Every state has within its constitution a provision that protects freedom of speech and assembly-often in language more expansive, or at least more detailed, than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. "Independent state constitutional free speech theory," in the words of one expert, "has been slow to develop."I Some might find that a remarkable understatement. It has developed in one area, however, that demonstrates both the theoretical reach and the inherent limitations of state constitutional law. That area demonstrates as well the symbiotic relationship between state and federal jurisprudence and the constraining (or liberating) influence of the state action concept and the Fourteenth Amendment.
The U.S. Supreme Court, nearly twenty years ago, invited the state courts to interpret their own state constitutions to protect speech on private property, including large shopping malls.2 This Article begins by reviewing that still underappreciated Supreme Court decision. Next, it surveys the state courts that have addressed speech and assembly at shopping centers. Finally, the Article focuses on the Wisconsin experience as an example both of the application of state constitutional speech protections and of the procedural alternatives available in constitutional interpretation.
