A "primary labor dispute" existed between the newspaper and its employees.  30 to 40 Newspaper members had distributed leaflets to customers entering and leaving a Department Store at the Mall.  The leaflets stated that the Department Store advertises in the Newspaper and described several ways that the Newspaper allegedly treated its employees unfairly.  

Owners of the Mall in San Diego had "refused to permit employees of the Newspaper to leaflet in front of the Department Store in the Mall.  The Mall argues that its rule banning speech that advocates a boycott is a "reasonable regulation" designed to assure that free expression activities "do not interfere with normal business operations."  According to the Mall, it "has the right to prohibit speech that interferes with the intended purpose of the Mall," which is to promote "the sale of merchandise and services to the shopping public."

The Newspaper employees boycotting argued that speech that does no more than attempt to peacefully persuade customers not to patronize a business cannot be banned on the ground that it interferes with normal business operations. The fact that customers might be persuaded not to patronize a business did not justify restricting speech advocating a boycott.

The Newspaper employees sued the Owners of the Mall for injunctive relief to permit the continuation of their collective free speech activities at the Mall.

As a member of the jury, based on the evidence provided above, what party is best supported by governing law? 

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

In this scenario the key legal issue revolves around the conflict between the Newspaper employees ri... View the full answer