Hotels In Las Vegas

MAUPIN, C.J., with whom SHEARING, J., agrees, concurring in the result.

I concur in the majority's result, albeit for alternate reasons.

I write separately because I believe the appellants' commercial speech invites a lowered First Amendment scrutiny, and, accordingly, the district court properly enjoined the handbillers' activities.

The basic question in this matter was convincingly settled in Venetian Casino Resort v. Local Joint Executive Board. [FN1] In Venetian, the defendant unions obtained a permit to picket in a private pedestrian walkway fronting the Venetian Casino Resort. That sidewalk is directly across the street from, and in every relevant respect identical to, the properties at issue in the instant matter. The federal district court concluded that the Venetian property "was previously public, serves as a thoroughfare along a main public road, and serves the needs of the general public. As such, it falls within a very limited exception to the general rule that private property is not subject to the First Amendment." [FN2] This exception must also apply here.

FN1. 45 F.Supp.2d 1027 (D.Nev.1999).

FN2. Id. at 1036.

Nevertheless, the speech at issue in Venetian and in the case upon which Venetian primarily relies, Marsh v. Alabama, [FN3] is different in kind from the commercial handbilling here. Unlike union protests or religious proselytizing, commercial speech enjoys limited First Amendment protection. [FN4] "[T]he difference between commercial price and product advertising and ideological communication permits regulation of the former 'that the First Amendment would not tolerate with respect to the latter.' " [FN5]