Target/Salvation Army Contraversy

Regretable, but inevitable. Target can't open its storefront to speech from party A, but deny speech from party B. They either have to open the space they grant to one party to all parties, or restrict it entirely. As long as no one asserts their rights, someone like Target can maintain de facto content discrimination (rejecting speech on the basis of content), but someone has come along to demand their spot on the stage. Actually many someones: "We receive an increasing number of solicitation inquiries from non-profit organizations each year and determined that if we continue to allow the Salvation Army to solicit then it opens the door to other groups that wish to solicit our guests."

Hugh Hewitt is not happy about it, but James Lileks regards it as the way of the world.

Objections seem to break down into two groups, the "they do good work" school of thought and the "they're a holiday fixture" school of thought." The first school seems to be tainted by fears that this is some kind of anti-Christain bias. The second school is tainted by a dissatisfaction with the way corporations run the public space. The solution is simple, if the public wants more old-time public spaces, they need to create and use them. Otherwise this whole thing amounts to no more than nostalgia.