Man arrested for wearing T-shirt

[Entity]

Originally posted by: Dark54555

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Dark54555

Originally posted by: SherEPunjab

Originally posted by: Dark54555

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Dark54555

Originally posted by: flavio

Originally posted by: Jmman
The mall is the one that is making the determination about what could potentially could cause a disturbance, not you or I. I could give a rat's ass what someone wears on a tshirt, but when you are in their establishment, they have the right to make that call.........

So like jlind23 said....you should be able to kick people out of shopping malls for wearing the wrong team's jersey?

It's PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owners can kick out whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Or do property rights not matter to you? Property rights were of paramount importance to the founders, just like the right of contracts.

Shut up already about private property. It's a public mall where people are are encouraged to come and shop. You may like to believe that it's the same as a private residence but it's not.

Actually, it is. Public property is owned by the government. This includes streets, parks, sidewalks, government buildings. Private property is ovned by an individual or group of individuals. Protesting in a mall is no different than protesting in a grocery store, a best buy, an office building, or someone's front lawn. They have no right to do that, and therefore can be removed. If you'd like to contest this point, I'll make sure to organize a protest for your front lawn and place of business, just to see how you like it.

true, but they weren't protesting. they were sitting down and wearing peace shirts.


Damn violators!


Look, refer to my post above. Would all you guys who think this is justified think the same thing if there a bunch of middle easterners talking about how brilliant OBL was for masterminding the 9/11 attacks?

What about someone who comes knocks on my front door mistaking it for a friends house. I have the legal justifcation to PUNCH HIS LIGHTS out because he is trespassing on private property, but is it morally or socially justifiable?

Well, a group was causing a disturbance, and I would assume these two were mistaken to be involved, or thought to be continuing the disturbance. Another report I saw stated they were asked to cover the logos or change shirts and accomidating offers were made, however, they refused.

Actually, to use violent force to defend property, you have to issue a warning first, unless an agressive move is made towards you. So, you could only punch the guy if you told him to leave and he didn't.

i thought the group came after the incident? also they should not have been singled out for that. As I have posted earlier, I've seen much more offensive shirts than that, like shirts that say "fvck" on them, confederate flags, etc. etc. their shirts were peace shirts, my god what was wrong with that?

"The management at Crossgates Mall Wednesday asked the Guilderland Police Department to drop the trespassing charges against a Selkirk man. This came after about 100 protestors descended on Crossgates Mall that afternoon. "

Protestors, then old guy.

Full quote:

- The management at Crossgates Mall Wednesday asked the Guilderland Police Department to drop the trespassing charges against a Selkirk man. This came after about 100 protestors descended on Crossgates Mall that afternoon. Their "Mall Walk for Peace" protested the arrest of 60-year-old Stephen Downs, who was charged with trespassing Monday night when he wouldn't leave the mall after he refused to remove his T-shirt bearing a peace message.

Old guy, then protestors.

Rob

 

[Entity]

A little background:

The first attempt to provide a constitutional basis for the protection of free expression on private property occurred in the mid-1940s. In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held that the owners and operators of a company town could not prohibit the distribution of religious literature in the town's business district because such expression was protected by the First and 14th amendments. Id. The majority reasoned that the town displayed many of the attributes of a municipality; therefore the state-action requirement was satisfied for constitutional purposes of sustaining the rights of free expression. As stated in Marsh, "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company.

Since the Court's decision in Pruneyard, few states have recognized any state constitutional right to free expression on private property. The scope of these decisions is narrow. State constitutional provisions have been held to apply in only two private-property settings: shopping malls and non-public universities. Moreover, the state courts have limited the situations in which these protections are applicable to only a few, such as those involving political speech.

To date, the New Jersey Supreme Court has provided the most extensive and clearly articulated model for rejecting the traditional state-action requirements by holding mall owners accountable for violations of the state's free-speech protections. The New Jersey Supreme Court interpreted the free-speech provisions of their state constitution as extending to private owners of shopping malls as well as to state action in New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 650 A.2d 757 (1994). Prior to deciding New Jersey Coalition Against the War, the New Jersey Supreme Court had decided State v. Schmid, 423 A.2d. 615 (N.J. 1980), which required the court to balance individual expression rights with property rights in the context of free speech at a privately owned university. Schmid articulated three factors: (1) the nature, purpose and primary use of such private property; (2) the extent and nature of the public's invitation to use that property; and (3) the purpose of the expressive activity undertaken on such property in relation to both the private and public use of the property. After applying the Schmid test, the New Jersey Supreme Court reasoned that because the mall owners "have intentionally transformed their property into a public square or market, a public gathering place, a downtown business district, a community," they cannot later deny their own implied invitation to use the space as it was clearly intended. New Jersey Coalition at 776.

It appears that Oregon has passed a law counter to this general trend, but from what I can tell, New Jersey, California, West Virginia, and perhaps a few other states have all ruled similarly to the decision posted above. Still no veridct on New York. I wonder if the lawyer thought about this beforehand. Either way, he was right -- the analogy of protesting in your house vs. protesting in a mall certainly doesn't hold up.

Rob

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: flavio
Did you miss the part again where he wasn't protesting?

Aaaaactually, according to the Reports available on The Smoking Gun, it is indicated that the pair got into a verbal confrontation with a group of people, and they were stopping other shoppers in the mall and bothering them.

 

[TheNinja]

They are both wrong:

#1. The employee who called security and the security officers shouldn't have complained about the shirts and they shouldn't have been asked to leave because of the shirts, they were not offensive to any particular race or religion the shirts were just expressing an opinion on the events of today.

#2. When security and/or the cops ask you to do something such as leave, it is not a request, it is an order. The two were wrong to no comply with the demands of security and the cops regardless of whether they thought the demands were unfair.


Words of Wisdom:
2 wrongs do not make a right....but 3 lefts do!!!

 

[Jmman]

Well, there have been a few recent cases that ruled against protestors in malls......cases

Interesting little blurb......The Ohio appeals court agreed in its Feb. 11 opinion in Lantz v. Franklin Park Mall Management Corporation. "As to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has spoken, stating that owners of private shopping centers may prohibit unwanted or undesirable speech," the court wrote.

The above quote was in reference to a lawsuit about a guy wearing a Marilyn Manson tshirt who was asked to either take it off or leave........

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: flavio
Did you miss the part again where he wasn't protesting?

Aaaaactually, according to the Reports available on The Smoking Gun, it is indicated that the pair got into a verbal confrontation with a group of people, and they were stopping other shoppers in the mall and bothering them.

Ah you gotta love the "Smoking Gun" If that is the case then the Mall's Security Gaurds were right to ask them to leave.

 

[amnesiac]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: flavio
Did you miss the part again where he wasn't protesting?

Aaaaactually, according to the Reports available on The Smoking Gun, it is indicated that the pair got into a verbal confrontation with a group of people, and they were stopping other shoppers in the mall and bothering them.

Ah you gotta love the "Smoking Gun" If that is the case then the Mall's Security Gaurds were right to ask them to leave.

Ah-hah. The truth comes out. I like media sources that don't tell half the story.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: amnesiac 2.0

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: flavio
Did you miss the part again where he wasn't protesting?

Aaaaactually, according to the Reports available on The Smoking Gun, it is indicated that the pair got into a verbal confrontation with a group of people, and they were stopping other shoppers in the mall and bothering them.

Ah you gotta love the "Smoking Gun" If that is the case then the Mall's Security Gaurds were right to ask them to leave.

Ah-hah. The truth comes out. I like media sources that don't tell half the story.

It's good to know that ignorance and intolerence isn't as prevelant as the original story suggested it was.

 

[wyvrn]

Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.

This is a crock of sh!t. But it's a business, and they can ask anyone to leave. I certainly wouldn't shop there again if I was him.

 

[bolsen]

no war for oil... LOL.

 

[speed01]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: flavio
Did you miss the part again where he wasn't protesting?

Aaaaactually, according to the Reports available on The Smoking Gun, it is indicated that the pair got into a verbal confrontation with a group of people, and they were stopping other shoppers in the mall and bothering them.

It was on the radio this morning as well. Naturally both sides claim the other isn't being completely forthcoming with the truth....

Speed

 

[Damascus]

Why do people always paint issues into black and white?

Originally posted by: Dark54555
It's PRIVATE PROPERTY. The owners can kick out whoever they want for whatever reason they want. Or do property rights not matter to you? Property rights were of paramount importance to the founders, just like the right of contracts.

That's a false dilemma fallacy...

What is legal would depend on specific laws. A mall is not strictly private property, it's
publically-used private property. Some jurisdictions give mall owners the absolute right to
toss whomever they choose, with no reason needed. Others give owners the right to
do that if they give a reason for giving the boot. Still other places require that the
owner be able to prove that the "trespasser" is likely to do something bad
(e.g. incite a riot, being disruptive, etc).

Originally posted by: Dark54555

Actually, it is. Public property is owned by the government. This includes streets, parks, sidewalks, government buildings. Private property is ovned by an individual or group of individuals. Protesting in a mall is no different than protesting in a grocery store, a best buy, an office building, or someone's front lawn. They have no right to do that, and therefore can be removed. If you'd like to contest this point, I'll make sure to organize a protest for your front lawn and place of business, just to see how you like it.

Not true. If I were to er, somehow "gain access" to government buildings after-hours,
I'd get arrested. But it's public property just like the street you say! Go ahead try it.

 

[xeno2060]

 

[slider64]

Come into my house and wear a shirt like that and I won't only kick you out I will make sure that you have a boot up your ass as well. It is disrespectful.

 

[slider64]

As the owner of a business you have the right to refuse service to anyone. They may have been expressing their 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech but the mall was expressing their property rights. They are allowed to kick you out for doing anything that they don't deem legal or beneficial to their business. To say that they have the right to be there and to protest on private property means that I can come into your house and wear a shirt that says kiss my ass and you can't kick me out. Here in the great state of Texas you come into a persons house without their permission and they can shoot you. This applies to trespassing as well. Just because a person is against the war doesn't mean that they can go onto private property and share their beliefs with everyone. Do it where it is legal and I have no problem with you. Also be able to back up your beliefs. I am so tired of hearing all these people protesting using information that is unsubstantiated. Open a book, or read the newspaper. LEARN something before you decide to talk.
that my two cents

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: slider64
Come into my house and wear a shirt like that and I won't only kick you out I will make sure that you have a boot up your ass as well. It is disrespectful.

Ooh.. another tough Internet Nancy Boy!!

 

[slider64]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: slider64
Come into my house and wear a shirt like that and I won't only kick you out I will make sure that you have a boot up your ass as well. It is disrespectful.

Ooh.. another tough Internet Nancy Boy!!

You make me laugh. All I was saying is that I don't like it when people feel the need to push that stuff on me. They put signs in my front yard and put stickers on my truck. I got a give peace a chance sticker right next to my terrorist hunting permit. Now tell me does that make sense to you? Just leave me be, I ain't gonna put fight war stickers on your car.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: slider64

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: slider64
Come into my house and wear a shirt like that and I won't only kick you out I will make sure that you have a boot up your ass as well. It is disrespectful.

Ooh.. another tough Internet Nancy Boy!!

You make me laugh. All I was saying is that I don't like it when people feel the need to push that stuff on me. .

Funny, I could have sworn you said "Come into my house and wear a shirt like that and I won't only kick you out I will make sure that you have a boot up your ass as well."

 

[StinkyMeat]

Originally posted by: slider64
As the owner of a business you have the right to refuse service to anyone. They may have been expressing their 1st amendment rights of freedom of speech but the mall was expressing their property rights. They are allowed to kick you out for doing anything that they don't deem legal or beneficial to their business. To say that they have the right to be there and to protest on private property means that I can come into your house and wear a shirt that says kiss my ass and you can't kick me out. Here in the great state of Texas you come into a persons house without their permission and they can shoot you. This applies to trespassing as well. Just because a person is against the war doesn't mean that they can go onto private property and share their beliefs with everyone. Do it where it is legal and I have no problem with you. Also be able to back up your beliefs. I am so tired of hearing all these people protesting using information that is unsubstantiated. Open a book, or read the newspaper. LEARN something before you decide to talk.
that my two cents

Ok...so...the owner of Crossgates should be able to shoot whoever he deems unfit to shop at his mall? I find this idea pretty flawed.

Not to mention Crossgates is owned by the Pyramid mall company. There isn't some owner sitting in the top floor spittin tobacco and polishing his shotgun.

On a side note, NO WAR IN IRAQ

 

[slider64]

I didn't say that he could shoot whomever he pleases. I said that I can if someone breaks into my house. If it is causing problems in the mall and the people are asked to leave they should leave. Just like if a person walks in wear a shirt that says "kill babies" yes he has the right to free speech and I have no issues with that, but he can't cause a disturbance on private property. They can LEGALLY ask him to leave if he doesn't leave, they can LEGALLY remove him. That is it. End of story.
I don't care if you wear a shirt that says Americans for Peace, or whatever you want. I am all for peace.
The only thing that will really upset me is if we return to vietnam era where they called the soldiers baby killers, etc. Then I will have issues with that. If we ever get attacked by someone again and our soldiers aren't there to protect you and you are killed then what? Just be peaceful in your demonstrations, have respect, know your rights(ie difference between public and private property), and educate yourself.
God Bless America that we can even discuss this topic. Iraq doesn't really have a choice. They must do as they are told when they are told.

 

[LotharJade]

You know, part of the problem is that the mall didn't have posted that it is private property. Just think, when you go to a store, you know it is owned by someone and is a business and they have rights, but it doesn't seem like a private place because of how... PUBLIC it seems. I bet the two's inherent defense to their rights for public property kicked in, and they didn't even realise at the time it was actually private property.

To be honest this thread has given me an epifany and opened my eyes. I don't look at going to the store or mall the same way anymore.

Still It does seem that the mall owners were infringing a bit on their free speach, but I can't quite place why. Hmmm. Its kind of like if you let public access to a space, that you shouldn't be able to discriminate on a free speach issue. Actually, that may be a defense for a strong attourney. They were refused service due to their use of free speach. Possible, yet I still am not going to look at malls the same.