Right to Exclude Not absolute – b/c property is the relationship of people in relation to things; So interests conflict – can’t exclude to the point that it infringes on basic rights of others
Property rights don’t include the right to harm others through exclusion
Logan Valley – when privately owned business district is the functional equivalent of a public meeting place – it’s treated like it’s publicly owned (owner can regulate speech but not bar it)
Lloyd – Free speech definitely protected federally if site-specific No other effective place to go
Speech rights of a publicly owned place if the place functions like the state (seems to mean monopolistic control – like in Logan Valley)
(can define property rights to exclude the right to exclude the right to prevent speech on publicly accessible private property)
State v. Shack – 1st A rights don’t trump the right to exclude speech
BUT property rights don’t include the right to harm others
Here, b/c of materiality and the isolationof the workers, (even though the land doesn’t fit into the Logan Valley idea b/c it’s not open to the public) exclusion of the speech would cause harm (and the owner wouldn’t be hurt – could regulate the speech)
Speech cases 1. state law? Does it go too far (regulatory taking?)?
Is it a shopping mall?
Is it the functional equivalent of a public meeting place – (b/c the private owner has monopolistic control of all the places people could speak effectively)?
Is there a reason why preventing the speech would harm people? If so, will the property owner be harmed? (balance)(isolation, materiality, availability of other forums, ability of people to get the info another way)
If these tests say – no right to speak on this property – then a taking if someone is forced to allow it? b/c rights given by title are violated? COME BACK TO THIS!!!
Discriminatory exclusion p.48
Civil rights act of 1964 – outlaws discrim. In public facilities and some private places
Fair Housing Act – exception – single-family, owner-occupied houses AND an
owner-occupied multiple unit with 4 units or less
advertising can be considered discriminatory here (but discrimination is ok)