Do you support the Mall of America’s attempt to keep Black Lives Matter protesters out of the mall?

“The Mall of America is pursuing legal measures to try to stop a planned Black Lives Matter protest at the shopping center on Wednesday,” writes MPR News reporter Tim Nelson.

The mall has filed a request for a temporary restraining order seeking to block the protest, announced last week. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for 2 p.m. in Minneapolis.

Susan Gaertner, with the Minneapolis firm Gray Plant Mooty, said her firm filed the order on behalf of the mall late Friday and attorneys are seeking a hearing before the scheduled protest. She wouldn’t elaborate on the matter.

Today’s Question: Do you support the Mall of America’s attempt to keep Black Lives Matter protesters out of the mall?

  • Scott44

    Yes.

  • Becky D

    No. Going to court to demand someone post something on their social media platforms is unprecedented, Orwellian, and chilling to anyone who cares about freedom of speech. This lawsuit should be thrown out in court as unconstitutional. The Mall of America receives millions in public subsidies and is currently lobbying the legislature for $7.5 million in additional tax breaks annually. The mall should be treated as public property.

  • lj

    No. With any civil rights protest, including BLM, I’m sure many people’s initial reaction is to consider it as an inconvenience, or unlawful, etc. It is is important, however, to weigh that against our nation’s legacy of over 400 years of brutal oppression of enslaved Africans and their descendants. If, after considering this, you truly believe that a day of holiday shopping, or one commute home, etc, is more important that righting centuries of horrific history, then you need to think about your own privilege and racism.

    • Jeff Sakewitz

      Cry me a river.

    • Lanfall

      Slavery was 89 years for the USA. If you count the time before there was a United States of America it was 246 years.

      So no where near the 400 years you quoted.

      Also slavery has been illegal for 150 years (longer than it was legal in the USA)…

    • Rick

      So LJ, how long have you or your Parents, Grandparents, Great Grandparents, etc. been a slave ? Oh, you haven’t. Then get your S%&! together and get an education and a job. I grew up on the South Side of Chicago in an area called Roseland which is nothing but a ghetto with a very high crime rate. I worked hard and got out.

      • No personal attacks here, Rick. You can make your point without them.

      • corsair82

        Good for you. The system is still stacked against people of color, in case you hadn’t noticed. So maybe, just maybe, these protesters and this commenter have a valid point. 400 years of brutal oppression, followed by a century of Jim Crow and redlining, followed by 50 more years of angry white supremacy doesn’t just evaporate overnight, nor does it go away with the election of a black man to the Presidency.

        So given the toxic half-millennia of white supremacist, maybe you’re wrong?

    • Lindsey

      Sure, but at the same point, the mall is not a public space. It has different rules than other public spaces. Any large gathering requires approval and permits and such.

      • corsair82

        Sure, but at the same point in time, where did people protest back when the Constitution was written? Most often in public markets and along commercial streets. So… when BLM protests and does the same thing, they’re terrible, but when angry white colonists did it in the 1800s, that was ok?

        • Matthew Cacophony

          Is anyone saying they can’t protest on the side of the street, outside of the privately-owned mall’s property, or in public markets?

        • Lindsey

          The mall is not public.

          And angry white colonists in the 1700s were not ok, in my mind, either. I mean, destroying private property(in areas like the tea party) doesn’t attack the government, but private citizens.

          • Matthew Cacophony

            Actually in the case of the Tea Party it really did affect the government. The whole deal was the taxation of Tea, through a government monopoly, without the consent or input of the citizens.

            It just isn’t even close to analogous to these protesters shutting down a private mall to support a domestic-abuse suspect long before the facts have all come out, however.

    • H2O_911

      They have the right to protest on public property, but not on private. The MOA is NOT public. As for righting centuries of history, my ancestors were enslaved, had their property stolen, were the victims of genocide and had their culture “bred out” of them by the U.S. government.

      I wasn’t there and I didn’t live through it, so I don’t blame anyone who is alive today for those actions nor do I consider myself a victim. I blame the people who died 100+ years ago responsible.

    • Kevin Snyder

      So they can come protest at your house. MOA is a property owner. If property rights are not protected by Government, then Government is not by the consent of the Governed.

    • Matthew Cacophony

      Interesting way to phrase the argument to support your position without even examining the other side.

      “If you think that one hours worth of protest in a completely innocent third-parties privately-owned location is worth abandoning the entire idea of personal possessions, you need to think about your privilege and lack of constitutional awareness.”

      See how that works?

    • BN

      I think they have a right to protest. I also think they do not have a right to interfere with the right of others to do business. I also think BLM protests have nothing to do with the legacy of what happened to their ancestors and that is a different discussion. If there is a nation in Africa that has more opportunity for these people living today and their ancestors were removed from that better country to be slaves in the USA, then they deserve some compensation. If these people think it is better to loot, drop out of school, join a gang and cause problems for society then they have no right to protest. Lives mater, but criminal lives do not!

  • PaulJ

    If the MOA had any sense they’d set up a place for demonstrations.

    • brad

      If they came to your front yard wouldn’t you ask them to leave? They have no business on private property. It’s called trespassing.

      • PaulJ

        The MOA is having a PR problem and if they managed properly they could make money off of it; it has nothing to do with me.

    • Sean H

      Why, so MOA could be held liable should someone ever be hurt as a result of a protest getting out of hand?

      • PaulJ

        Out of hand could be handled in a appropriate way. Bars do it all the time.

    • corsair82

      Now this is the first good idea I’ve read in this thread. An area in the Mall designated for protests. Sort of like the soap boxes that used to be placed in public squares in some parts of the world…

      • Matthew Cacophony

        Why is this a good idea? What right do they have to demand that the owner accommodate them? Don’t you think this would give the (likely false) impression that the owner supports BLM, which he may not, is not required to, and could affect his business propositions?

        I’m sure if they made a clear, fact-based case for their protest to the owner, and he agreed with their position (… if it wasn’t yet another cart-before-the-horse scenario like Ferguson…) that he’d allow it. They didn’t ask, they didn’t make a case, they made a decision and are now publicly stating that they will ignore the law if the ruling doesn’t go their way (such entitlement…), and even if they had asked and made a good case the owner is under no obligation to support them.

  • Jasper

    Yes, This group makes me think anarchy more than it does civil rights. They think they should be able to do whatever they want, where ever they want, whenever they want without any repercussions and they have no tolerance for not getting all of their demands met. Holding up a thug as their martyr is not endearing me to their ’cause’. I am tired of them breaking the law (blocking freeway traffic-not only illegal, but incredibly stupid and dangerous to themselves and innocent drivers) and not receiving any punishment because of intense PC pressure. Ridiculous.

    • Rick

      That is Obama’s PC pressure. 396 days and he’s not going to be rehired as he is nothing but a failure….I actually thought that he would improve race relations being that he is HALF WHITE / HALF BLACK and Raised by his White Grandparents yet all he has done is DESTROY all the progress that was accomplished prior to him.

      • corsair82

        Yeah, *he’s* totally destroyed all the progress… Not the Supreme Court that eviscerated the Voting Rights Act. Not the GOP voter suppression tactics that just *happen* to disproportionately disenfranchise people of color. And certainly not all the racist vitriol directed at the President by die-hard white supremacists.

        Nope, the President is totes the one at fault here. /snark

  • JL

    MOA should tell the BLM organizers that they will sue them for any lost revenue if the protest takes place. A protest will do nothing more than to upset shoppers that may otherwise support them and cause business to lose sales during the busiest time of the year.

    • corsair82

      Sure. And when do black people descended of slaves get to sue white descendants of slave owners for the revenue those white people inherited from their enslavement? Personally I don’t think that it’s a good idea to go about repairing the damaging legacy of slavery in such a way. I’m guessing you might agree.

      Can we then also agree that suing non-violent protesters isn’t the best way to resolve their complaints?

      • Matthew Cacophony

        “Can we then also agree that suing non-violent protesters isn’t the best way to resolve their complaints?”

        Yes, if they’re *legal* protesters. If they’re not legal protesters, than no… they do not deserve anything whatsoever. Their complaints, in that case, should be resolved with civil suits and jail time for public disturbance.

  • Jeff Sakewitz

    They should be arrested for disturbing the peace.

    • corsair82

      Yes, because crackdowns are always the smartest response to protest. Not.

      • Matthew Cacophony

        Seems like the only “acceptable” response to a lot of people is to let BLM do whatever they want, regardless of the law, regardless of whether they have a valid point (or, largely, do *not*), regardless of anything and everything which might not support their position.

  • Kenneth Price

    The protest has nothing to do with MOA so what is the reason for protesting there? It seems spiteful and petulant to protest there in order to try to ruin the holidays for the shoppers who have nothing to do with their complaints. It is almost like they are trying to hold the holidays hostage and they are using extortionist tactics.

    • corsair82

      These are not extortionist tactics. They’re protesting for a few hours on *one* day. In a shopping mall, not your living room on Christmas Day. If that’s enough to ruin your holiday, I suggest you engage in some serious self-examination.

      • Kenneth Price

        They are trying to protest on private property, not in a public place. If the judge allows them to protest on private property he has set a precedent to allow protests in my living room.

        • Sean H

          Exactly! To allow this would be a huge blow to property owners’ rights.

        • Jeffrey Dunitz

          Don’t be silly, Kenneth. The mall is more like a “privately owned public space”, where anyone is welcome to enter without an invitation. While the mall may not be de jure a POPS, it is a de facto POPS. There is never going to be any legal precedent at the mall that will have any effect on the sanctity of your living room. They’re simply not the same thing.

          • Kenneth Price

            Ok. Let us say it is not in my living room but in a little Mom and Pop store. Should they be allowed to come on the property and protest? And no one has addressed the reasons that the protest should be held at MOA. What is the purpose?

          • Jeffrey Dunitz

            The purpose is because the mall is a massive public space. It maximizes the impact and exposure of BLM’s message. Getting in front of a dozen or three people at a mom and pop store isn’t very effective, unless that particular store is directly meaningful to their aims in general or the specific incident the protest is about. The MOA provides a huge venue for the public at large to see and hear their message, which includes this very debate we’re engaged in at this moment.

          • Kenneth Price

            It is not a public space. Stop calling it that. It is privately owned property. If theyy want to protest then I am sure that there are parks they can go to and protest. They claim that the protest will be peaceful but have you noticed the past protests? They are not peaceful. They are combative and intimidating to bystanders and anyone who does not agree with them. Their presence at the mall will discourage shoppers from going and BLM knows this which is the whole point of choosing MOA. If they really want to make a differencr they need to protest in black neighborhoods where black on black crime takes more black lives in a year than the police do in 25 years. Do you know why they won’t do that? Because that isn’t where the money is at.

          • Jeffrey Dunitz

            The mall is privately-owned property that receives hefty amounts of public money. To me–and I would guess, to a court, were this specific point challenged–receiving public subsidy erodes the purity of their “private poperty” position. But, I must admit, the fine details of this are outside my realm of personal expertise. Suffice it to say that in a special case like the MOA, the concept of public vs. private is not 100% black/white, true/false. To your other points: the previous BLM protest at the mall was peaceful, as far as I know, as have been many of their other protests, such as the recent “double march” wherein one group marched from downtown Minneapolis and met with a second group that came down from Bottineau Park and demonstrated for a while in the street in front of Elsie’s. That particular happening was completely uneventful, and the very model of a well-run protest. I would expect nothing less than the same level of conduct from BLM at the mall. About the only negative thing I can say about BLM’s public actions is that some of their choices of chants and slogans don’t represent well. If that’s their biggest problem (other than drawing the fire–literally–of the “white power” guys, then I say more power to ’em. If people at the mall are intimidated by a bunch of people yelling about their cause, they should maybe examine their beliefs a bit, I think.

          • Kenneth Price

            You mean those harmless chants of kill police and kill white people should make people examine their beliefs? You also suggest that only people who afvocate white power are offended by BLM. So you must be a racist if you disagree with their methods and chants?

          • Jeffrey Dunitz

            I’m not aware of the chants you mentioned. Do you have sources for that? I’m asking that honestly, because I could be very wrong in my assessment of BLM, and I’d want to know that as soon as possible. Also, are you quite sure it was BLM people doing it? To your second point, in no way am I suggesting that only white-power advocates are offended by BLM. I’m sure lots of people are offended by their actions, but thus far the most violent thing that’s happened at a BLM event, at least that I’m aware of, was when the white-power guys started shooting. There was also that other incident in which someone rammed their car into some protesters. I’m not aware of any incidents where BLM people themselves participated in any acts of violence against anyone else. As I said, though, I could be wrong about this, and I’d want to know if I am.

          • seravo

            “To me–and I would guess, to a court, were this specific point challenged–receiving public subsidy erodes the purity of their “private property”

            I pay a lot of property taxes for real estate. If I fail to do so, the “public” (town and state) has the ability to take away what I have worked for. Who actually owns it? (Hint: try getting a “Fee Simple” deed to your property.) The “public” has the upper hand, supported by previous court precedent.

            So by your logic, I would have no right to stop protesters from camping out and protesting here, disrupting my life and my business, because ether have a point they wish to make.

          • Matthew Cacophony

            “The purpose is because the mall is a massive public space.”

            Well heck, they should just invade the CNN studio and get their message out live on television then. Same idea, right? Force the owner to give you a platform against their consent, because you *really really WAAANT* it?

          • Jeffrey Dunitz

            That’s not equivalent, because people aren’t generally allowed to just go into the CNN studio as a matter of normal operation. What we’re talking about here is a group of people going into a place that they’re normally allowed into, to do something that breaks the rules of that place, and to take part in a legally-questionable gathering and demonstration. Is BLM clearly within their rights to do so? No. Would they be clearly doing something unquestionably wrong by storming CNN? Yes. Not the same thing, even though the goals would be similar. BTW, wasn’t there an incident in the ’70’s in which some clearly-deranged guy forced his way onto a national news program and held the anchor at gunpoint to make him read his manifesto? You weren’t trying to allude to that incident and draw a parallel, were you?

          • Matthew Cacophony

            “That’s not equivalent, because people aren’t generally allowed to just go into the CNN studio as a matter of normal operation.”

            Sure they are, they do tours all the time. You’re totally welcome to just walk into the building, and the tour is about an hour.

            “Journey into the heart of CNN Worldwide and get an up-close look at global news in the making! The Inside CNN Studio Tour is a 55-minute guided walking tour with exclusive, behind-the-scenes views of Atlanta’s CNN studios and an exciting glimpse of news and broadcasting in action from the world headquarters of CNN, The Worldwide Leader in News.”

            I don’t see any difference here. Of course they don’t let you get up on stage at CNN because it would be disruptive, and of course the mall doesn’t intend for business to be shut down by protesters because it would be disruptive.

          • Matthew Cacophony

            That’s simply not true. As it stands now, a privately owned space open to the public still reserves the right to refuse admission and service to any person. A public space does not.

            You’re broadening the legal terms well beyond their meaning. “Privately owned public space” does not include a shopping area. Those are outdoor areas which are privately owned. Like if you own a piece of the sidewalk in front of your store.

            “the Zoning Resolution has allowed for several different types of privately owned public space, including plazas, arcades, urban plazas, residential plazas, sidewalk widenings, open air concourses, covered pedestrian spaces, through block arcades and sunken plaza.”

  • honoredcitizen

    Of course I support the Mall! What on Earth is more important than shopping? At Christmas too? It’s the Holiday Shopping Season, bitches!

  • brad

    MOA is private property. If you have a problem protest in front of the state capitol or town hall. I don’t think MOA employees are hurting the black community.

  • JustDucky

    Yes, I support Mall of America’s request. BLM needs to stop demanding and start negotiating.

  • Kevin Snyder

    I support the rights of all private property owners to the peaceful enjoyment of their own private property.

    It’s private property. Of COURSE I support MOA’s rights

  • iamthebest

    If the mall is a privately owned space they should be allowed to bar them from protesting and as well as have them escorted out by security if they fail to comply.

    • Rick

      And ARRESTED if they resist.

  • brad

    I think the BLM movement should start asking themselves why there are so many black kids born out of wedlock. Why there are so many black kids dropping out of school. Why there are so many black kids on drugs. Why there are so many black kids carrying weapons. Why there are so many black kids in gangs. And finally they should ask the parents why all of the above is happening to their kids and why they won’t hold themselves accountable for the lack of parenting that they’re children receive. After all, ‘black lives matter.’
    Action speaks louder than words. Sorry to be so non-PC but enough is enough already!

    • Rick

      The reason is the girls don’t know how to say NO and it gives them a PAYCHECK from us tax payers through WELFARE…

      • Al

        Sure blame the women…

        • Rick

          Blame goes where it belongs regardless of gender..

          It takes two to tango and if she said NO and he continued then it’s called RAPE and the RAPIST should be Prosecuted….

        • seravo

          No, blame the culture.

  • corsair82

    No, absolutely not. When the Constitution was written, shopping occurred in open-air markets and shops that fronted busy streets. These were the places that people assembled to protest and petition and engage in free speech. Today, commerce happens more often in enclosed, privately-owned spaces. One of the realities of living in a democracy is that you cannot simply ignore discontent, if you wish for your community and nation to remain healthy and whole. It’s unfortunate that we’ve privatized the places that free speech used to occur. Rather than banish free speech to the verges, it is much healthier for our nation to welcome it into our public spaces, even if they are privately owned.

    Besides, The Mall of America netted $250 million in tax breaks for their new expansion, and that’s just the latest in a string of public handouts for the “private property” known as the mall. If the city and state invested that much in boosting the growth of business and economic opportunity for African-American communities, there might not be need for this sort of protest. Which is occurring on publicly-funded “private” property.

    • Rick

      So, with that logic where do you stand on the 2nd. Amendment ? Which other Amendments need to be rewritten ?

    • seravo

      Yes, let’s keep free speech in public places, like the heavily subsidized and “bastion of free thinking and knowledge” like our universities.

      Oh wait. My bad. Never mind….

      • Matthew Cacophony

        Free speech is already restricted on private property. You know how Old Navy can fire you for yelling obscenities? Yeah. If that weren’t the case, Subway wouldn’t be able to ask you to leave when you start screaming the N word at their employees, also.

        Why do people think Free Speech is a right to say whatever you want whenever you want?? Free Speech protects you *solely* from government interference.

        • seravo

          Free speech isn’t “free”.
          The speaker must proceed knowing he/she owns the consequences of whatever it is they are saying. I agree with your examples, but it doesn’t mean anything/anywhere. There are limits and yelling obscenities or using the “N” word in a derogatory manner are exposing yourself to repercussions whether you realize it or not.

          What we are seeing is a failure of civility.

          • Jeffrey Dunitz

            I agree with both of you, in parts. Aren’t the BLM people going into this knowing that they’ll be asked to leave, and that those who refuse to do so might be charged with something? I don’t agree that organizing an unwelcome demonstration at the mall is equivalent to an individual hurling abuse in a single business. Or, for that matter, I wouldn’t say it’s fair to compare ANY kind of organized protest or agenda with simple abusive speech. Not the same.

  • DRJJ

    Minnesota deserves this. Gangs, atheist, muslim terrorist and the insane are doing all the killing-see data. Cops lives matter the most! Teach your kids to RESPECT cops or you should be jailed too when your kid kills someone.

    • Al

      How about the group of white christian men who shot at the protesters in the first place?

      • DRJJ

        Foolish comments don’t matter.

      • Matthew Cacophony

        Are we counting the Asian man as “white” now, just to fit some narrative??

        You are talking about when the BLM crowd chased those three dudes into an alley “for wearing masks” (which… uh… so was BLM….), when the Asian guy turned and fired on them, right?

      • BOB

        you pretty dumb sumbitch arn’t you ali babba

      • seravo

        If ‘White” is your catchall for anything other than black you can call them white.

        As far as Christian goes, anyone who intentionally harms others cannot be called Christian by any stretch of the imagination. And if they called themselves Christian (and if so show us where this happened) they are imposters.

        I find it sad and entertaining how anyone on the left considers anyone white and conservative an automatic Christian. So narrow minded, foolish, and bigoted.

        • Matthew Cacophony

          “As far as Christian goes, anyone who intentionally harms others cannot be called Christian by any stretch of the imagination.”

          Bwahahaha!

          I’m sorry.

          The rest of your point was semi-good, but this statement is beyond ridiculous. No true Scotsman would ever wear Plaid on Thursday!!

          • seravo

            Please Matthew, for my own sake explain what you mean.
            I have never seen where Christianity requires anyone to effect violence against others.

          • Matthew Cacophony

            “Requires others”

            Maybe that’s your problem. Christians do things which aren’t required by the bible.

            Google “crusades” or “inquisition” or “Anders Brevik” or “The Army of God”… the list could go on for a long, long, long ways.

          • seravo

            OK. I see where you are coming from and I was looking at this from a different perspective. It seemed the shooters may be Christian, but they weren’t shooters because they were Christians.

            But this should be simple. My rights end where yours begin. In other words, what I do is nobody’s business up until whatever I am doing infringes upon, or harms, someone else.

            I think we are saying the same basic thing, just somewhat differently. Thanks for pointing that out.

        • Mongoose

          I find it sad and entertaining how anyone on the right (or anyplace else) considers anyone on the left automatically narrow minded, foolish, and bigoted. People are individuals.

      • Mongoose

        In the first place? Where were you at the start of all this protesting? Watching cartoons?

  • Hemi

    BLM will protest at MOA unless their demands are met, which is release the tape of a shooting. MOA does not have the tape and cannot meet the demands. MOA is not involved in the incident at all, it’s just going after someone famous to get attention.

    If a guard or employee of MOA were involved then yeah, the protest should go forward. But by all accounts MOA had nothing to do with the incident, and should not have to deal with it.

    • Mongoose

      Generally, what you say is correct. However, BLM does not have a right to protest on private property without permission.

      • Hemi

        No, legally MOA has no right to protest on private property. But morally they have no justification either. All around they are in the wrong.

        Didn’t say that as sometimes two thoughts are too much for these conversations

  • The Anomaly

    BLM Movement..NO RESPECT,,,NO CREDIBILITY. If they respected others then give it to them….They Don’t

    • seravo

      So true. Respect is a two way street, and you must give respect in order to deserve respect. It is earned, not given because you are trying to out-shout everyone else.

  • Kevin Kempf

    No! Like any other terrorists they need to be refused access and jailed.

    • Ali

      You need to learn the difference between terrorists and protesters. And yes, there is a difference.

      • Rick

        A person is a Protestor when they Protest and when that Protestor Blocks a street stopping the movement of traffic and an Ambulance that they become a TERRORIST. It has already happened in Chicago on Michigan Ave. a few weeks ago.

      • BOB

        YOUR’E A TERRORIST

      • Matthew Cacophony

        Google definition: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

        They may not all be terrorists, but some of them are *really, really* close if they aren’t actual terrorists. I think it’s pretty clear that they’ve been using terrorism and violence to support their claims (does not necessarily have to be interpersonal violence, but there’s some of that too).

        I mean look at Ferguson, and that dude was guilty as anything.

      • Mongoose

        Not the way this often plays out. You need to learn that terrorists don’t always blow things up or shoot wildly. Sometimes they just intimidate and cause intense fear.

  • JCD

    I think MOA does have a right to bar the protest from their private property. They apparently don’t allow any protests, so it’s not like they’ve singled out BLM.
    The aim of their property is conducting business, and the individual stores that reside in the mall are counting on the MOA management to protect their business activity. Now having said this, I think that BLM goes to public spaces and disrupts the “normal” activity going on there because they believe that the seriousness of what is occurring to blacks (primarily regarding police misconduct) is so frightening that they feel a need to call it to the attention of broader society. It’s not like whites generally have had any idea of the reality of what many blacks experience with the police, I think if many whites really realized what innocent blacks experience as part of their daily life, the whites would be surprised and outraged. But again here, I think MOA privately owns the property and can say who gets to come on it and for what reason (within the law.) Those are my thoughts …

    • seravo

      Therein lies the difference between protest and civil disruption.
      The french had a word for it.
      Sabotage.

  • Hon

    Mall of America is private property, it is not a publicly owned and maintained area. You have a right to lawful assembly, you do not have a right to disrupt and cause economic harm to people and businesses. Black lives matter is proving that it cares only about publicity and confrontation. blm has no moral center.

  • Carol Chambers

    No. The mall may be privately-owned, but it is publicly subsidized, and like stadiums, theaters, etc, it plays a unique role in our community. It is a gathering spot for all kinds of public demonstrations; why not demonstrations for justice, too? If MOA were to embrace the demonstration, rather than fight it, they would be able to minimize inconvenience and heighten the safety of shoppers and employees. So what is really behind this decision? What if MOA supported its black employees as much as it supports its shoppers?

    • seravo

      Try this little thought experiment:
      Supposed someone organized a “Non-Black Lives Matter!” protest for the mall. Would you be the first to defend their right to do so?

      • SteveS

        No

        • seravo

          If not, why not?
          In your estimation, is there no room for dissenting opinion?

          • Mongoose

            Opinion is not the problem.

          • SteveS

            See my earlier post.

          • SteveS

            Private property isn’t the forum to be expressing opinions unless condoned by the owners. That that crap to public streets. Better yet, get a job instead of protesting.

            Protesting at a mall for whatever cause serves only to disrupt business and annoy people trying to go about their daily lives. It does NOTHING to advance any cause. The reason BLM likes this is because they are anarchists who care nothing about “lives”. They care about disruption. That is why their sponsor is http://www.revcom.us.

      • JCD

        Yes.

        • seravo

          And you would be right to do so.
          Liberty only works when it is granted to everyone.

          • Mongoose

            The point is, the Mall is not an appropriate venue.

          • seravo

            It is, if the mall grants their permission. But if they do not, end of story.

        • Matthew Cacophony

          So, how many groups get to take over the mall whenever they want, despite the owners wishes, before it stops being a mall? How long would you be wiling to go without income to support a cause you don’t even believe in?

          • JCD

            Matthew Cacophony: I am not advocating that MOA should be forced to allow the protest of BLM, KKK, or anyone else. I simply replied to the “thought experiment” that was posed by seravo. I am not stating any of my opinions based upon which group(s) are involved. If you advocate for free speech, it must be lawful free speech for everyone (whether you agree with their opinion or not.) In this case, I personally think that this is more an issue of the rights of this private property owner who also has contractual obligations to his tenants, safety responsibilities to customers, etc..
            While growing up, I lived in an area of Ohio where the KKK did rally. Such speech was offensive to my family at the time (and continues to offend me today.) However, society protected that free speech then, and I believe it should be protected today – as well as the free speech rights of BLM group members. I don’t speak for BLM but in good faith am trying to understand the motivations of their members (since they are our fellow citizens.) In understanding the root motivations of others, perhaps we’ll be better equipped to find solutions that advance the quality of life for us all.

    • Sean H

      We have to keep in mind that MOA is responsible for everyone’s safety in the mall. Therefore, if they allowed any protests to takes place on the property, more security would be needed. Those costs will be passed to the mall’s tenants who then pass those costs on to their customers. I’m sure the insurance rates will also go up as the liability factor has also increased meaning even more costs being passed on to the consumer. Hopefully, even if these protests are non-violent, it doesn’t discourage people from going to malls to shop but I suspect it would discourage some people, especially if they do not feel safe despite the extra measures the mall might have put into place.

      I know if I saw a protest going on in a mall, I’d want NOTHING to do with it and would either go home or go to a different mall that hopefully is not the scene of a protest as well.

    • Mongoose

      You’re assuming that MOA doesn’t support it’s black employees. However, I’d like to point out that the Mall is populated by man businesses, and those businesses are the ones you should be directing your remark to. The Mall only has a duty to keep the public safe, and to provide a safe and open venue for it’s tenants.

  • AmusedAmerican

    It is private property so there should be no discussion here. The mall should bring in some more security to keep the protest from happening. It’s not a matter of race, the police wouldn’t release the security footage between two white people shooting each other or two black people shooting each other. It’s only an issue because if a white guy shoots a black guy then it’s immediately racism and unlawful.
    I can’t wait till Sharpton and Jackson are gone, they’re nothing more than instigators.

  • John McDermott

    BLM be needin’ ta go back da skool to learns to read and rite, That way they can get their dumb asses off of the streets and anywhere else the good folks what to live, shop or do whatever in peace and leave the good law abiding citizens alone who only want to have a peaceful time doing whatever it is they want to do. BLM should do what they do best, go out and shoot each other! Losers!

  • SteveS

    BLM is a public facing front for the Revolutionary Communist Party of the U.S., as can be seen by the URL printed at the bottom of their signs.

    They are just a bunch of anarchists trying to disrupt society. So yes, they should be banned on private property.

    • Mongoose

      I don’t know about the URL, but I agree about what they are. It’s a fine old American tradition. Eventually, they will grow up and take a more reasonable approach, one with substance but less sound and fury. .

      • SteveS

        Look closely next time you see one of their professional printed signs. At the bottom is the clearly visible URL: http://www.revcom.us

  • Anubis

    I support Black Lives Matter, but can’t fathom the purpose of disrupting holiday shoppers. All it achieves is public rancor.

    • Matthew Cacophony

      “All it achieves is public rancor.”

      I thought that was their entire mission statement? You can’t demand racial hiring practices and then be taken seriously.

  • Plato-puss

    Absolutely support MoA in their lawsuit. BLM is casting too wide a net and instead of directing their anger at a narrow range of targets, they are hurting people who are not racists and who would otherwise support their movement. If BLM wants to garner sympathy from the masses, they better start protesting at klan meetings instead of hurting small businesses.

  • whitedoggie44

    Will they also be applying for jobs given their consistent whining about black jobless rate? No sense wasting a trip.

  • The Equalizer

    Lulz who still supports BLM? Sure I was on the bandwagon last year for a month or two but now BLM has became nothing but an annoyance to the working class.

  • Analiza Marie O’Brien

    The last time I saw a group try to stop people from completing their christmas shopping, chaos and bloodshed ensued.

    • kevins

      Walmart?

  • Joseph Baker

    Absolutely the mall has a right to stop a protest on private property, regardless of who the protestors are or what subject they are protesting. Particularly so when the targeted business has no connection to the protest. Why should they lose business, and their customers be inconvenienced during busy Christmas shopping season. Oh, and by the way, all lives matter.

    • Matthew Cacophony

      “All Lives Matter”

      Racist. I’m so sick of people who support free speech or personal ownership of property over someone’s feelings. Feelings could be hurt! We don’t *want* to protest where it’s legal, we *want* to protest here. We waaaaaant it!

      this is sarcasm.

  • lori smith

    This is a clear case of terrorism. BLM is pre-planning on holding MoA hostage for a ransom.

  • Michael L Hays

    Absolutely not. Indeed, since the courts have declared privately owned malls to be public spaces, the mall’s attempt to stop the protest is nothing more or less than an effort to suppress free speech. Frankly, my dears, I do not give a damn about the loss of profits to be generated by the commercial exploitation of the birth of Christ.

    • Mongoose

      Fair enough. Of course, you haven’t mentioned a single word about the employees who will lose out, of the general public who’s safety will be jeopardized. These things have a way of degenerating into free-for-alls.

      • Jeffrey Dunitz

        Although, to be fair, the 2014 Holiday Season BLM protest at the MOA was pretty well-behaved. Nobody got hurt, nobody got arrested for being violent…

      • kevins

        Any evidence that businesses will lose out? Any evidence that the safety of the general public will be jeopardized? So the free speech liberty should be premised on your unfounded fears?

    • Matthew Cacophony

      “since the courts have declared privately owned malls to be public spaces”

      Got a citation for that? I can find literally no state laws which consider a mall to be a public space. They’re 100% definitely no included in the list of “privately owned public spaces” which I would think is the exhaustive link.

      You didn’t just falsify that fact, right?

      • Michael L Hays

        You are mostly correct. I did not intend to make a false claim; I just remembered some earlier cases which protected free speech in malls before later cases “unprotected” it.

        Notwithstanding, I still approve of the sit-ins and marches of the Civil Rights Movement, and I approve of peaceful demonstrations for civil rights even if they violate the law under the principles and practices of civil disobedience.

        As for “Mongoose,” below, I do not care about the employees either and I do not know that “these things have a way of degenerating into free-for-alls.” I do care that such a view reflects moral and social degeneration.

  • Bill Payne

    First, if the Black Matters Movement can illegally protest on private property and close down businesses that are totally unrelated to their grievance, does the pro-life movement have the same right to illegally protest on Planned Parenthood property and attempt to intimidate would-be customers as they try to save the lives of the unborn? This is an equivalent comparison.

    The administration and the courts have been very restrictive and draconian in their efforts to ensure that the pro-life movement does not interfere in the abortion debate. Remember, abortion kills over 3,000 viable fetuses every year. That is a cause worth protesting.

    Second, the Tea Party is not trespassing on private property and targeting the economic welfare of private business. That is not a fair comparison. Also, the Tea Party has been repeatedly targeted with illegal restrictions and civil liberties infringements by the current administration. Think IRS.

    • Mongoose

      You lost me when you drifted into your pro-life argument.

      • Bill Payne

        You must get lost easily. The comparison is clear and worthy of mention. If a democratic friendly group is allowed to illegally demonstrate on private property and disrupt business in order to protest the killing of a man, can a republican friendly group illegally demonstrate on private property and disrupt business in order to protest the killing of innocent lives? This is very clear.

        • kevins

          “Lost” may be a metaphor here Bill. BTW, last I heard, the “republican friendly” group is allowed to demonstrate near a PP facility. Given that, if there were a PP facility in the MOA, would it be OK if they demonstrated near there? (remember its all private property(.

          • Bill Payne

            Pro-life protesters have to keep at a specified distance from Planned Parenthood property and they cannot interfere with people who are entering or existing. In some states, they are cordoned off even when on public property. In terms of MOA and other places that the Black Lives Matter have protested, they attempt to disrupt business, harass shoppers, and become an intentional nuisance. Of course, that is why they are protesting. It is about using force to force others to do what they want. The democrats accept that for unions and other activists but are very vocal to quell republican types when they become too “aggressive.” Why the double standard? By the way, the pro-live movement also cares about black lives, Remember, a disproportionate number of aborted children belong to poor minority woman.

          • kevins

            But if a PP facility were in the MOA, would it be OK to protest it there? BTW, I don’t support the BLM protest at the mall, but I support the right to protest. I have the same position on right to life protesters. I’m also not convinced that this is a Democrat-Republican issue as you frame it. There are plenty of double standards to go around.

          • minnesotalistener

            I could see your point if there was any evidence that BLM protestors at MOA “attempt to disrupt business, harass shoppers, and become an intentional nuisance.” Ref. to above comments by someone who actually participated. Inconvenience, perhaps.

          • Bill Payne

            I guess the live reports and statements from witnesses from Black Friday protests were falsified. I can give you links but you are also able to see them for yourself. They show protesters locked arm-in-arm blocking doorways and preventing shoppers from passing through. The employees said they felt threatened and that they did not want to leave the stores. Others show them laying across the floors so people can’t pass. Others show large crowds on angry people that are there to frighten would be shoppers. Of course, one of the stated reasons for the protests at economic points is to hurt the local economy in order to force the state to give them what they demand. They are not there to smile and help old ladies shop. Of course, you are allowed to believe anything you want. I like to think of them as girl scouts who are there to do a good turn.

          • Bill Payne

            Here you go. The protesters did everything that they said they would do. What I said about them was correct. Perhaps the people who actually participated in previous ones were blindfolded because all have done the same thing. See this link: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/23/black-lives-matter-protesters-defy-restraining-order-force-lockdown-at-mall-of-america/

  • Robb49

    I don’t support it. They are being so narrow minded that they think are punishing some rich corporations. But, besides giving shoppers a lot of grief, they are hurting the employees who depend on those shoppers for their jobs. If stores do badly, hours get cut and people get laid off. Some of the people are paid on commission. So, they lose the money they are trying to earn for their family’s needs. Most of those mall workers make barely enough to get by on. When you hurt innocent people to promote your cause, it’s nothing more than terrorism.

  • Jaime Riotmuffin

    Goodness gracious, why in the world is this even a question?!? The mall routinely allows groups of thousands to gather, sing and chant to raise awareness about cancer and other conditions – why not about racism?

    Never will be giving money to the MOA again. And shame on media outlets who act as if this issue is “private property” rather than content of the speech.

    • seravo

      Maybe because the other groups you mention aren’t there with the stated intention to disrupt the businesses operating in the mall to make a point?
      Just asking.

    • Matthew Cacophony

      Maybe the owner just feels like the majority of Americans and doesn’t support BLM, but does support cancer treatment? Is that illegal? Should he be forced to lend his personal property to support a cause he doesn’t think is just?

      It absolutely is a private property issue. The content of their speech is irrelevant, entirely, unless you think the KKK should be allowed to force him to accept their protest next, followed by literally every other group overrunning his doorstep with him having no say in the matter whatsoever?

  • Thanks everyone for joining the discussion here today. Please note our terms of service for commenting here: “Do not post any material or links to material that is libelous, defamatory, false, obscene, violent, abusive, threatening, harassing, prejudicial, or is otherwise in violation of the law or MPR’s guidelines.” MORE: http://www.mpr.org/public/terms#submissions

  • AlanBannacheck

    The MOA may be a private corporation, but due to its colossal size it needs to take a more civic role.

    It’s also interesting to note that the Mall of America is owned by a Canadian company. I don’t believe Canada has any right to block constitutional rights

    • Jeffrey Dunitz

      I strongly agree with your first sentence, but your second sentence doesn’t make very much sense. It’s completely irrelevant that the MOA’s parent company is Canadian (is it really?), because it’s still a company operating in the US, not a foreign government entity. The Canadian government (“Canada”) isn’t responsible for the actions of individual Canadian nationals in the US, nor the actions of the US subsidiaries of Canadian corporations.

      • AlanBannacheck

        My second point is a bad attempt at humor.

    • Matthew Cacophony

      “but due to its colossal size it needs to take a more civic role.”

      By what law or principle?

      • AlanBannacheck

        Common sense

        • Matthew Cacophony

          And when 500 other groups all decide that they want to protest there, too… just too bad for the owner, he has to offer his location as a service to literally any group who wants it, regardless of whether he supports their message?

          You’d be 100% fine with the KKK setting up shop there despite the owner’s protests, for instance?

          When does he get to go back to being a mall… when everyone who was protesting is satisfied that their demands were met??

      • seravo

        Principle.
        Unfortunately there is no legal requirement to be principled.

        • Matthew Cacophony

          To me the principle here is the inviolability of someone’s personal property. He may not, like most Americans, support BLM… but he has to put his business aside to let them protest?

          You’ll feel the same way tomorrow when the KKK moves in (it’s not the business owner’s decision who is allowed to protest there, after all), and the day after when it’s the Aryan Brotherhood, all the way through next July when he’s still catering protesters instead of… you know… being a mall?

    • farmertom2

      Nonsense. It’s in America. It’s not as thought it’s subject to Canadian laws. And Canadians are subject to US law while in America.

  • one4All

    Congress shall make No Law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or Aabridging the Freedom of Speech, or of the Press; or theRIGHT of the People Peaceably to Assemble, and to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances

    • seravo

      Peaceably assemble. Peaceably.

      Threatening a protest with intent to disrupt legitimate businesses in order to make a point is not peaceable. There’s the catch.

      • Minnesota Ice

        Civil disobedience is as American as Apple Pie. See, Boston Tea Party which was very specifically a disruption of legitimate business. As were Woolworth lunch counter sit-ins and Greyhound Bus Freedom Rides to the South all of which were disruptive to business. So, should Rosa Parks have just sat down on the back of the bus and shut up?

        • farmertom2

          Did the MOA do something wrong? Or is it just a convenient albeit private property location for protesters to gather? Why should the mall suffer because people are angry at police?

      • farmertom2

        It’s not public property.

    • Wilfster

      Small time vendors in a mall = “billionaires” to psychotic BLM extremists on the Regressive Left.

      • farmertom2

        It’s not a public space, right?

        • Wilfster

          Correct. Its private.

    • farmertom2

      It’s not a public space.

  • Wilfster

    Of course I support Mall of America. Any law abiding citizen that cares about families during the holiday time is happy this terrorist group is not allowed to take food off kids plates so they can chant during their college winter break session….

  • NoNonsense

    I support any private property owner controlling what legally takes place on their property. Might I suggest a more appropriate venue that is publicly owned would be the upcoming NFL game at TCF Bank Stadium. Give that one a try and see how it plays…

  • Minnesota Ice

    I think that protesting at the MOA is just like protesting at the Greyhound station or the Woolworth lunch counter. It is an act of civil disobedience and one can be arrested for civil disobedience, I participated in last years protest and understood that was a possibility, albeit a remote one. If people gather and are warned against trespass and do not leave they can be arrested, that is normal. I think people who are arrested can try to make the town square argument, and I think it has many strengths though I am not sure it would win in court.

    I do not believe that prior restraint is allowed, I do not believe that an injunction to stop people’s speech is constitutional. Speech in the form of organizing an event is not against the law, yet, though it would seem some posters here would like it to be. The MOA can try to figure out who is entering the mall to protest and who is entering to shop, of course when they are wrong and and kick people out unjustly they can deal with the consequences

    What the MOA is trying to do here is doubly outlandish. It is trying to use government to force individuals to speak (in the form of their facebook and twitter posts) words dictated to them by a private entity. Let’s just imagine the implications of that for a minute. If that stands, what is the limit of what the government can force you to speak?

    • farmertom2

      No one has a right to stage a protest on private property. This is neither a case of prior restraint, nor is it on par with protesting at the Woolworth lunch counter, as the mall is not the target of the protest– though they are negatively affected by it. They are asking the police to protect their property rights. The town square argument is a fuzzy one. Could hundreds walk through the Mall wearing BLM t-shirts? I think so. Can they yell, disrupt, chant and block? I think not.

      • Minnesota Ice

        I think that the town square argument has a lot of strengths. I was actually at last years protest. Frankly I had intended to go grab a gift after the protest but the police wouldn’t allow my family and thousands of others to reenter the mall. Before the protest we had lunch there and took the kids for a ride at the amusement park. At what point then did my trip to the mall become illegal, was it always illegal because I went with the intent to go to the protest or did it become illegal when I joined the crowd in the rotunda, or was my presence there never actually illegal as long as I complied witht he order to dispers?. I think it is so tricky to pin down the answer precisely because the MOA has a town square function.

        I will point out that all of the blocking last year was done by the police. Yes the East Rotunda was full, but it was only blocked by the protest in the same sense that any large event makes passing through the East Rotunda difficult. The police, I assume at the Mall’s demand were the ones to block access to the stores near the East Rotunda.

    • Mark in Ohio

      If the MOA had anything to do with the issue allegedly being protested by BLM, I might agree with your statement. Unfortunately, the MOA has nothing to do with police policy. What BLM is doing is more like opposing drilling for oil in the arctic by blocking traffic at a local diner. All in all, BLM is behaving more like a small child having a temper tantrum than an organized political movement with specific goals.

      As to your opposition to them asking the courts have the protesters take down their posts promoting the “protest”, I don’t see anything even slightly wrong with this. If the court rules against the “protest”, the sponsors should have to take down their postings promoting it, else what’s the point of the ruling. No means No, couldn’t be plainer and more direct.

      • Minnesota Ice

        The specific reason for going to the MOA is because it has the function of a public square. I have not been kicked out of the MOA ever for just hanging out and not buying anything nor have I seen any postings that say I must buy something to be there. There is a general invitation to visit and publicly funded infrastructure takes one directly into the Mall in the form of buses and the LRT.

        The Mall is not simply demanding that people take down the posts promoting the protest. They are demanding that the government force people to speak the words that the mall put into their mouth, i.e. that the protest is canceled. I don’t get why anyone would not see that as a problem.

        • JCD

          But it doesn’t stand to reason that just because MOA proposed language for BLM to use to cancel the protest (if, in fact, a court orders such) that the court would also just take that language and insert it into the order. I’m sure the court could come up with language on its own to be used that would align with the order and be appropriate. That’s not to say that BLM would like it …

    • JCD

      MOA can ask for anything – it doesn’t mean it will be granted. It’s not an unusual tactic to ask for WAY more than you want or need in the hope of getting something, anything, even if it’s much smaller than the original request.

  • MarkieMark

    Regarding events that catalyzed the Black Lives Matter movement, let’s be clear that blacks have long been subjected to harsher, more aggressive policing than whites; and that police officers must never act as executioner when their own lives are not immediately threatened.

    However, while the underlying premise of BLM is valid, the rights to exercise free speech and freedom to assemble should not compromise the wellbeing of others. Specifically, the coming MOA protest by BLM will disrupt normal business operations of many Mall retailers. Some rely on sales revenue during the Christmas season to remain profitable, and solvent. A compromise would allow BLM assembly to protest, but prohibit assembly in front of the primary Mall entrances since this is most disruptive to customer/retailer transaction. However, this may not be feasible.

    BLM should understand that every nuisance event further erodes popular support for their cause.

  • farmertom2

    It is true that shopping malls serve as a sort of public space, but only in a limited sense. They can’t tell you to leave because you’re wearing a Trump or Clinton t-shirt. But they are entirey within their rights to kick protesters out.

    • Veritas

      Actually a business can ask anyone to leave for ANY reason. That’s the law.

      • Sue de Nim

        Actually, not if it’s a place of public accommodation and the reason is to exclude people based on race, color, religion, or national origin. THAT’S the law.

  • Yanotha Twangai

    Freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution. Freedom of commerce is not. Some of the folks posting here seem confused about that.

    • farmertom2

      The GOVERNMENT can’t restrict freedom of speech. The same is not true for private firms, schools, churches, etc.

      • Yanotha Twangai

        You sure were quick to jump on that comment. Seems I touched a nerve.

        • farmertom2

          No nerve. It’s just that people often mistake the meaning of the First Amendment.

  • Gordon near Two Harbors

    Freedom of speech is certainly guaranteed by the Constitution, but so are property rights. No one has the “right” to occupy private property for any reason without the permission of the owner(s) of that property. A public park would be a better place for a public demonstration.

  • Rich in Duluth

    No, I think the MOA functions as a public square, so protesters should be able to occupy some of the space there. To be a good corporate citizen, management should provide a place for the demonstration to take place. However, any protesters or counter-protesters who get unruly, should be taken out of the MOA and charged with an appropriate misdemeanor.

    • minnesotalistener

      Places like MOA have encouraged the image of their space as a public square, and indeed the public gathers more often in greater numbers in malls than in parks or churches, for that matter. This is not the same as standing in someone’s front yard or blocking entrance to a business.

      • JCD

        I believe that, in practice, BLM does intend to disrupt commerce whether by intimidation of shoppers or just blocking entrance to stores. Don’t think they’re just hoping to use the big indoor space to gather. It seems to me to be a conscious decision to disrupt “normal” activities to bring attention to what BLM sees as very urgent (as in sometimes deadly) discriminatory policing practices. The thought is that the situation is so serious that citizens of good faith should be willing to give up more frivolous activities to listen. If someone from BLM can comment on whether I have understood the position correctly, that would be helpful. I do not speak for BLM but am honestly trying to understand their positions.

  • Sue de Nim

    Yes, I think the Mall of America should pursue those legal actions, not least because it plays into BLM’s hand by giving them more attention. I have no sympathy for that idolatrous temple of Consumerism. And, while I don’t approve of all of their tactics, I completely support the aim of Black Lives Matter, to raise awareness of racially biased policing in order to bring positive change. Between racist reactionaries and greedy business elites, BLM is making the right kinds of enemies.

    • JCD

      Agree that since BLM believes that racially biased policing is such an urgent problem (I mean, black citizens are dying at the hands of police – often they have committed a crime but those crimes are rarely capital offenses and even if they were, they are entitled to due process) that I think it’s a duty of those concerned citizens to bring the situation to the attention of broader society. Listen, most white Americans really didn’t know what was going on. Human nature, we’re all just trying to live our lives and provide for our families. It’s not that we didn’t care – we just didn’t know and were swept up in our own lives. So bring that to our attention via lawful and peaceful demonstrations. The burning and pillaging thing is not helpful, but at least for me, presenting your viewpoint, evidence, and asking for help – that goes a long way. Thanks for listening.

  • Mark in Ohio

    I would be amazed if the court denies this request for controls on the protesters. If they don’t support this, it would provide a weakness in the same rules used to govern and corral protesters at political events. Given that political protesters at political events have a reason to be there, it’s far more relevant than the case here.

  • Ginnie

    Yes, if they let one group protest there will be some group in there everyday. This group needs better PR, they don’t have any tact.

  • Shari

    I do not deny that BLM has a right to protest- but not on private property such as the Mall of America. Their disregard of the law is not helpful to those who might support their broader issues. It might be better if BLM members redirected their energies to helping people in the community who are in need of food, clothing, housing, etc.i .

  • Sue de Nim

    The exaltation of property rights by many of the commenters here is disturbing. I hear echoes of the backlash against the civil rights movement of the ’60s. It was in the name of property rights that shop owners, restauranteurs, hoteliers, etc., were insisting they shouldn’t be forced to let black folks enter their establishments. Property rights were also invoked against indoor smoking bans, as if those rights are more important than employees’ health. Property rights are not absolute. We have always held people responsible for what they do with the stuff they claim ownership of. Whether MOA’s property rights extend to prohibiting BLM protests is for the courts to decide, but I reject the ideological assumption that property ownership automatically trumps other considerations.

    • JCD

      I’ll speak for myself and say that when I considered this a case of private property rights, that does not mean that I have an ideology that property ownership trumps all other considerations. I will say that I appreciate that you caution others on the subject, but please realize that having the private property opinion on this one case doesn’t mean I’m not open to considering other arguments or situations and coming to a different opinion. And ultimately, this is just my opinion. It will be up to a court to decide how this plays out.

      • Sue de Nim

        I wasn’t referring to you or taking your comments that way. Your remarks have been much more moderate and less ideological than some others on this page.

        • JCD

          Thanks, Sue. I didn’t actually feel like you were directing your comments at me personally. That does go to show though that these comment areas are good places to exchange ideas and debate the viewpoints reasonably. Big sigh, I wish more people could set aside negative attributions toward people who post statements with which they disagree. People are complicated, and I dare say are probably much more reasonable (and with valid motivations) than one single post might indicate.

    • MarthaRN

      Sue, your premise is incorrect and thus your conclusion is false. Protesting rights are not the same as a business property rights on denial of service as a civil rights violation. BLM can shop all they want but protesting on private property designed to stop, to interfere with a man’s business and others wishing to shop is illegal unless they have a permit endorsed by the owners.

      • Sue de Nim

        What do you think is incorrect about my premise? My “premise” is that property rights are not absolute. I defy you to contradict that. My “conclusion” is that property rights should not trump other considerations on questions like this. When you give evidence that you actually understand what I’m saying, I’ll take you seriously.

      • seven seven

        You already capitulated. I am not with you. You already support tyranny. Segregation is good, moreover, necessary for a healthy society.

    • seven seven

      The court was wrong on that too. The court is still wrong. Civil war is necessary because the law is opposed to justice.

      • Sue de Nim

        I wouldn’t go that far.

  • Gary Dilello

    This is travesty as we get to see dirty hand politics in action. This is what I am upset about this demonstration that isn’t about Justice and Free Speech as they claim. How? Well I watched the news clip of their comments today And what I heard was heresy Number One this is private property and they would need first is to approach the mall and all the shop owners on this matter, it seems they didn’t do that Plus private property means as it says Even if it is a shopping mall open to the public then MOA has the say so over there property as much you do at your own home. If they go on city, state or federal property the law can lead to arrest. But isn’t this what BLM wants?
    They are trying to miscue their reasons as to think that the 1st amendment overrides the 1st amendment. Yes you have the right of free speech and assembly But as long as you inform said areas for it. As MOA choice is different as they are not a single property owner as like having a house, But what would happen if BLM decided to assemble on your front lawn? Nothing really as it is that BLM is looking for a major spot for the media can set up cameras and reporters, and have massive groups of people in the place that random robberies will happen in the stores around them. Are they going to pay for extra security and police?
    Second this is comment coming from a member of BLM that was on the news with reporter on FOX TV station in Minnesota I feel I can say the word heresy here as I believe not into symbolism as much as BLM does And this going on what she had said to the nation in front of many viewers
    “Mall of America is the Coliseum of Capitalism and it is also Symbolism. As our world works on Symbolism”
    Think about what she said as this agenda was for political reasons not justice. She wants to tackle so called Capitalism as it is the problem why a white cop killed a black man And symbolism as we devote more on a stupid symbol of stores and businesses and that is why a white cop killed a black man?
    This sounds like the shooting of Jamar Clark really doesn’t interested the BLM. As they would take any death of a black man dealing with cops who have to be white. No friends it is near Christmas and BLM is only trying get into the news to keep the Racial War going. As BLM has to answer to their slave masters the Democrat and Liberal parties.
    Also disclaimer as this doesn’t have threats, defamatory or false accusations as it is telling it in plain fashion what I see and hear. And this is totally a opinion of mine

  • EAQUALIYFORALL2016NOW

    Does NOT matter. Let the rally play out you Fascist Bigots You! All Humans matter. Black lives matter. We humans know the submissive thing to do is March to the State Capitol but in reality right now the revolution is always going on. Be safe, Be wise and good luck Black Lives Matter. Honestly If I were BLM I would March to Loring Park If not able to march at the MOA. 2016 NOW

    • MarthaRN

      Moderator: please delete the above vile post by”Eaqualiyforall2016now”
      Name calling is not allowed and besides, his uneducated spelling of his posting name is just toooooooo funny. I think it meant ” EQUALITY FOR ALL 2016″
      lol

    • JCD

      You know, the name-calling is just not helpful …

    • seven seven

      Blacks want civil war.

      • Yanotha Twangai

        Says who?

        • seven seven

          Blacks. Only two reasons they act this way 1) they want civil war; 2) they are more like rabid dogs than humans

  • MarthaRN

    First off, 2 of 3 American blacks do not support this BLM stuff. If BLM was for reaal, they would have protested the targeted killing of a nine year old boy by a back gang.
    My significant other is also black and works as a job coach and all of his clients are against this extreemist group. I bet no one here can say, how many police are shot, wounded for life or dead from black criminals? Most liberals still believe the Fergussen shooting was murder and not the shooting of a criminal who robbed a store and then attacked the officer. None or few of you could imagine being a police officer, to lay your life on the line for another. But BLM;s agenda wants you to believe its cops vs blacks , its all racsism, 1968 all over again_ because more blacks are arrested. Surprise_ more blacks commit crimes that should be arrested. Police shoot three times more whites than blacks..Fact from the NCR system.

    The words from the Afrikan Black Coalition’s most recent article “A New Constitution or the Bullet.” sums up how BLM has their agenda as well.

    “Do we not have the right to abolish the laws that oppress us,” “It’s time we demand a new constitution or tell America she’ll get the bullet. If America doesn’t protect us, then it’s our right to defend ourselves by any means necessary.” The article goes on to say the Coalition must “pick up where the Black Panthers left off” in order to get a new constitution, or the U.S. will get “the bullet.” The Black Panthers shot and wounded and killed many police officers, and some hide in Cuba as does convicted cop killer,Joanne Chesmard. BTW, if you see her on your visit to Cuba, the government has a million dollar reward for information leading to her capture. She supported the black racist Panthers.

    The rash of violence and protests across college campuses is being led by university professors and the leftists and the anarchists and the socialists in our university systems. U of MN has many.

  • MarthaRN

    BLM is a radical hate group. MOA should demand our police keep them out.
    BLM does not want to see the justice system improved. They want excuses and a liberal wedge to gain DNC voters. They won’t tell you this, back in August, a shooter shot a deputy in the back of the head and then three times in the back. This tragedy comes
    within days of a group of Black radicals calling for “lynching whites
    and killing cops,” as Breitbart Texas recently reported. Witnesses also told Breitbart Texas that the shooter was a black male. Does the media hold BLM accountable for inciting violence and terroristic acts against our police?
    BLUE LIVES MATTER so please ask the criminals regardless of color to cease their criminal acts.

    • kevins

      Martha..what is “DNC”?

      • Pearly

        🙂

  • AbdiAhman

    The moderator should abide by their rules and delete EAQUALIYFORALL2016NOW posting. I read his other posts on other forums and that person is advocating others to violence.

  • Isse abdaman

    BLM is illegal acts. I read constitution and there is no page says they can disrupt private business. America is land of laws so they must too follow laws. Chief of Police should arrest all if they so do the protest. It is the law.

    • Lizanne howie

      Absolutely. ..

  • The Anomaly

    Judge Bars Organizers From ‘Black Lives Matter’ Mall of America Protest

  • seven seven

    Civil war is necessary.

    • Yanotha Twangai

      No. Engaged voters are necessary.

  • Hunter

    MN hates BLM because BLM wants media coverage and more violence to play the victim and yes, of course they are a liberal progressive hate group.
    “If the demonstration is allowed to go forward on one of the busiest
    shopping days of the year, Mall of America is certain to lose guests who
    would otherwise have visited the mall,” Mall of America said of the
    planned protest. ” . . . In addition to these lost sales, the more than
    15,000 people employed by Mall of America and its tenants will be
    negatively affected by a [sic] the loss of sales at the mall, as many of
    the employees depend upon commissions, tips, or bonuses that will be
    reduced due to the demonstration.”

    Laws don’t apply to them because most can’t read the laws. Black Lives Matter says it will hold the rally at Mall of America_ regardless_ of the judge’s decision, the Chicago Tribune reports.

    • Sue de Nim

      Thanks for revealing your true racists colors. Your insinuation that BLM protesters are illiterate serves to discredit your opinion and puts reasonable folks on notice that your comments are to be ignored.

      • Ricks Voice

        And what is your opinion of people from the south? Do you think of them as Racists too ? Is someone a Racist just because they did their homework and researched the candidates ? I found out that as a Senator he was a No Show during most of the sessions so that he would have no record and he also said that the National Debt was way to high and his only vote in the Senate was to vote NO to raising it.

        • Sue de Nim

          Were you sober when you posted that? Your reply is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with my comment. The individual I was replying to insinuated that BLM protesters are illiterate, which I construed to be a racist attitude, and you replied to me with some vague allusion about (I presume) President Obama, who was not referenced in either the original comment nor my reply.

          • Ricks Voice

            Start out by throwing insults and then fail to answer the questions and change subject. You were the one that brought up racism and I asked about your opinion about another group of people. It truly shows your true colors. Please, don’t bother to reply as your rhetoric is irrelevant.

          • Sue de Nim

            You changed the subject, not me. Why should I accede to your demand to answer your impertinent question? Your “don’t bother to reply” tells me you don’t want to be bothered by challenges to your opinions. Please feel free to continue to ignore the opinions of those who disagree with you, as I’m sure you’ll do anyway.

      • Lizanne howie

        Have a seat..good try

  • Ricks Voice

    The mall must do everything in its power to protect it’s customers and businesses and IF the protest starts the security and police need to drown out the protest with Bullhorns so they are not heard. BLM can protest in any public place however not on PRIVATE PROPERTY. It must be stopped immediately.

  • Henry Poussard

    Are permits needed for protesting! If so why would city/town allow a protest at the mall? Seems like they would have them protest in an area that wouldn’t bother business’s and shoppers. Go to a football field and invite people there. It would do more for your protest including respect by talking to people who want to be there than those who are only aggravated. You might get more people you probably would get by not aggravating them! Just saying and my thought only!

  • NobeHeadings

    Yes I support the Mall of America.Freedom of speech does not mean that you can disrupt people’s livelihoods. BLM is not really interested in free speech anyway. Note what Walter Hudson said about their FB page:

    “Well, all it took was a couple of reasoned comments about the interaction of
    free speech and property rights for Black Lives Matter Minneapolis to
    delete said comments and block me from posting. They keep the nastier
    comments to make it look like their opposition is all racist. But
    reason? That’s gotta go.

    “It’s particularly rich given their core claim, that the Mall of America ought to serve as a
    platform for their speech whether its owners wish it or not. If that’s
    true, if anyone must yield their platform to another’s speech, then
    Black Lives Matter shouldn’t block anyone. They owe me a platform, just
    like MOA owes them one. Right?”

  • Lizanne howie

    I totally support the mall of America. BLM IS nothing more than bullies. They are a domestic terrorist group, hate group and they are the racist. Stop bullying America and get over yourselves. We are all tired of your shenanigans. Martin Luther King would roll over in his grave

  • Paul G

    I believe “Black Lives Matter” should shop at the stores instead of protest. The economic benefits to the MOA would be huge. This would better serve the cause than disrupting shoppers and the stores that are trying to make income to keep their employees paid & employed. The main thing that crosses the minds of an outside observer is how can all these demonstrators have all this time to protest? They are feeding the stereotype that a lot of people have of the protestors. They must be on welfare? It might not be fair, but why do think BLM is not even supported by most of the minority community? BLM you are feeding the stereotype and by no means are you helping your cause.

  • lindblomeagles

    This is a good question. Thanks MPR. I’m not sure there is a correct answer here. An extremely publicly oriented place, the Mall of America relies on Bloomington P.D., Metro Transit Police, and its own contract security officers to maintain order and keep shoppers safe 365 days of the year. The Mall of America also relies on positive and negative criticisms from shoppers regarding their experience at the Mall of America. But some of the Mall’s customer base are Black people, and if any one of the public safety officers mentioned above, or any of the shopping stores in the Mall of America, wrongfully profiles the Mall’s Black shoppers to the extent that some one was physically or emotionally hurt by those actions, the Mall of America might be held responsible or negatively associated with allowing such circumstances to happen. They also have an opportunity, much more so than the protestors themselves, to bring attention to the criminal justice system or to be seen as another American entity that doesn’t want to get involved. As for Black Lives Matter, I’m not sure protesting at the Mall of America is an effective strategy because the Mall’s customer’s base comes from a variety of cities and counties. If it’s state wide attention Black Lives’ Matter seeks, other targets, like the State Fair, probably helps more than the Mall of America. If BLM is calling attention to Jameer Clark, then a target in downtown Minneapolis might be more powerful than a demonstration out of the city.

  • Walter Hudson

    Yes, the mall is private property maintained for a particular use determined by its owners and management. That use does not include a venue for political protest.

  • Pearly

    BLM…. Are they still around?

  • Jennifer Tuder

    I support clawing back all the public money we’ve invested in the MOA. If they want to be private, let them be private. They can fund everything on their own.

  • november05

    I think it is a violation of the malls private property rights, and also of the peoples rights who go there to shop. Let them take their protests to the street, or find another way to get their point across, they aren’t accomplishing anything. Except bothering people and making them angry.

  • Pearly

    Any new news on council Member Alondra Cano?

  • Hubert H

    I do not support BLM getting on to any private property to protest. Civil disobedience should be done on public property only. By being on MOA property they are stealing the money the stores would have made. That’s grand theft and they should go to jail for it. All of them. They should also be charged with trespass. They have a good cause in many ways, but they have no right to punish innocent people. Their argument that corporate America is involved in the killings is bogus and paranoid. Even if true, it does not allow this criminal behavior. Take the guilty corporations to court. BLM is a criminal organization now with shades of terrorism. So, I ignore their arguments. Why should I listen to criminals talk about legal matters? They do not respect the law, so they have no right to talk about the subject.