Brad Dacus, President of Pacific Justice Institute, said that while Snatchko has been successfully defended, the dismissal of charges did not set a precedent, leaving others vulnerable.
Koonce said, "This won't be the last time a shopping mall tries to shut down evangelism. I wish I could say this kind of thing won't happen in the future, but we just can't say for sure."
Snatchko told WND: "I believe what they were doing was wrong. Anyone who has any common sense knows you can't stop someone because of the topic of conversation, when no complaints are being made and there's no visible distraction or discomfort. To say you have to leave because you're talking about a certain thing is wrong."
Matthew McReynolds, counsel for Pacific Justice Institute said experiences like Snatchko's are all too common.
"Shopping malls cannot selectively have people removed because they hear people talking about their faith with a willing listener," he told WND. "That kind of a tactic is something for George Orwell's '1984,' not for us of America."
McReynolds said California's constitution actually is broader than the federal constitution with respect to free speech, providing protections to people in quasi-public forums such as shopping malls, as well as in public forums.
"Private institutions are not free to openly discriminate against customers who may be of Christian faith," he said.
A win for the Good Guys for a Change.
Sue them!
The time of trying to get along with them is over.
It's useless, and it's time to get in their face!
That argument won't fly. The First Ammendment protects you against the government. It does not give you the right to speak your mind while ensconced on private property you don't own. Note that the charge was tresspassing--which means a) entering onto private property uninvited, or b) remaining on private property after being asked to leave.
Imagine a mall owned by Christians, who might wish to expell a group of prosletyzing Hare Krishna. The right to property would be the issue, no freedom of speech or freedom of religion--and the latter would have to apply to all parties equally in any case.