A group of protesters contacted the owner of a shopping mall and requested permission to protest the operations of a specific business located in the mall by assembling near the entrance to the business. The mall owner agreed to allow the protesters to assemble in the mall, but limited the allowable area for the protest to a remote location on the mall premises, pursuant to the mall’s rules governing free speech. The mall had two sets of rules for protests, one set of rules limited non-labor protests to specific areas and times and the other set of rules allowed protests associated with labor activity to assemble at the place of the targeted business. The protesters refused to assemble in the remote location designated by the mall’s rules, claiming the mall violated their right to free speech since it restricted their ability to express their views to patrons at the location of the targeted business and discriminated against them based on the message of their protest. The mall owner claimed the mall did not violate the protester’s right to free speech since the protesters were allowed to assemble on mall property and the mall owner had the right to limit the time and location of the protesters’ speech. A California court of appeals held a mall that discriminates between non-labor protests and labor protests by limiting those engaged in non-labor protests to remote locations is in violation of free speech rights since a mall is barred from applying different rules to different types of speech based on the protest’s message and protesters have the right to reach their intended audience. [Best Friends Animal Society v. Macerich Westside Pavilion Property LLC (2011) ­193 CA4th 168]