Mirage Hotel

We conclude that the district court did not err in making a preliminary finding that the sidewalks in question are private property and therefore not subject to the reach of the First Amendment.

Article 1, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution

S.O.C./Hillsboro argue that the protections of Article 1, Section 9 of the Nevada Constitution should be interpreted more broadly than the protections of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argue that a broader reading of the Nevada Constitution would afford greater protection to the type of speech activity involved in this case. S.O.C./Hillsboro invite this court to adopt the rationale of the California Supreme Court decision in Robins v. PruneYard Shopping Center. [FN41] We decline such an invitation.

FN41. 23 Cal.3d 899, 153 Cal.Rptr. 854, 592 P.2d 341 (1979).

In Robins, the California Supreme Court held that the California Constitution protected the right of individuals to solicit signatures in opposition to the United Nations resolution concerning "Zionism" in the courtyard of a privately-owned shopping center. [FN42] The shopping center appealed to the United States Supreme Court; and, in PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, [FN43] the High Court affirmed the decision, acknowledging that each state had a sovereign right to adopt its own constitution and provide its citizens more expansive individual liberties than those conferred by the Federal Constitution. [FN44] It is generally true that federal law, whether based on statute or constitution, establishes a minimum national standard for the exercise of individual rights and does not inhibit state governments from affording its citizens greater protections for such rights. [FN45]