portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reporting portland metro

corporate dominance

Buy Nothing Day

Portland Jammer Group actions and photos
Security at Pioneer Place
Security at Pioneer Place
Today, as planned, we met at Lloyd Center at ten o' clock, and a few people had signs and costumes, I saw our group on the news, but I think I was inside the mall at the time. At this point, a few of us had signs and/or costumes, and then a few of us split into groups of two or three people, and we put little info sheets about issues such as sweatshop labor in the pockets of clothing in stores like The Gap, Sears, Hot Topic, Old Navy, etc. Then we passed out leaflets on the way out. Apparently, the other one or two groups that had gotten in (some couldn't, because of security) were kicked out, but we were never approached by any security, and we left via the entrance that the policeman was guarding, so he was kinda confused. Then some people with buy nothing day shopping carts showed up (there are pictures of this in the other article) and after singing some more of our buy nothing day carrols, we took the max downtown, to pioneer place. A few of us got in, and were promptly kicked out, but, by the time I got there, there was a security official with a video camera standing at the door who videotaped me and told us that the mall is private property, and that he would arrest me if I came into the store. Then, upon walking to the other corner to meet up with some more people who had gotten kicked out of the mall, I saw him come out of the door again. I took a picture of him with another of us, and he flipped off the camera. We then went to another corner, where there was a brass band, who agreed to play christmas carrols for us to sing to, and some of us danced. apparently, some of our group was able to stay in the mall for awhile, pass out leaflets, and ask the santa for nothing. Then, after staying at this corner of pioneer place, while we sang carrols and showed our signs, we walked up to nordstrom, where a few of us went into the store and sang buy nothing day carrols all the way up and down the escalators. There were no security guards there to stop us that we could see, but we went out anyway. One of our group was in Nordstrom for much longer, and was eventually kicked out. We then discovered that, across the street there was a male model at Abercrombie and Fitch posing shirtless with a scarf, so we went into the entrance to the store and stripped off our shirts, a few of us started dancing, as was reported in the other article. After that a large number of police showed up, and we went and sang on the other side of Nordstrom, and then in Pioneer Square.
Edit 26.Nov.2004 23:30

Nicolas

The other pictures I was referring to are here:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304559.shtml

Supreme Court: Pruneyard Case and 1st Amendment in Private Establishments 27.Nov.2004 01:32

ne1

Although most rent-a-cops et al continue to believe that "it's private property, so I can arrest you for trespassing if I don't like what you have to say," it turns out that this is a widespread myth. Next time you go to a shopping mall or other privately owned but publicly accessible establishment, consider carrying with you the text of the Supreme Court's Pruneyard decision, which clearly establishes that private business establishments must respect your freedom of speech, even on their own property, if that property is generally open to the public. They may impose restrictions of "time, place, and manner," but they must publish those restrictions in advance, and the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate that the restrictions are reasonable for operating their business and do not impose an unreasonable burden on your free expression rights.

 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=447&invol=74#85

Unfortunately, so few people know about Pruneyard, that private businesses all too often employ illegal intimidation of this kind, and people too often they succomb to it. Know your rights!

(Note: if you want to use Pruneyard in your defense, it would help to verify in advance if the establishment in question has an explicitly published policy regarding "time, place, and manner" of free expression. If not, you should be able to engage in any lawful free expression at any time, provided that it isn't obviously blocking or otherwise impeding other patrons.)


Lloyd Center serves as Public Meeting Place - Already Tested in Court 27.Nov.2004 10:12

pix

In Whiffen I, this court held that, because the nature of the Lloyd Center was the antithesis of a private place and because of the large number of the public who gathered there, to exclude persons engaged in signature- gathering activity would not serve the public interest. Id. at 685, 773 P.2d 1294. hat intrusive activity could be enjoined. Id
In Whiffen II, supra, 315 Or. at 515, 849 P.2d 446, this court held that "persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of the Lloyd Center have a constitutional right to do so under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." This case does not involve reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Indeed, Fred Meyer Inc., claims an absolute right to prohibit anyone from seeking initiative petition signatures on its property. At trial, the state argued only that defendant had no right whatsoever to remain on Fred Meyer's private property.
In Whiffen II, the premises where people could exercise their Article IV, section 1, rights to gather signatures on initiative petitions were described as "large shopping center[s], such as the Lloyd Center." 315 Or. at 503, 849 P.2d 446. See Clackamas Town Center Associates v. Wolf, 315 Or. 557, 560, 849 P.2d 477 (1993) (same). In Whiffen II, this court concluded that "access to people is the life blood of the initiative power" and that some minimal intrusion on the rights of the mall owner is justified in view of the importance of the power of initiative reserved to the people. Id. at 511, 849 P.2d 477. This court held that where persons may seek signatures on initiative petitions is essential to the purposes of Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, and is of vital importance in making effective the purpose of Article IV, section 1. Id. at 511-12, 849 P.2d 477. We agreed with the following language in the Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Cargill, supra:
"It is implicit in Article IV, section 1, that the people must have adequate opportunities to sign the [initiative] petitions that are necessary for them to act as legislators." 100 Or.App. at 343, 786 P.2d 208. In Whiffen II, this court interpreted Article IV, section 1, liberally in favor of the peoples' right peaceably to gather signatures for initiative petitions. This court then held:

" [T]o prohibit the gathering of signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of large shopping centers such as the Lloyd Center would 'impinge on constitutional rights' conferred on the citizens of this state by the provisions of Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. Such rights, however, are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions * * *." Whiffen II, 315 Or. at 514, 849 P.2d 477.

Lloyd Center - Already tested in court 27.Nov.2004 10:14

pix

" [T]o prohibit the gathering of signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of large shopping centers such as the Lloyd Center would 'impinge on constitutional rights' conferred on the citizens of this state by the provisions of Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution. Such rights, however, are subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions * * *." Whiffen II, 315 Or. at 514, 849 P.2d 477.

In Whiffen I, this court held that, because the nature of the Lloyd Center was the antithesis of a private place and because of the large number of the public who gathered there, to exclude persons engaged in signature- gathering activity would not serve the public interest. Id. at 685, 773 P.2d 1294. hat intrusive activity could be enjoined. Id
In Whiffen II, supra, 315 Or. at 515, 849 P.2d 446, this court held that "persons seeking signatures on initiative petitions in the common areas of the Lloyd Center have a constitutional right to do so under Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions." This case does not involve reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. Indeed, Fred Meyer Inc., claims an absolute right to prohibit anyone from seeking initiative petition signatures on its property. At trial, the state argued only that defendant had no right whatsoever to remain on Fred Meyer's private property.
In Whiffen II, the premises where people could exercise their Article IV, section 1, rights to gather signatures on initiative petitions were described as "large shopping center[s], such as the Lloyd Center." 315 Or. at 503, 849 P.2d 446. See Clackamas Town Center Associates v. Wolf, 315 Or. 557, 560, 849 P.2d 477 (1993) (same). In Whiffen II, this court concluded that "access to people is the life blood of the initiative power" and that some minimal intrusion on the rights of the mall owner is justified in view of the importance of the power of initiative reserved to the people. Id. at 511, 849 P.2d 477. This court held that where persons may seek signatures on initiative petitions is essential to the purposes of Article IV, section 1, of the Oregon Constitution, and is of vital importance in making effective the purpose of Article IV, section 1. Id. at 511-12, 849 P.2d 477. We agreed with the following language in the Court of Appeals opinion in State v. Cargill, supra:

"It is implicit in Article IV, section 1, that the people must have adequate opportunities to sign the [initiative] petitions that are necessary for them to act as legislators." 100 Or.App. at 343, 786 P.2d 208. In Whiffen II, this court interpreted Article IV, section 1, liberally in favor of the peoples' right peaceably to gather signatures for initiative petitions. This court then held:

we weren't worried 27.Nov.2004 10:35

about getting arrested

we had looked into the laws and our rights related to weather the mall was considered public or private space. Which is why we did enter over and over again in small groups or individually. Unfortunately because of our small numbers it seemed pointless to storm the mall as a group, just to get held by security. We wanted to get the message out, not be silenced by mall security. Getting us arrested would have been beneficial to the mall, even if it didn't hold up in court, it would have gotten us out of their hair for the day.

Question 27.Nov.2004 10:45

--

What year was the Wiffen decision? Excuse me for being vague, but didn't something change since then? I remember when we could petition outside any store, then only outside of stores where people went for multiple purposes, I believe.

Anyway, thanks for the info. I will definitely look up Pruneyard.

Good work, everyone, especially Buy Nothing Day Folks. I tooted at you on my way to Fur Free Friday.

Oops 27.Nov.2004 11:26

Dude

I almost did it, but next year I'll do better.

I bought a candy bar(1 dollar-big Hersy with nuts) and rented a movie( burning man-violent grade c movie).

Sprawlmart Sucking Bootie! 27.Nov.2004 11:40

Eye Pea Freely

CHICAGO (Reuters) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the world's largest retailer, slashed its own expectations of November sales on Saturday, saying customer traffic declined toward the end of Thanksgiving Day week, which signals the start of the holiday shopping season.

On a recording detailing sales through Friday, Wal-Mart said it expects a 0.7 percent increase in November sales at its U.S. stores open at least one year, down sharply from a forecast of 2 percent to 4 percent a week ago.

I Cheated, Too... 27.Nov.2004 11:44

Varro

I bought some medicine at the drugstore, a bottle of pop, and lunch. But I did sign up two new bankruptcy clients who are going to cost MBNA, Capital One, etc. thousands...

private property/free speech 27.Nov.2004 13:03

mark

I'm no expert on the law, but the courts would never support someone being thrown off private property because of their race or religion. So why would it be considered okay to evict them because they disagree with their message? If they're not being disruptive or carrying offensive material it shouldn't make any difference what the case law states. It is protected free speech.

astoria throws 1st Annual BND Abundance Swap 27.Nov.2004 21:51

fun

It was yesterday, Buy Nothing Day, and it was at the Episcopal Church basement. At least 100 people showed up, and it was great--lots ofdiffernet kinds of people, all ages. Several people came up and told us they were so stoked that they were going to do it in their own communities.

Thanks, PDX indymedia, for the inspriration!!

Coverage on KBOO 28.Nov.2004 13:40

me

KBOO covered the BND culture jammers group singing anti-carrols at Lloyd Center and Pioneer Place...

 http://www.kboo.fm/news-dept.php

I will join you. 29.Nov.2004 14:22

warmonger3

As a former resident of Oregon, and collector of "stuff". If we attempted to do this in SW Idaho the lot of us would have been spending the night in the drunk tank, where it smells of barf, and old crank whores. (Been there)

I am impressed that you pulled that off without getting thrown in jail, but then the police there are much more open-minded than the lazy, corrupted police we have here. About the only things they seem to respond to are drive-by shootings, murders, and robberies. Be warned there is no Law enforcement in Idaho. I am sure they would have responded to people who are trying to make a point about excessive materialism. (Though I don't speak for you.)

Thank you protestors and culture jammers 29.Nov.2004 22:12

orleans

Thanks for doing the work for those of us who stayed at home. The only thing I bought all day was a cup of tea from Three Friends Cafe. There are so many ways to spend a day without spending money.....