Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt

[jegs2]

A precident set by a more liberal Supreme Court would not necessarily stand in today's Supreme Court. Remember: The Supreme Court also made a notorious ruling in the Dredd-Scott case, so they're not always right, and they do reverse themselves over time.

Do you think they should reverse this one?

Since I'm an advocate of private property rights, yes. Since this is a relatively conservative Supreme Court in comparison with the one in 1980, they might...

[BoredShirtless]

A precident set by a more liberal Supreme Court would not necessarily stand in today's Supreme Court. Remember: The Supreme Court also made a notorious ruling in the Dredd-Scott case, so they're not always right, and they do reverse themselves over time.

Do you think they should reverse this one?

Since I'm an advocate of private property rights, yes.

First Amendment: for or against?

Since this is a relatively conservative Supreme Court in comparison with the one in 1980, they might...

I seriously doubt that.

[jegs2]

First Amendment: for or against?

Life isn't so simple as that. Despite your First Amendment rights, you do not have the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater or even mention the word, "bomb," in an airport. Both will earn you time in jail with a dude named Bubba who thinks you look mightly fine in them there jeans...

Since this is a relatively conservative Supreme Court in comparison with the one in 1980, they might...

I seriously doubt that.

Time will tell...

[Darth Wong]

I'm with jegs2 on this one, although to a limited extent. The right to freedom of speech means that you can't be put in jail for saying the wrong thing. However, the government still retains the right to limit WHEN AND WHERE you express yourself.

Let's say a guest is in your home and starts spouting Neo-Nazi propaganda, so you kick him out. Then, he comes back and sues you for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Would this be reasonable? Of course not.

However, at the same time, while private property grants some things, it is not a "get out of jail free" card. If you fire someone for not sharing your religious beliefs even though he's a model employee and is not disrupting the workplace in any way, then you can't yell "privately owned business" to avoid the inevitable lawsuit.

[salm]

i think that the mall should have the right to throw him out.
i dont support the mall throwing him out though. if i was a customer i´d be former customer now at that mall.

[BoredShirtless]

First Amendment: for or against?

Life isn't so simple as that. Despite your First Amendment rights, you do not have the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater or even mention the word, "bomb," in an airport. Both will earn you time in jail with a dude named Bubba who thinks you look mightly fine in them there jeans...

Two different animals. Yelling "fire!" would create mob panic, wearing a shirt with a political slogan won't.

[Rob Wilson]

First Amendment: for or against?

Life isn't so simple as that. Despite your First Amendment rights, you do not have the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater or even mention the word, "bomb," in an airport. Both will earn you time in jail with a dude named Bubba who thinks you look mightly fine in them there jeans...

Two different animals. Yelling "fire!" would create mob panic, wearing a shirt with a political slogan won't.

Seeing as they were responding to complaints about Conduct as well as dress, it would seem both bases are covered in this case.

[Knife]

Is the mall being too sensitive? Yes

In all propability, was the lawyer looking for a fight? Yes


Even though the whole issue is silly, I have to lean towards the Mall. It is not uncommon for malls and other businesses to restrict certain clothing, gang apparel comes to mind, because it affects their costumer base. This is just a continuation of that philosophy and if the managers thought that the two men and their clothing were going to or might offend thier costumers, then they had every right to toss the two out. Again it looks like the mall managers were asses, but you have the right to be an ass.

[BoredShirtless]

I'm with jegs2 on this one, although to a limited extent. The right to freedom of speech means that you can't be put in jail for saying the wrong thing. However, the government still retains the right to limit WHEN AND WHERE you express yourself.

This is true.

Let's say a guest is in your home and starts spouting Neo-Nazi propaganda, so you kick him out. Then, he comes back and sues you for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Would this be reasonable? Of course not.

Agreed. Turning back to the shirt affair, was it reasonable for the mall to ask them to take there shirts off? Keep in mind that a mall is arguably a public forum, while your house is definetly not.

[Rob Wilson]

Let's say a guest is in your home and starts spouting Neo-Nazi propaganda, so you kick him out. Then, he comes back and sues you for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Would this be reasonable? Of course not.

Agreed. Turning back to the shirt affair, was it reasonable for the mall to ask them to take there shirts off? Keep in mind that a mall is arguably a public forum, while your house is definetly not.

It's private property and you're there by invitation, where's the difference. If you throw a party does that suddenly make your house a public forum, just because ther are more people there? What's the magic number that decides the difference?

[BoredShirtless]

Life isn't so simple as that. Despite your First Amendment rights, you do not have the right to shout, "Fire!" in a crowded theater or even mention the word, "bomb," in an airport. Both will earn you time in jail with a dude named Bubba who thinks you look mightly fine in them there jeans...

Two different animals. Yelling "fire!" would create mob panic, wearing a shirt with a political slogan won't.

Seeing as they were responding to complaints about Conduct as well as dress, it would seem both bases are covered in this case.

Are you saying that a softcore slogan like "Peace on Earth" would have caused mob panic?

Regarding their conduct, I have no solid opinion as the two parties are singing two different tunes. However the fact the ultimatum was "take your shirts off" rather then "stop protesting/harassing the customers", I'm leaning towards the two guys.

[Rob Wilson]

Seeing as they were responding to complaints about Conduct as well as dress, it would seem both bases are covered in this case.

Are you saying that a softcore slogan like "Peace on Earth" would have caused mob panic?

Regarding their conduct, I have no solid opinion as the two parties are singing two different tunes. However the fact the ultimatum was "take your shirts off" rather then "stop protesting/harassing the customers", I'm leaning towards the two guys.

You seem to be forgetting there are infact two sides to this story, and that means you have to look at both rather than go off on a polemic based on a single account.

Security guards approached Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son, Roger, on Monday night after they were spotted wearing the T-shirts at Crossgates Mall in a suburb of Albany, N.Y., the men said.

The two said they were asked to remove the shirts made at a store there — or leave the mall. They refused.

The guards returned with a police officer who repeated the ultimatum. The son took his T-shirt off, but the father refused.

"'I said, 'All right then, arrest me if you have to,'" Downs said. "So that's what they did. They put the handcuffs on and took me away."

A statement released by the mall painted a different picture of what happened.

"Crossgates Mall security received a complaint regarding two individuals disrupting customers. The individuals were approached by security because of their actions and interference with other shoppers," the statement read.

"Their behavior, coupled with their clothing to express to others their personal views on world affairs, were disruptive of customers."

See two sides, in which the shirt only plays a significant role in the account of the accused party, and only a passing mention by the Mall. They have stated repeatedly it was his conduct they objected to, not his apparrel on its own.

[BoredShirtless]

Let's say a guest is in your home and starts spouting Neo-Nazi propaganda, so you kick him out. Then, he comes back and sues you for violating his First Amendment right to freedom of expression. Would this be reasonable? Of course not.

Agreed. Turning back to the shirt affair, was it reasonable for the mall to ask them to take there shirts off? Keep in mind that a mall is arguably a public forum, while your house is definetly not.

It's private property and you're there by invitation, where's the difference.

Wait your mall sends out invitations? If you're also on a first name basis with shop assistants, you're either stinking rich or drowning under some big arse credit card debt

If a mall is partially funded by the government, it can be argued that the mall is a public forum.

If you throw a party does that suddenly make your house a public forum, just because ther are more people there? What's the magic number that decides the difference?

See above.

[Rob Wilson]

Agreed. Turning back to the shirt affair, was it reasonable for the mall to ask them to take there shirts off? Keep in mind that a mall is arguably a public forum, while your house is definetly not.

It's private property and you're there by invitation, where's the difference.

Wait your mall sends out invitations? If you're also on a first name basis with shop assistants, you're either stinking rich or drowning under some big arse credit card debt

If a mall is partially funded by the government, it can be argued that the mall is a public forum.

Your there by implied invitation, they open the doors for business and in you go. if the basics of colloquial English needs explaining, then this is going to be a looooong debate!

As to the Government funding issue, as they have repeatedly stated themselves to be Private Property and have used that in a legal preceeding, then it is private property, not a public forum.

[Knife]

If a mall is partially funded by the government, it can be argued that the mall is a public forum

How? Getting a tax break so they would come in and set up shop and create sale's tax revenue is hardly being funded by the goverment. Paying a tax on property is hardly being funded by the goverment. Paying a licencing fee is hardly being funded by the goverment. And getting a goverment secured loan is not being funded by the goverment.

I know you did not say any of these, I was just going through trying to figure out how the goverment partially funds a mall.

[Rob Wilson]

Ok, I'm heading out now, but for BoredShirtless, the topic your pursuing was already settled in the first two reports made on the subject. In this matter the whole Private property and Freedom of Speech issues were a done deal before you posted on them. If however you want to continue the topic divorced from this case, then why not start a new thread on the matter (either here or in the Science, Logic and Morality Forum)? The only reason to continue it here would be if you were bored and trolling, or simply hadnt read the prior reports properly.

Have fun guys, see you all Sunday.

[BoredShirtless]

Is the mall being too sensitive? Yes

Agreed.

In all propability, was the lawyer looking for a fight? Yes

Disagree. Not enough evidence in my opnion.

Even though the whole issue is silly, I have to lean towards the Mall. It is not uncommon for malls and other businesses to restrict certain clothing, gang apparel comes to mind, because it affects their costumer base.

Could you give some examples regarding gang apparel which is restricted by malls, seeing as it's a common thing?

IMHO it makes more sense that stores, not malls, have dress codes: there might be some stores in the mall which *sell* gang apparel, these stores would want there customer base to be allowed in the mall.

This is just a continuation of that philosophy and if the managers thought that the two men and their clothing were going to or might offend thier costumers, then they had every right to toss the two out. Again it looks like the mall managers were asses, but you have the right to be an ass.

Very true!

[Kuja]

Something just occurred to me. What if the mall had an incident sometime before this? For example, what if a group of people wearing 'peace' t-shirts started a brawl with aonther local group and had to be ejected?

Mall officers might still be touchy about that and end up ejecting someone they wouldn't have otherwise.

Just something I thought of.

[Coyote]

Typical US Liberals like to believe that their point of view is the only legitimate stance on any topic and anyone who disagrees is obviously a brain-dead reactionary.

[hasty generalization]Your typical US conservatives are so intolerant of other views, they demand that anyone who disagrees with America are unamerican, communists, Saddam lovers, and terrorists.[/hasty generalization] (but hey, we all do it)

Of course, on "The O'Reilly Factor", O'Reilly sided with the lawyer and his son and said that they had the right to wear whatever they wanted, and really hacked on the point that the security guards and police never once told them exactly what they did that was "disruptive" or ever specified what the eact charges were that started the whole mess.

As for the other stuff...

I am a semi-conservative who finds the liberals uninformed, naive, and centering their protests more on anti-Bushism than fact... Well, my posts in the "Stupid France" thread flesh it out in greater detail.

[Knife]

Could you give some examples regarding gang apparel which is restricted by malls, seeing as it's a common thing?

IIRC, most malls and stores in dowtown areas (atleast here and in some places in California where I once lived) prohibit what they call "gang apparel". Not so much idividual items but the visage of being "a gang member". Yes it is stereotyping, but *shrug*.

I've been told to remove my "gang related hat" and I am as far from looking like your typical hollywood gangmember as can be. I guess they rather lose your buisness if you are a percieved problem, than that of the multitudes of others who don't dress that way and tend to stay away from establishments with problems like that.

You can make an hastey generalzation argument on it and I would probably agree with you on it, but I think that is the basis for the Mall's action with respect to the lawyer.

[Wicked Pilot]

Of course, on "The O'Reilly Factor", O'Reilly sided with the lawyer and his son and said that they had the right to wear whatever they wanted, and really hacked on the point that the security guards and police never once told them exactly what they did that was "disruptive" or ever specified what the eact charges were that started the whole mess.

O'Reilly is probably operating under the same info vacuum that we are, and is basing his opinion on speculation as to what happened. To my knowledge we still don't know what "disruptive behavior" the mall is claiming had happened. Until we know what did or did not happen, and what extent did it or not happen, our opinions on this issue are quite unfounded.

[BoredShirtless]

Seeing as they were responding to complaints about Conduct as well as dress, it would seem both bases are covered in this case.

Are you saying that a softcore slogan like "Peace on Earth" would have caused mob panic?

Regarding their conduct, I have no solid opinion as the two parties are singing two different tunes. However the fact the ultimatum was "take your shirts off" rather then "stop protesting/harassing the customers", I'm leaning towards the two guys.

You seem to be forgetting there are infact two sides to this story, and that means you have to look at both rather than go off on a polemic based on a single account.

Did you bother to read my post before replying to it? I clearly acknowledged that there are two different stories:
Regarding their conduct, I have no solid opinion as the two parties are singing two different tunes.

[Darth Wong]

Something just occurred to me. What if the mall had an incident sometime before this? For example, what if a group of people wearing 'peace' t-shirts started a brawl with aonther local group and had to be ejected?

Mall officers might still be touchy about that and end up ejecting someone they wouldn't have otherwise.

Just something I thought of.

True; there had been a previous peace protest where a large group was asked to leave. Political protests in a mall are simply ridiculous, and the staff may have been paranoid.

[BoredShirtless]

It's private property and you're there by invitation, where's the difference.

Wait your mall sends out invitations? If you're also on a first name basis with shop assistants, you're either stinking rich or drowning under some big arse credit card debt

If a mall is partially funded by the government, it can be argued that the mall is a public forum.

Your there by implied invitation, they open the doors for business and in you go. if the basics of colloquial English needs explaining, then this is going to be a looooong debate!

As to the Government funding issue, as they have repeatedly stated themselves to be Private Property and have used that in a legal preceeding, then it is private property, not a public forum.

That's for the courts to decide Like I said, it can be argued:
If a mall is partially funded by the government, it can be argued that the mall is a public forum.
Here's a case in which although a mall was considered private property by law, it was treated as a public forum:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... 7&invol=74

As a related aside, in a public forum, people are awarded the maximum level of protection under the First Amendment.

[BoredShirtless]

Ok, I'm heading out now, but for BoredShirtless, the topic your pursuing was already settled in the first two reports made on the subject.

Really? The topic I'm pursing was settled in the first two reports? Where?

In this matter the whole Private property and Freedom of Speech issues were a done deal before you posted on them.

Yeah case closed eh

Rob if it's that simple in your opinion, I'm very glad your attitude is not shared by the courts.

If however you want to continue the topic divorced from this case, then why not start a new thread on the matter (either here or in the Science, Logic and Morality Forum)? The only reason to continue it here would be if you were bored and trolling, or simply hadnt read the prior reports properly.

Have fun guys, see you all Sunday.

We're having a nice interesting debate here, so I'll continue. If you don't like that, feel free to leave this thread without any more snide accusations of trolling or failing to read prior reports.