Aurora mall tee-shirt wearer raises questions as to where to draw the line between public and private property

A shopping mall in Aurora, Colorado, has banned John Gailey, a medical marijuana patient, for a year because he insisted on wearing his "Yes We Cannabis" T-shirt on a "family night.

http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/27/yes-you-cannabis-but-not-in-ou

Read the whole blog post, like most of reason's posts it is worthwhile.

They are going to claim this is a right to free speeh. A right you do not have on other people's private property. However, where does the line between public and private property meet? I ask this because I know the Aurora government was heavily involved in the recent remodel of the Aurora Mall and offered the company that owns the mall millions of dollars in tax breaks to do the remodel. So if they got a break at the expense of those who did not get the same break, then is it still completely private property? Or should there be an expectation that it should be treated as government owned property, at least in part?

Of course the libertarian answer is that the government should not help pay for any privately owned facilities, then the line between public and private property is clear.