away from, having done it myself from time to time, but a fallacy no-the-less.

I guess I’m trying to say it is not ‘particularly’ unique.

Moving Sale wrote:

What precedents are there on which to base a ruling that public access should lead to a reduction of rights?

Marsh. You read the ruling eh?

The basis of the Marsh ruling, as I read it, was that the town in question was to be treated legally as publicly-owned even though the deed to the town was privately held. This is not, per se, the same as saying that allowing public access to private property should result in a reduction of rights.

While reduced property rights was a result, it is not the point of law on which the ruling was based.

The Rule of Unintended Consequences is always part of a ConLaw question.

Are there any cases that cite this rule as the sole basis for a subsequent ruling?

In this case if there are no lost property rights there is no case because I do have the right to speech of the kind mentioned in the case.

No argument there, but the fact that the existence of that right is the Pruneyard ruling is why the dissenters believe it should be overturned, and why other states have derided the ruling as "unprincipled and whimsical."

There is always a downside when the public is allowed access: liability.

So you do believe that rights can be forfeited merely by opening one’s property to the public?

No, I don't. Assuming legal liability does not equate to forfeiture of rights, but rather assumption of responsibility. The two are unrelated.

In your example it would be the right to not fix up your dump.

That's right. And to live with the consequences.

The penalty would be a suit. Enforced by the Government.

Yep. Consequences. But no forfeiture of rights.

How about Code violations? Been around for quite some time right? Penalty for a violation? Enforced by the Government?

True, but this applies to private property even if it isn't open to the public. Private residences are also subject to building codes.

The argument against (2) is that it is still private property, and should not be subject to laws governing use of public land.

So again. Code violations? I get it that you are unwilling to make the leap that malls today are the de facto “meeting place” and hence subject to “Time, Place and Manner” restrictions. The questions is: do you admit that opening one’s property up to the public gives the Government the ability to impose added restrictions on what that person can and can’t do on their once private property? How about the notion that those restrictions have been imposed for quite some time?

My previous response applies.

I hate resorting to the justification that because everyone else is doing it, California should, too. But the state has put itself on a legal island with this ruling. Are you arguing that 49 states are wrong and one is right? Do you honestly believe that Pruneyard is a proper ruling?

What type of properties is this on? if this is on a Walmart piece of land in California.... fuck them assholes from Arkansas, if people want to picket their property they can, infact take your shit and get out of California. Walmart has been nothing but a drain on every local economy that has hosted one of those abortions of retail.


If this private land recieved any government subsidies for traffic lights, plumbing, electricity... it is di-facto public land, if you want to be completely private, pay your way in.

SoCalTrjn wrote:What type of properties is this on? if this is on a Walmart piece of land in California.... fuck them assholes from Arkansas...

Try reading the first post in the thread, dipshit. It's a "private shopping center" or in other words, a mall.

Bsmack wrote:Did you READ the decision?

Truthfully, about half of it. I was at work, so my time was limited.

Bsmack wrote:Nice job of paraphrasing.

Hyperbole is now banned? I don't recall getting the memo. Damn T1B mailroom!

Bsmack wrote:You do realize that it is not enough for a plaintiff to simply make a claim without any proof?

If you're referring to the mall losing business because of the protesters, the justices themselves acknowledged that in the decision and said (to paraphrase :D)"too fucking bad".

R-Jack wrote:Of course you could run your business in a way that would prevent protests and boycots.

There is that.

Valid point, but what about situations such as those where the workers themselves aren't organizing to form a union, but a union is coming in and saying "you need a union"? That's complete bullshit.

Assuming legal liability does not equate to forfeiture of rights, but rather assumption of responsibility.

Sorry EVERYTHING in Real Property Law is about rights. It's call it the "bundle of sticks" theory. It goes back to 1066 and is broken down by wiki here. It is wiki so don't expect too much, but I scanned it and it looks about right. Get back to me when you understand the very first topic covered in this first year law class.

Moving Sale wrote:Get back to me when you understand the very first topic covered in this first year law class.

Yes, counselor, we all know you're a lawyer, so congrats on knowing what you're supposed to know. Nice to see that you have some humility about it, too.

But before I enroll in law school for the privilege of getting back to you, just answer one simple question: Do you believe that the Pruneyard ruling was correct, and if so, why?

Or is the response so profound that we inferior non-attorneys couldn't possibly understand it?

mvscal wrote:Shitstains like you should be stood against a wall and shot.

I don't have a problem if the shooting takes place with him in either the sitting or fecal position. Doesn't really bother me if there's no wall nearby, either.

Jsc810 wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:I don't have a problem if the shooting takes place with him in either the sitting or fecal position.

Aren't you sitting when you're in the fecal position? :P

Nope. Just lying on the ground curled up like a steaming growler.

Smackie Chan wrote:Yes, counselor, we all know you're a lawyer, so congrats on knowing what you're supposed to know.

So rights can and are taken when one opens their property up to the public. You are progressing nicely.

Do you believe that the Pruneyard ruling was correct, and if so, why?

Yes, for the reasons given in the holding and in the holding in Marsh. T,P & M restrictions for the 'new town square' make sense in the light of the mall's position in our society and given the money they take in from said society. Am I right? For California, where I live, I am.

Moving Sale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:Yes, counselor, we all know you're a lawyer, so congrats on knowing what you're supposed to know.

So rights can and are taken when one opens their property up to the public. You are progressing nicely.

All I meant was that it's good to see that you haven't forgotten about the "bundle of sticks" (aka "faggot") theory taught in first-year law. The only concession I'll make is that there is a relationship between rights and responsibilities, contrary to what I previously posted. Feel free to claim that as a victory, minor as it may be in the overall discourse.

Do you believe that the Pruneyard ruling was correct, and if so, why?

Yes, for the reasons given in the holding and in the holding in Marsh. T,P & M restrictions for the 'new town square' make sense in the light of the mall's position in our society and given the money they take in from said society. Am I right?

To the extent that an opinion can be right or wrong. It's "right" if, by your definition, it is in line with how the high court of the state in which you live has most recently ruled. It's wrong if you live in any other state, which you may consider to be inconsequential since you're not bound by their laws.

For California, where I live, I am.

If you're basing your opinion on the shopping mall being the "new town square," you're saying that the rest of the states should fall in line w/ California and more severely limit the rights of private property owners, since your state is not unique in this regard. If you're arguing that it doesn't matter what other states have ruled, and that the ruling is correct for California only, what makes that state so much different that it should limit to a greater extent than the others the rights of private property owners?

Smackie Chan wrote: The only concession I'll make is that there is a relationship between rights and responsibilities, contrary to what I previously posted

Nice backpedal Hackie.

Care to tell us about your feeling on Marsh?

Moving Sale wrote:Nice backpedal Hackie.

Crappy nic smack. Shouldn't have expected anything more. Whereas I "backpedal" on a relatively minor point of the discussion, you simply fail to address all the meaningful issues raised. I'm sure your clients appreciate that tactic.

Care to tell us about your feeling on Marsh?

I already did, several posts ago. Care to answer or otherwise address all the questions/issues I've raised that you've conveniently overlooked? Apologies in advance for the poor choice of wording there.

Moving Sale wrote: Nice backpedal...

It took awhile, but it finally came.

Now awaiting the inevitable "nice strawman, you white flag waving POS fucktard".

Smackie Chan wrote:Whereas I "backpedal" on a relatively minor point of the discussion, you simply fail to address all the meaningful issues raised.

Lie much? It is the heart of the matter not a minor point and I addressed your issues. I think that the town square has moved and that some of the rights of the property owner in question should be curtailed as a result

I'm sure your clients appreciate that tactic.

What makes all you tards think I act towards you the way I act towards other people? I’m here so I can act differently. Shhhuuuueze.

I already did, several posts ago.

Where you said it was different? What? Because there is no Post Office?

Care to answer or otherwise address all the questions/issues I've raised that you've conveniently overlooked?

You overlook my answers and then accuse me of overlooking your questions. Nice projection.

Apologies in advance for the poor choice of wording there.

I bet your bosses/clients really appreciate the way you act like a fifth grader.

Moving Sale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:Whereas I "backpedal" on a relatively minor point of the discussion, you simply fail to address all the meaningful issues raised.

Lie much? It is the heart of the matter not a minor point and I addressed your issues. I think that the town square has moved and that some of the rights of the property owner in question should be curtailed as a result.

For someone who consistently criticizes others for employing the fallacy of attacking the strawman, you've certainly done an admirable job of doing just that. The heart of the matter is not what you claim it to be, which is very broad and general in nature. The heart of this issue is a very specific one: Should the specific right of free speech in California be extended to private property, despite the fact that every other state has ruled that it either shouldn't, or should only under very limited circumstances? You've stated that it should.

Care to answer or otherwise address all the questions/issues I've raised that you've conveniently overlooked?

You overlook my answers and then accuse me of overlooking your questions.

Well, let's see...reviewing this thread, it appears to me I've taken each one of your responses and responded to virtually every one. Not sure how this can be interpreted as overlooking your answers, but I guess your interpreting it that way is just an example of your acting differently on the board than you do in real life. However, I can point out several instances in this thread where you have failed to address what I have posted, and chosen to cherry-pick only the ones that cast you in a relatively favorable light. Can you find them yourself, or do I need to point them out to you? Before you answer, I'll take the liberty of quoting myself to cite an example, with the expectation that you will again fail to address it:

I wrote:If you're basing your opinion on the shopping mall being the "new town square," you're saying that the rest of the states should fall in line w/ California and more severely limit the rights of private property owners, since your state is not unique in this regard. If you're arguing that it doesn't matter what other states have ruled, and that the ruling is correct for California only, what makes that state so much different that it should limit to a greater extent than the others the rights of private property owners?

Moving Sale wrote:I bet your bosses/clients really appreciate the way you act like a fifth grader.

Hmmm...I deliberately tried to keep this discussion at a mature and serious level. Yes, I realize this is a smack board (sometimes), and that smack, by its nature, is rather juvenile. But the board can also be used to debate real issues in an adult fashion, which was what I was apparently unsuccessful in doing. It wasn't until after you chose to try to turn this into a cripple fight of a smack-off that I allowed myself to drop the most subtle of stature references. Was I the first between us to include sarcasm ("Get back to me when..."), nic smack ("Hackie"), or any other form of smack aimed at the other in this thread?

So which one of us is acting like a grade schooler again?

To be honest, I'm willing to either continue this cripple fight (if you think you don't qualify, you're sadly deluded; you suck at running smack at least as badly as I do), or get it back on a more mature level. I'd prefer the latter, but either option is fine with me.

Smackie Chan wrote: Hmmm...I deliberately tried to keep this discussion at a mature and serious level.

But you failed.

you're sadly deluded

That may be true but it does not change the fact that the courts have said Marsh and Pruneyard should stand thus taking away property rights of some property owners. I think it is a good idea to give people some of the free speech rights that they have on public property when they are on certain private property. You don’t. Fine, just don’t try and tell me property owners don’t get their rights taken from them when they open said property up to the public in many was other than by the rulings in Marsh and Prunyard.

Moving Sale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote: Hmmm...I deliberately tried to keep this discussion at a mature and serious level.

But you failed.

And I admitted as much. I also pointed out where it went so horribly wrong.

you're sadly deluded

Fine, just don’t try and tell me property owners don’t get their rights taken from them when they open said property up to the public in many was other than by the rulings in Marsh and Prunyard.

I'll keep that in mind. I'll also try to interpret what you just wrote in English.

However, a quick recap of the strawman you're attacking goes something like this:

1) During the course of what started out as a reasonable semblance of a legitimate discussion about a very specific issue, I mistakenly posted that the assumption of responsibility does not equate to forfeiture of rights. ( I have no problem admitting I can be wrong.) Your post about faggot theory pointed out that error. At this point in the proceedings, we were in agreement; I discontinued arguing that what I initially posted about a general (as opposed to specific) legal principle was correct.

2) The discussion then should have returned to the merits of the specific ruling about which Jsc started this thread. To your credit, you stated your opinion that you believe the ruling was correct, but added the caveat, "For California, where I live..." That caveat begged the question, which I've now asked twice and have yet to get a response, why/if it's correct for California only, and if you believe it should be extended to other states. As I previously stated, I've stopped expecting a response.

3) Rather than return to this issue, you opted to lay down some weak smack, and attack the non-existent strawman that I somehow was still arguing the point that I had already disclaimed (or in your parlance, "backpedaled"), and you continued to do so as late as the post to which I am now responding.

So let me try to make this clear enough that even you can understand it. I agree with you that there is a relationship between rights and responsibilities, and this relationship is such that assumption of more responsibility leads to a reduction of rights. Are we clear about this yet, counselor? I hope so, because I also want to be clear that, despite this general legal principle, I do NOT believe that just because of it, private property owners, even when the property in question is open to public access, should be held to the same standard of allowing free speech as the Constitution guarantees on public land. The courts of virtually every state other than California agree with me.

So please, try to keep up from this point forward, mmmkay?

Smackie Chan wrote:I hope so, because I also want to be clear that, despite this general legal principle, I do NOT believe that just because of it, private property owners, even when the property in question is open to public access, should be held to the same standard of allowing free speech as the Constitution guarantees on public land.

Bitch all you want about why this thread turned out how it did.

As for moving forward. To where? To a debate about the Rights of States where I try and explain to you about how I don’t care much what AL does on the issue and why? Well ok. I don’t care what AL does on this issue and the 9th and 10th Ams. say my opinion doesn’t count anyways.

Or did you mean a discussion about the merits of Marsh? Ok. I think Marsh is good law because it recognizes the role that the company was playing in real Americans lives and afforded those people the rights that the Constitution gave them. California recognizes the difference in social structure that has occurred since Marsh and has afforded said rights to a wider group. I am for that also.

Or should we go back to square one and talk about your ludicrous assertion that the opinion in the new case is “ludicrous.” Ok.
A) What shouldn't they be able to do on their property?
B) Should people who open up their property to the public have any of their property rights taken? Or should they just get benefit$ from opening it up to the public with no downside?

Since we are being civil and all…

Moving Sale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:I hope so, because I also want to be clear that, despite this general legal principle, I do NOT believe that just because of it, private property owners, even when the property in question is open to public access, should be held to the same standard of allowing free speech as the Constitution guarantees on public land.

Bitch all you want about why this thread turned out how it did.

Characterize it as bitching if that makes you feel better. I just wanted to paint a clear picture for you, since you didn't seem to be getting it.

As for moving forward. To where?

No further than to the point where you answer my perfectly reasonable questions.

To a debate about the Rights of States where I try and explain to you about how I don’t care much what AL does on the issue and why?

You're getting warmer.

Well ok. I don’t care what AL does on this issue and the 9th and 10th Ams. say my opinion doesn’t count anyways.

Oooh, now you're getting colder.

Or did you mean a discussion about the merits of Marsh?

Still cold, but I see you workin'. Remember, the topic of the thread is Fashion Valley, not Marsh. But since Marsh is cited as one of the precedents in the Fashion Valley ruling, you get a pass.

Ok. I think Marsh is good law because it recognizes the role that the company was playing in real Americans lives and afforded those people the rights that the Constitution gave them. California recognizes the difference in social structure that has occurred since Marsh and has afforded said rights to a wider group. I am for that also.

See how easy that was? All you had to do was post this earlier, and we could've avoided a lot of wasted words. But I get it; in your world, wasted words = more billable hours. Too bad I'm not a client.

Or should we go back to square one and talk about your ludicrous assertion that the opinion in the new case is “ludicrous.”

I say ludicrous, Wisconsin and New York say "unprincipled and whimsical." Feel free to explain the differences.

A) What shouldn't they be able to do on their property?

Oh, I don't know...commit murder, rape, robbery, etc.

B) Should people who open up their property to the public have any of their property rights taken? Or should they just get benefit$ from opening it up to the public with no downside?

Already addressed - no further discussion merited.

Since we are being civil and all…

Amen.

Smackie Chan wrote:I say ludicrous, Wisconsin and New York say "unprincipled and whimsical." Feel free to explain the differences.

You mean Jacobs and SHAD Alliance? Care to do the footwork and hook me up with a link to the "unprincipled and whimsical" part and I will.

Already addressed - no further discussion merited.

Hardly, but I'll let it go.

Moving Sale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote:I say ludicrous, Wisconsin and New York say "unprincipled and whimsical." Feel free to explain the differences.

You mean Jacobs and SHAD Alliance?

Yep.

Care to do the footwork and hook me up with a link to the "unprincipled and whimsical" part and I will.

OK. Here's one (Look under the pictures of the movie theater and the inn.) Wikipedia and plenty of other links show the same thing - Google out front shoulda told you. Use keywords "pruneyard whimsical unprincipled" and you'll find a shitload of links. I don't really need you to 'splain the differences, though. I know how to use a dictionary.

Smackie Chan wrote: I don't really need you to 'splain the differences, though. I know how to use a dictionary.

I wonder if they find Marsh "unprincipled and whimsical?'

Anyways... Care to point to the part in the dictionary that tells us in what context Wisconsin and New York are commenting on a California decision? Or were they disscusing the USSC case? I'll look under "independent state grounds" and you see if you can hunt down a link to the opinions. Mmmkay?

Moving Sale wrote:

Smackie Chan wrote: I don't really need you to 'splain the differences, though. I know how to use a dictionary.

I wonder if they find Marsh "unprincipled and whimsical?'

Anyways... Care to point to the part in the dictionary that tells us in what context Wisconsin and New York are commenting on a California decision? Or were they disscusing the USSC case? I'll look under "independent state grounds" and you see if you can hunt down a link to the opinions. Mmmkay?

No. I rest my case.

So you're resting on a wiki (type) link about what an opinion says as your support for your "ludicrous" statement?

Sorry, but without a reason why they are commenting on a California case or knowing what about the USSC case they were commenting on I’m gunna have to ‘rule’ against you. You have failed to show that the Fashion ruling is "ludicrous.”

Moving Sale wrote:So you're resting on a wiki (type) link about what an opinion says as your support for your "ludicrous" statement?

Not just a "wiki (type) link," but an actual wiki link was good enough for you to cite your faggot theory. Are you going to argue that it's OK for you to reference it, but not me? Can you provide a non-wiki link to refute it?

Sorry, but without a reason why they are commenting on a California case or knowing what about the USSC case they were commenting on I’m gunna have to ‘rule’ against you. You have failed to show that the Fashion ruling is "ludicrous.”

Hey, that's quite a judicial system you got there. You get to argue the case and be the judge? Sweet!

Fair as that may be, I'll propose an alternative after simply stating that we could continue this ad infinitum and ad nauseum if I keep responding to your flailing attempts to win this debate. Frankly, I have neither the time nor inclination to do so, and I believe enough testimony has been presented to render a verdict.

Look - this is a debate about law. You hold all the cards:
* You've been to law school; I haven't.
* You've had academic and practical instruction in the art of debating; I haven't.
* You're a practicing attorney; I'm not a lawyer, practicing or otherwise.
* You're intelligent; I'm a fucking idiot.

Given these huge advantages you have going in, I'm still willing to propose a way to end this that gives you even more of an edge. What do you say we do this, Skippy:

You select a panel of an odd-numbered group (three or more) of members of this board who each have at least 100 posts. I have no input whatsoever into who those individuals are - no voir dire, no peremptory challenges or exclusions, no exclusions for cause - nothing. As long as you select 'em, and they're willing to participate, they're in. They can be lawyers or non-lawyers, scholars or utter imbeciles, male and/or female, friends of yours and card-carrying Smackie haytahs - doesn't matter to me. Once the panel is selected, they endure the painful process of reading through this POS thread, and afterward, make a determination as to which one of us did a better job of communicating and defending our respective positions. The one who gets the majority of votes will be deemed the winner. If I lose, I'll accept the verdict as final - no challenges or appeals. You decide whether the panel members can openly discuss and post their decisions on the board, or render them independently and individually to an impartial party via PM, and have that individual post the verdict. This should be a cakewalk for you.

Deal?

Smackie Chan wrote:Are you going to argue that it's OK for you to reference it, but not me?

Well... yes. I used it to try and help you understand a concept. I did not use it as proof of anything. I said right in the post that it was ONLY a wiki link so don't expect much from it. If you had had a problem with it, I would have, and still will, steer you someplace else to help you out. I never relied on it.

* You're intelligent; I'm a fucking idiot.

That is a given.

You select a panel of an odd-numbered group (three or more) of members of this board who each have at least 100 posts.?

How about I don’t? If you don’t care enough to quote from one of the cases in question to prove your point (that the Fashion case is “ludicrous” because W and NY said Pruneyard was "unprincipled and whimsical”) I certainly don’t care enough to go to ‘trial’ with you.

Moving Sale wrote:If you don’t care enough to quote from one of the cases in question to prove your point (that the Fashion case is “ludicrous” because W and NY said Pruneyard was "unprincipled and whimsical”) I certainly don’t care enough to go to ‘trial’ with you.

Excellent. A case of mutual apathy that will hopefully result in this thread taking its rightful place in the shitter.

smackaholic wrote:Problem is, even though it's private property, it is open to the public.

Kind of like Britney Spears!

Smackie Chan wrote:A case of mutual apathy that will hopefully result in this thread taking its rightful place in the shitter.

[zz]And you got to learn a new faggot theory you hog fucking polesmoker.[/zz]