Author Topic: John Lennon Turns Over In Grave (Read 965 times)

Virage · « **Reply #30 on:** March 05, 2003, 03:45:34 PM »

Must suppress the opposition right.

AKIron · « **Reply #31 on:** March 05, 2003, 03:48:22 PM »

Steve, the child is 31 years old. After getting more info from MSNBC it looks to me like the mall was outta line. Still, they have the right to disallow their facility from being used as a political forum.

Steve · « **Reply #32 on:** March 05, 2003, 03:48:44 PM »

Quote: Must suppress the opposition right.

Huh?

Montezuma · « **Reply #33 on:** March 05, 2003, 03:57:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d

No, not arbitrarily. The laws regulating access to privately owned "public spaces" are contrary to freedom to control one's private property and libertarians are against those. But while such laws and regulations exist, they must be obeyed. One cannot be told to leave for "any" reason.

That is correct, this is a conflict between the 1st Amendment and the 5th.

To add to the complexity of this situation, nearly all major malls in the US were built with some sort of public-private partnership.

Frogm4n · « **Reply #34 on:** March 05, 2003, 04:00:45 PM »

the mall had every right to do what they did right or wrong. This is another side effect to the malling of amerika. We will continue to lose our public property as our downtowns close down and we build huge indoor malls were we lose certain rights upon entering those places.

AKIron · « **Reply #35 on:** March 05, 2003, 04:16:47 PM »

Suspect your being sarcastic but you are essentially right. While you can run around screaming and acting the total bellybutton out in a desert they frown upon such activity at places where most folks congregate.

Quote

Originally posted by Frogm4n
the mall had every right to do what they did right or wrong. This is another side effect to the malling of amerika. We will continue to lose our public property as our downtowns close down and we build huge indoor malls were we lose certain rights upon entering those places.

Steve · « **Reply #36 on:** March 05, 2003, 04:25:23 PM »

TY for the info on the "child" Iron... I suspect then, that the child was no attorney.. or he too might have angled for a suit. Of course.. the father could have been standing up for common sense and perhaps is not the least bit litigious.

The younger of the two removed his shirt...
Ironically, the security guards had NO right to ask the two to remove their shirts(technically, they could only advise them that they were not welcome on the property while wearing the shirts). Ask them to leave yes, ask them to remove the shirt.. absolutely not.

Animal · « **Reply #37 on:** March 05, 2003, 05:20:09 PM »

If he was asked to leave BECAUSE he was wearing the t-shirt, then thats really sad.

SOB · « **Reply #38 on:** March 05, 2003, 05:32:02 PM »

Sounds like the guy did the right thing if he wanted to publicize something he saw as wrong. Had he simply removed the t-shirt or left the premesis, it would have ended up being his word against theirs. By forcing a confrontation involving the law, what happened is now on record. The guy will probably end up with a fine, maybe nothing. Either way, the mall loses.

SOB

Steve · « **Reply #39 on:** March 05, 2003, 05:34:19 PM »

Ya Animal... as much as the guards were doing nothing illegal, and that I'm a hawk who feels iraq needs a makeover, I think the guards(or whoever put the policy in place) were acting like tards.
Although it was a political statement.. it hardly seems offensive or even inflammatory... a non-vulgar opinion on a tee-shirt...geez.
The only argument I can come up with is: The policy setters want no politically motivated statements displayed and have a zero tolerance policy.
Otherwise the guards are just bullies huh?

majic · « **Reply #40 on:** March 05, 2003, 05:38:01 PM »

(For any lawyers on the board)

What civil liability would the mall have?

Animal · « **Reply #41 on:** March 05, 2003, 05:42:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Steve
The policy setters want no politically motivated statements displayed and have a zero tolerance policy.
Otherwise the guards are just bullies huh?

I really hope they would have done the same thing with someone with a "Lets nuke Iraq" shirt (ive seen these), or something similar.
And even then, I think its extreme.

In fact, diddly em, they should not be kicking anyone even if they have a KKK shirt.

Steve · « **Reply #42 on:** March 05, 2003, 05:44:47 PM »

Ya, otherwise they would certainly have no recourse if the T-shirt wearers brought suit... and on the level you and I care about: If you're gonna be an ass, be one to everyone. heheheh

Karnak · « **Reply #43 on:** March 05, 2003, 08:03:57 PM »

Here is a Liberal's (me) perspective:

The mall had the right to tell them to leave and then have him arrested when he wouldn't, but they (the mall) were morons for provoking this in the first place. The shirts did not have any inflamatory, or even specific, slogans. No "Bush blew up the towers" or "No war in Iraq", or any other BS. They simply had the old slogans "Give peace a chance". I see t-shirts with all sorts of slogans, some prettyy crude, in the malls in my area. The statement was hardly inflamatory enough to warrant the reaction that the mall managment had.

Of course it backfired on them as they had 100 active protesters there today.

Karnak · « **Reply #44 on:** March 05, 2003, 08:18:41 PM »

More info: (their title, not mine)

Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt

Apparently he had just purchased the shirt at the very mall in question.

Quote

According to the criminal complaint filed on Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.