The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5) to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15 ) considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20) public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward. In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 ) owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved? (30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35 ) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said: (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50) will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve. These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.” Questions 2 to 6 A conflict between property rights and freedom of speech might arise in all of the following situations, EXCEPT:

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5) to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15 ) considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20) public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward. In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 ) owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved? (30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35 ) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said: (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50) will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve. These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.” Questions 3 to 6 According to the passage, an owner’s freedom to deny freedom of speech on his property is determined by all of the following EXCEPT:

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5) to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15 ) considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20) public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward. In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 ) owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved? (30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35 ) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said: (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50) will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve. These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.” Questions 4 to 6 We can infer from the passage that the author believes that shopping malls in America

The Constitution of the United States protects both property rights and freedom of speech. At times these rights conflict. Resolution then requires a determination as (5) to the type of property involved. If the property is private and not open to the general public, the owner may absolutely deny the exercise of the right of free speech thereon. On the other hand, if public land is at issue, (10 ) the First Amendment protections of expression are applicable. However, the exercise of free speech thereon is not absolute. Rather it is necessary to determine the appropriateness of the forum. This requires that (15 ) considera- tion be given to a number of factors includ- ing: character and normal use of the property, the extent to which it is open to the public, and the number and types of per- sons who frequent it. If the forum is clearly (20) public or clearly private, the resolution of the greater of rights is relatively straightforward. In the area of quasi-public property, balancing these rights has produced a dilemma. This is the situation when a private (25 ) owner permits the general public to use his property. When people seek to use the land to pass out handbills or picketing, how is a conflict between property rights and freedom of expression resolved? (30) The precept that a private property owner surrenders his rights in proportion to the extent to which he opens up his property to the public is not new. In 1675, Lord Chief Justice Hale wrote that when private property (35 ) is “affected with a public interest, it ceases to be private.” Throughout the development of Anglo-American law, the individual has never possessed absolute dominion over property. Land becomes clothed with a public interest (40) when the owner devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest. In support of this position the chairman of the board of the Wilde Lake Shopping Center in Columbia, Maryland said: (45) The only real purpose and justification of any of these centers is to serve the people in the area—not the merchants, not the architects, not the developers. The success or failure of a regional shopping center (50) will be measured by what it does for the people it seeks to serve. These doctrines should be applied when accommodation must be made between a shopping center owner’s private property (55) rights and the public’s right to free expression. It is hoped that when the Court is asked to balance these conflicting rights it will keep in mind what Justice Black said in 1945: “When we balance the Constitutional (60) rights of owners of property against those of the people to enjoy (First Amendment) freedom(s) . . . we remain mindful of the fact that the latter occupy a preferred position.” Questions 5 to 6 According to the passage, the idea that a property owner’s rights decline as the property is more used by the general public