[rambo47]

Just because the newspaper didn't say any more doesn't mean that there was not something else involved with their eviction. A little common sense points to the strong possibility of other factors as yet not reported.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
Could be that they made their T-shirts. Hold on.

Went back and read the article. They made the shirts.

WHOA. I could have sworn that article this morning said the shirts were purchased in that mall.
Am I getting alzheimers, or did they re-edit the story?
Does anyone else remember reading that?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by rambo47:
Just because the newspaper didn't say any more doesn't mean that there was not something else involved with their eviction. A little common sense points to the strong possibility of other factors as yet not reported.

but relying on items not in evidence to arrive a conclusion is NOT common sense.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I wanted to get back to this issue.

I don't see what that "F*ck the Draft" case has to do with what I'm saying. I'm arguing that there may be some, probably very minimal free speech rights on private property. I'm thinking of privacy - if you're in a mall, they're allowed to videotape you walking around their mall, but they're not allowed to watch you whle you pee. You do have minimal privacy rights in the mall. Couldn't there be minimal free speech rights in a mall, and if so, wouldn't this t-shirt be an example?What do you mean they made the shirts? I read the same thing Lerk read, that they bought them in the mall. Do you mean you have an article that says it was a "make-your-own-shirt" store in the mall?

My argument on Cohen (the F*ck the Draft case) is by implication. Cohen clearly held that a slogan on clothing is speech, just as a rally or protest is. That much answers your original point that just wearing a T-shirt is less expessive (and thus less objectionable) than, say, carrying a sign or making a speech. I think that's true in practice, but constitutionally it basically isn't*

But the implication is from the way Cohen was decided. The government in Cohen argued that it wasn't speech. The Supreme Court said it was speech, and therefore the government couldn't restrict it. Since the mall is not a government actor, however, the implication is that a mall can restrict the right to wear clothing with slogans. Put that together with the clear and unambiguous holding of Tanner that the First Amendment does not apply to patrons of private malls, and you get the position that I think is right: a private mall owner can ban any political speech in a mall, even speech as minor and as non-disruptive as a T-Shirt.


Note: I don't want to go into your privacy rights analogy. Privacy is a whole other issue, with a completely separate case law, as well as statutory law that would impact your hypothetical. I really think it's going to confuse matters to go down that route.


* this is ignoring time, manner, and place restrictions in public fora - which is another related doctrine that would really confuse things if we drag it in here since a mall is not a public forum.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm arguing that there may be some, probably very minimal free speech rights on private property. I'm thinking of privacy - if you're in a mall, they're allowed to videotape you walking around their mall, but they're not allowed to watch you whle you pee. You do have minimal privacy rights in the mall. Couldn't there be minimal free speech rights in a mall, and if so, wouldn't this t-shirt be an example?

I'm not sure it's true that they can't watch you pee - I think that would be dependent on state law. I don't think there's any Constitutional prohibition against it. I honestly don't think there are any "minimal" privacy rights in a private mall unless they're granted by state law.

What do you mean they made the shirts? I read the same thing Lerk read, that they bought them in the mall. Do you mean you have an article that says it was a "make-your-own-shirt" store in the mall?

I think that's the idea, but there seems to be some confusion about what actually happened.

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What do you mean they made the shirts? I read the same thing Lerk read, that they bought them in the mall. Do you mean you have an article that says it was a "make-your-own-shirt" store in the mall?

Here's what I read in the link:

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

Granted, it doesn't say they made them, but I can't imagine a store at a mall makes T-shirt text at the mall for any other reason than for their customers.

[BRussell]

Found this police report:

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Found this police report:

OK, so according to this report, the Father/Son were not just innocently wearing T-Shirts. They were wearing the shirts, but they were also "stopping people" and the mall had recieved several complaints.

They were asked to leave, but refused.

Asking them to leave was within the rights of the mall. The fact that they didn't leave made them a trespasser at that point.

The T-Shirts are a RED HERRING! They want to portray themselves as being "oppressed" for their beliefs. But if they were harrassing other shoppers enough that complaints were generated, it wasn't their shirts that got them kicked out, it was their behavior.

[The Mick]

Agreed. If they were stopping other shoppers and harrassing them, then it is quit easy to make a case for their dismissal from the mall. However, if they were "Miding their own business" as they claim in this article: http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...sdate=3/5/2003
then the issue is a bit more sticky. If I do not like what is printed on someone's T-shirt at the mall, then I can complain and have them kicked out? I guess next time I see all the teenage girls wearing Porn Star shirts I'll b*tch about it to mall management, since I find it tacky and tasteless. Will they get thrown out? Hell no, they're paying customers! It goes to show you, nothing inflames people's passions like a good ol'fashioned war!

[mr. natural]

Posted by davesimondotcom:

Butif they were harrassing other shoppers enough that complaints were generated, it wasn't their shirts that got them kicked out, it was their behavior.

Well, we'll just have to wait and see if the real RED HERRING here is that they were in fact "stopping other shoppers."

Stopping them from what? Shopping?

::OMG! Honey, look at them peaceniks! It makes me so sick I can't fulfill my patriotic duty and shop! Quick, go alert that nice burly looking rent a cop.::

[BRussell]

Yeah, the news reports suggest that taking the shirt off was the key, but this makes it sound like it wasn't. But it does say they received complaints about the t-shirts. Who the hell would complain about a t-shirt like that?

"Umm, excuse me, I'm offended by that peace shirt, can you do something about that for me?"

[ThinkInsane]

I took the liberty of typing up the appropriate section of the New York State Penal Code, with applicable definitions. Hope that it helps with your debate. Yes, I am at work, very bore, and am glad to have finally found a use for this book.


Title I � Offenses involving damage to and intrusion upon property.

Article 140- Burglary and related offenses

Definition of terms
5. �Enter or remain unlawfully�
A person �enters or remains unlawfully� in or upon premises when he is not licensed or privileged to do so. A person who, regardless of his intent, enters or remains in or upon premises which are at the time open to the public does so with license and privilege unless he defies a lawful order not to enter or remain, personally communicated to him by the owner or other authorized person.

Section 140.05 Trespass
A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon the premises.
Trespass is a violation

[Disclaimer]
Any type-o�s , spelling, or grammatical errors are my fault. I didn�t copy and paste this, but typed it from the book.

And just to throw my two cents in, we have people arrested for trespassing from time to time. The grounds for the arrest is that we told them to leave the property, and they refused. We don't need to give a reason why they were told to leave. Once they are told, and they refuse, for whatever reason, they are in violation of the law. We used to get protesters here (I work at Loony Bin) every year on Bastille Day protesting electro-shock therapy (I have no idea why they do it on Bastille Day), and every year, right up until the cops were putting them in the car, the were insisting that they couldn't be arrested because they were on public property. Which, of course like a shopping mall, they weren't.

[zigzag]

The "stopping other shoppers" reference in the police report could either be (a) true (although it would not be required in order to commit a trespass), or (b) concocted by either the rent-a-cops or the real cops in order to make their actions look more reasonable.

It's also possible that, having heard that protesters were ejected from the mall a few days earlier, the defendants deliberately tried to provoke the mall management by having the shirts made and walking around in them. It's also possible that they acted completely innocently. It'll all come out on Larry King Live. Or Oprah.

What a country!

[Zimphire]

After reading the facts, then reading the topic again, I see another overreaction to something petty.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
After reading the facts, then reading the topic again, I see another overreaction to something petty.

To off-handedly call this an overreaction is to blindly dismiss the direction this country is going post 9/11. Regardless of the outcome of this case, there are certainly other instances of actions taken by our government that underscore the truth in Bin Laden's words quoted in the topic.

It's up to us as U.S. citizens to make sure other citizens, even if they don't believe as we do, are free to express themselves. And that we are all free to express dissent with our government. Whether Bin Laden is ever captured and brought to justice will be a moot act if we continue fighting the war for him by allowing freedoms in America to be erroded or by silencing those that disagree with the current Administration.

[pathogen]

I'm glad to see that the security officers of malls are so involved in their work, protecting their customers from scum like those peaceniks. Peaceniks offend me, and I wish they'd all be shot. I can't help but gawk and point and stare when I see one of those pinko hippies abusing their right to free speech. Do they think the president of the USA isn't committed to global peace, that it doesn't keep him up at night with worry that he might be sending our boys off to a war were they might get injured, or even killed? No, they just assume the worst about the people who represent the highest office of this great nation. Well, when people a.s.s.u.m.e. they just makes an "a*s out of u. and me." That dad deserved to be kicked out of the mall, and his disrespect for authority makes him deserve to be arrested!

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
To off-handedly call this an overreaction is to blindly dismiss the direction this country is going post 9/11. Regardless of the outcome of this case, there are certainly other instances of actions taken by our government that underscore the truth in Bin Laden's words quoted in the topic.

It's up to us as U.S. citizens to make sure other citizens, even if they don't believe as we do, are free to express themselves. And that we are all free to express dissent with our government. Whether Bin Laden is ever captured and brought to justice will be a moot act if we continue fighting the war for him by allowing freedoms in America to be erroded or by silencing those that disagree with the current Administration.

I agree, everyone has a right to their opinions, and they have a right to state them. And the owners of Crossgates mall have a right to throw them out of the mall. If they won't leave when asked, then the owners of the mall are well within their rights to have them arrested.

How would Mr. Downs react if I showed up at his Law Office and and started to educate people on why I think we showed remove Sadam? Think he wouldn't be calling security to have me removed? And he works for the state of New York, so his State owned office building seems more like public property than a privately owned shopping mall. I mean, I pay taxes in new York, so I'm part owner of the building and all. My point is, it works both ways, but no one wants to see the other side.

You seem to be saying the mall management has no right to stifle this guys free speech, even though he was in violation of a lawful order, seems some how more important than the property owners right not to be subjected to it.

I will fully support your right to protest whatever you want, regardless of whether I agree with it. Just don't think I will would ever tolerate anyone, no matter which side they are on, to do it from my property.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
Just don't think I will would ever tolerate anyone, no matter which side they are on, to do it from my property.

So, going back to a previous post, I guess we're not all in agreement that it was stupid to throw these guys out.

[Joshua]

A guy in Albany gets thrown in jail for trespassing on private property. Forty-eight hours later it's in the news nation-wide because the guy was wearing a peace t-shirt. And this is a sign of a broken system?

I'll start worrying when I stop hearing about this kind of thing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Regardless of the outcome of this case, there are certainly other instances of actions taken by our government that underscore the truth in Bin Laden's words quoted in the topic.

This wasn't an "action by our government." These people were asked to leave private property by private security guards. It was only after they refused that the city police arrested them - for trespassing. If they had simply left the private property, the state would never have been involved.

It's not just the mall police who overreacted. You are too. Our freedom doesn't hang by the thread of what happens at the Galleria. If you think that it does, then perhaps you spend too much time hanging around shopping malls

[zigzag]

Latest news is that the mall has asked the prosecutor to drop all charges. It appears that the Republic will survive.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
To off-handedly call this an overreaction is to blindly dismiss the direction this country is going post 9/11.

FUD, this would have happened the same way 30 years ago. But said people would probably have gotten the crap beat out of them by the security guards.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, there are certainly other instances of actions taken by our government that underscore the truth in Bin Laden's words quoted in the topic.

More FUD.

It's up to us as U.S. citizens to make sure other citizens, even if they don't believe as we do, are free to express themselves. And that we are all free to express dissent with our government. Whether Bin Laden is ever captured and brought to justice will be a moot act if we continue fighting the war for him by allowing freedoms in America to be erroded or by silencing those that disagree with the current Administration.

We are free to express ourselves under the law. You aren't allowed to go into someone's private property and express yourself freely. You never have been able to. This is nothing new, Taking away the right for someone to say what goes on on his or her property is a right too, one that needs to stay there. This is nothing but overreacting on your part. Don't know if it was just you not understanding how personal property laws go, or what. But this isn't nothing new, and it's not hurting anyone's rights. If the two men didn't know what they was doing was wrong in the first place( which I am sure they did) they do now.

[denim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think we're all agreed on that.

Yup. The mall did a surprisingly stupid thing. They'll pay for it fairly quickly, I expect.

Just because you can fart in public doesn't mean your date won't be upset if you do.

[denim]

Originally posted by calamar1:
Seriously, though, this might be legal, but it sure smells funny, and is just further evidence of people nationwide swallowing the administrations' lies hook, line, and sinker, and then applying the same unilateralism to their own little ponds in which they are the big fish. This nauseates me.

You're acting like a Massachusetts-native person. You belong in Newton.

Seriously, the legalities are a separate matter from the economic issues here. The mall will hopefully suffer for this stupidity, but if they really try to jail this guy, rather than go for an apollogy of some kind, they deserve whatever happens to them. After all, there are lots of mall developers...

[Lerkfish]

I think, particulars of this case aside, that the true danger here is that "peaceniks" do not at present or any longer enjoy the same freedom of speech as those who might be pro-war.
If a rally was held at that mall, with flags, servicemen speakers, in support of the war, I doubt anyone would have been arrested for wearing a shirt that said "Boot Sadam" or a shirt with a map of Iraq and a mushroom cloud on it.

The point is not that the persons were (allegedly) trespassing, but that they were doing so and being anti-war.

that, my friends, IS a dangerous thing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think, particulars of this case aside, that the true danger here is that "peaceniks" do not at present or any longer enjoy the same freedom of speech as those who might be pro-war.
If a rally was held at that mall, with flags, servicemen speakers, in support of the war, I doubt anyone would have been arrested for wearing a shirt that said "Boot Sadam" or a shirt with a map of Iraq and a mushroom cloud on it.

The point is not that the persons were (allegedly) trespassing, but that they were doing so and being anti-war.

that, my friends, IS a dangerous thing.

I don't know that it is really an apples with apples comparison. Granted, this is Washington, DC (a liberal dominated city) but I see people wearing peacenicky buttons all the time. I don't see any harrassment and further I have yet to see anyone on the other side countering their protest. I don't see pro-war T-shirts and buttons being worn, and I have yet to even see a Gulf War-style "I support our troops" button/sticker/T-shirt that isn't something left over from Afghanistan. In addition, when the protests periodically come here, the anti-war crowd is always many times the size of the pro-war side.

So you aren't talking like with like. If there is a backlash against protesters, the fact that anti-war protesters could be feeling it more might simply be because they are the only ones visibly protesting.

Besides, you have to consider where the protest is being held. Try advocating a pro-regime change or pro-Bush opinion on a university campus for a day. See where the hostility is then!

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
Latest news is that the mall has asked the prosecutor to drop all charges. It appears that the Republic will survive.

ROTFLMAO.

***

Still, the whole deal points out that one shouldn't confuse a shopping mall with a public space.

[calamar1]

Originally posted by denim:
You're acting like a Massachusetts-native person. You belong in Newton.

Seriously, the legalities are a separate matter from the economic issues here. The mall will hopefully suffer for this stupidity, but if they really try to jail this guy, rather than go for an apollogy of some kind, they deserve whatever happens to them. After all, there are lots of mall developers...

Thanks, i'll take that as a compliment

What was it that congressman Armey said? Something like "The Democrats should be much happier in Boston, rather than, say, America." regarding the convention next year.

Again, though, i need to point out the stranglehold that this place has over the Albany area shopping experience. everyone goes to Crossgates, and i do mean everyone, from miles around. they'll suffer not a bit for this, and apart from the students (an admittedly sizeable population, with RPI, SUNYA, Siena, Union, etc.), chances are most of the population there will agree with them--as i understand it, only downstate New York is blue--the rest is rather red.

[davesimondotcom]

Perhaps they got in the way of those annoying "jog-walker" people who use the mall as their personal Victoria's Secret-laden treadmill.

Some friends and I are talking about printing up shirts that say "For less than the cost of a cup of coffee a day: I sponsored a Human Sheild." None of the profits would actually send Martin Sheen to be a human shield. Although that would be nice.

[Zimphire]

Puhlease, if a group of pro-war people were going around bothering people that were shopping, and they complained, you better bet they'd be thrown out as well.

Lets not turn two annoying people into some sort of saints here. They did something illegal, they got into trouble for it. Nothing new. Nothing has changed since 9/11 where this is concerned.

I guess people will try to grasp at anything to show "Injustice" even if the injustice didn't exist.

IT'S THE MAN THAT IS HOLDING US BACK! THE MAN!!

[BRussell]

Hey, davidsimon and Zimphire, you are critics of political correctness. Isn't this really just political correctness? Some people were offended by these guys' views and complained to the mall who told them to leave. Granted, if they were truly walking around harassing people, I'm with you. But based on the actual complaint and the media reports, their t-shirts were central to this. That sounds like PC out of control to me.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Hey, davidsimon and Zimphire, you are critics of political correctness. Isn't this really just political correctness? Some people were offended by these guys' views and complained to the mall who told them to leave. Granted, if they were truly walking around harassing people, I'm with you. But based on the actual complaint and the media reports, their t-shirts were central to this. That sounds like PC out of control to me.

No it's not PC, they were annoyed because they were bothering them while they were shopping. This is against most of the malls I have been to rules.

It has nothing to do with political correctness.

They were doing something at a place they weren't supposed to. And was asked to leave. They didn't leave. They got arrested. It's as simple as that.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No it's not PC, they were annoyed because they were bothering them while they were shopping. This is against most of the malls I have been to rules.

It has nothing to do with political correctness.

They were doing something at a place they weren't supposed to. And was asked to leave. They didn't leave. They got arrested. It's as simple as that.

It's not quite "simple" as there are conflicting reports as to what actually transpired before they were asked to leave.

again, though, I have to go back the story, where the guards told them to remove their shirts OR leave. That implies simply removing the shirts would have allowed them to stay.
If so, then the crux of the objection was the shirt only. If it was harrassing other shoppers, than wearing the shirt or not wearing the shirt would be irrelevant.

But precisely BECAUSE they were told to remove the shirt, OR leave, means that their behaviour, sans shirt, was not grounds for being evicted.

This assumes, of course, the story is accurate.

[Zimphire]

Lerk the point I am getting across is, in NO WAY in this going against human rights. And in NO WAY is this any different now, than it was before 9/11

A friend of mine got kicked out of the mall once because he had a Metallica shirt with the "Metal up your ass" saying on it. Was it silly for them to do it? Sure. Do they have a right to do it since it IS private property? Yes.

What I am saying is, this isn't our American freedoms being doomed (for real this time)

Somone is exaggerating a great deal. Had 9-11 not happened, this would still be going on. It's not a bad thing either. We should be able to say what does or doesn't go on on our OWN property that we PRIVATELY own. Outsiders should have no say. This is our rights as land owners. This is one of the reason that I like living in this country.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Lerk the point I am getting across is, in NO WAY in this going against human rights. And in NO WAY is this any different now, than it was before 9/11

A friend of mine got kicked out of the mall once because he had a Metallica shirt with the "Metal up your ass" saying on it. Was it silly for them to do it? Sure. Do they have a right to do it since it IS private property? Yes.

What I am saying is, this isn't our American freedoms being doomed (for real this time)

Somone is exaggerating a great deal. Had 9-11 not happened, this would still be going on. It's not a bad thing either. We should be able to say what does or doesn't go on on our OWN property that we PRIVATELY own. Outsiders should have no say. This is our rights as land owners. This is one of the reason that I like living in this country.

no, I was replying to someone saying that the father and son were trespassing and harrassing people, I was only pointing out it appeared logically that instead it was the tshirts, if they were going to be allowed to stay otherwise. That is not contradicted by your anecdote of a friend kicked out for a tshirt...does it?

[Zimphire]

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html

Yup, it sure was just the shirts.

[Timo]

Here's another write-up. Seems even the O'Reilly-ites think something's rotten in the state of Albany:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/nyregion/07MALL.html

Mall Case Creates Antiwar Celebrity
By WINNIE HU


ALBANY, March 6 ? Stephen F. Downs started the week as an unassuming state lawyer nearing retirement whose idea of political protest was to wear a "Peace on Earth" T-shirt at the local shopping mall.

Now Mr. Downs is a celebrity, fielding hundreds of interview requests from the likes of Connie Chung, Bill O'Reilly, the BBC and News Australia. This morning, even his wife's relatives in the Netherlands called after reading about him in a local newspaper.

"I'm completely an accidental symbol," Mr. Downs, a 60-year-old father of three from Selkirk, N.Y., said today with some embarrassment. "There are more committed people to the peace movement who deserve more credit, but my thing is that everyone has the right to speak out about it."

Mr. Downs owes his sudden fame to the security guards at the Crossgates Mall on the outskirts of Albany, who called the local police on Monday night when he refused their order to take off the T-shirt, which had "Give Peace a Chance" on the back, or leave the premises. He was arrested for trespassing.

Mr. Downs said that he had never attended an antiwar demonstration (that he can remember, anyway) and that, until he had the shirt made, the most he had done in the way of political protest was to write a series of carefully worded letters to his congressman.

"It's funny," he said. "No one asked my opinion about anything before, and now suddenly the whole world wants to know."

Although the mall decided on Wednesday night not to pursue the trespassing charge, the news began to circle the globe, and the calls came pouring in. An Albany public radio station worked him into a fund-raising campaign as a symbol of free speech, raising a record amount. Talk radio hosts from Kansas City to London were on the phone. He said that even the conservatives on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox, though not agreeing with his antiwar position, were sympathetic.

Mr. Downs, the chief lawyer for the Commission on Judicial Conduct, has spent so much time running from one interview to the next that he said he had not watched himself yet on the news. "It's been wild," he said. "It feels like a feeding frenzy."

It all began when Mr. Downs and his son, Roger, 31, an ecology consultant, ordered custom T-shirts at a store in the mall and wore them over their clothes to the mall's food court. Upon a security guard's request, his son later removed his T-shirt, which read "No War With Iraq" and "Let Inspections Work."

The older Mr. Downs, a firm believer in free speech, said he wanted to see what would happen, because he had heard that people sporting antiwar messages on their clothing were being asked to leave the mall. He stressed that he and his son did not pass out fliers or try to convert anyone. "I didn't want to get arrested," he said. "But I didn't know what the situation was and that gnawed at me."

Tim Kelley, a director for the Pyramid Management Group, which runs the mall, said today that security guards had received a complaint about "two gentlemen bothering customers." He said their concern was over Mr. Downs's behavior, not his clothing. "It was not an issue of us asking him to leave because of what was on his shirt," he said. "That's not our policy."

The courts have generally ruled that malls are private property and that their owners have a right to remove people who disrupt business, including those engaged in political activity. But the Guilderland police chief, James Murley, said that his officer did not want to arrest Mr. Downs and spent more than an hour trying to broker a truce between the two sides, even reading aloud from a section of the law on trespassing.

Even so, the chief was busy defending his department today from a tide of e-mail criticizing the arrest. "We could care less about what people are wearing ? really, it's not our rules," he said. "But we are sworn to uphold the law."

Herbert J. Gans, a sociology professor at Columbia University, said that people were flocking to Mr. Downs's cause because it symbolizes an antiwar sentiment that was already important to them.

"They sort of react intuitively," he said. "You look for allies wherever you can find them, and here was one in the public eye already."

Though Mr. Downs did not ask for their help, more than 150 antiwar activists donned T-shirts with peace messages and marched through the Crossgates Mall on Wednesday, trailed by a horde of journalists.

"This isn't the place where we thought we were going to fight to stop the war," said Erin O'Brien, a member of Women Against War, who helped organize the march.

While Mr. Downs insists that the sudden celebrity has not gone to his head, he is planning to give up his day job. In three weeks, he will retire and leave for a long-planned vacation in New Zealand. "By the time I get back," he said, "hopefully everyone will have forgotten me."

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Timo:
Here's another write-up. Seems even the O'Reilly-ites think something's rotten in the state of Albany:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/07/nyregion/07MALL.html

Read the police report. Customers complained. They were harrassing and starting arguements in the mall. Yes indeed, something is rotten. Over-zealous war protesters.

I love how they like to play the victim.

[Timo]

Let's go back to the Times story:

He stressed that he and his son did not pass out fliers or try to convert anyone. "I didn't want to get arrested," he said. "But I didn't know what the situation was and that gnawed at me."

OK, now let's look at that report. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/crossgates1.html

Katie Light, in a supporting deposition, writes,

The customer proceded to tell me that she saw two gentlemen wearing anti-war t-shirts that said "peace on earth" and "no war with Iraq." The customer stated that these two gentlemen were having a verbal dispute with another group of individuals in the mall. The customer was afraid of what may come of the dispute...

Sounds like to me some passers-by didn't like the t-shirt slogans they were reading, and harrassed Mr. Downs and Mr. Downs. I wonder if the "porn star" t-shirts get the same level of community policing standards...

Now, Robert Williams

On the above date I was responding to a complaint regarding persons protesting in front of Macy's against the pending war with Iraq...

Turns out he didn't see this alledged "protest," now did he? The "protest" was reported to him by the rent-a-cops, which was reported to them in turn by Light, an store detective, who in turn heard about it from a mall shopper.

Telephone game, anyone?

So, it's the rent-a-cops word against the Judge's word. Call me elitist, but I pick the Judge's word.

Back to the NYT story:

Though Mr. Downs did not ask for their help, more than 150 antiwar activists donned T-shirts with peace messages and marched through the Crossgates Mall on Wednesday, trailed by a horde of journalists.

Hey, were they thrown out of the mall? Why weren't they arrested for trespassing? Why were the original charges dropped?

Maybe because the rent-a-cops harrassed and threw out two customers on hearsay?

[Zimphire]

Sounds like to me some passers-by didn't like the t-shirt slogans they were reading, and harrassed Mr. Downs and Mr. Downs. I wonder if the "porn star" t-shirts get the same level of community policing standards...

Yeah I am sure that is how it would SOUND like to you. Had that been the case, the OTHER people would have been asked to leave.

Hey, were they thrown out of the mall? Why weren't they arrested for trespassing? Why were the original charges dropped?

Maybe because the rent-a-cops harrassed and threw out two customers on hearsay?

No, they had EVERY RIGHT to tell them to leave no matter what. If they didn't want them there for ANY REASON they could tell them to. If the refused to leave, like they did, breaking the law, they then too had every right to prosecute.

Sorry, but I am not buying them being the victim here. Esp since they REFUSED to leave. Doesn't sound too peaceful to me.


They went into the mall, caused problem spreading their word, and was asked to leave. They refused. They got in trouble for doing so.

Lets start taking responsiblities for our actions, and stop blaming "The Man"

It's silly.

[andi*pandi]

there seems to be a conflict over what construes bother.

Zim, you hear bother and you imagine strident hippies handing out flyers and getting in people's faces. Which was not true.

What it sounds like to me is that someone saw the tshirt and it bothered them. The mere presence of the shirt bothered them. They read it, from across the mall, and got upset. The fact that anyone could have opposing views. So bothersome. Maybe they got in the wearers face and started an argument. Wherein a little old lady got scared there'd be a riot and called mallcops. Who blamed the tshirt wearers, not the ones who assailed them.

That's scary.

What's also scary, and deserves it's own thread, is the story Anarkist found about the GI Joe Easter Baskets! Yipes! Now there's a message for the prince of peace's most holy of days... GI Joe is here!

[andi*pandi]

Timo rocks. He said what I was thinking much better than I did.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
Maybe because the rent-a-cops harrassed and threw out two customers on hearsay?

Just to be clear: the owners (and their agents, the cops) are still within their legal rights to ask these people to leave. Wearing a T-Shirt is pretty benign, but it is still political speech, which the owners can ban from their mall.

Of course, the owners are also empowered to allow such innocuous political speech, which is probably what they should have done in the first place. Then they wouldn't have to allow the damage-limitation step of letting a horde of 150 demonstrators in.

Basically, all this says is that everyone has overreacted.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:


Yeah I am sure that is how it would SOUND like to you. Had that been the case, the OTHER people would have been asked to leave.

As is consistently demonstrated in many threads you are sure of things that you ought not be sure of. The rest of your post, in that it does not deal with either fact or refute interpretation of fact, is best ignored.

[Timo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I've said all along that the rentacops almost certainly overreacted. But just to be clear: the owners (and their agents, the cops) are still within their legal rights to ask these people to leave. Wearing a T-Shirt is pretty benign, but it is still political speech, which the owners can ban from their mall.

No one is disputing the mall's rights to throw out the Downs. As soon as Downs said he wouldn't leave, he was trespassing.

But I'm going after the motive for the original mall harrassment. Seems this mall has an arbitrary and double standard for when they chose to exercise their right to ban "political speech": arresting one man one night, letting 150 march the next. The upshot: they are free do keep as arbitrary or idiotic standards as they see fit, and we (as commentators) are free to call a spade a spade as we see fit.

Also, as an aside, I'm not much for the argument that "everyone overreacted." This story touches on important issues about public and private space (stuff I wrestle with all the time), and distilling it to a legal nuance suggests, perhaps, we serve the law rather than the law serves us.

[zigzag]

[edit - withdrawn because I hadn't seen the whole police report]

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
The upshot: they are free do keep as arbitrary or idiotic standards as they see fit, and we (as commentators) are free to call a spade a spade as we see fit.

Exactly! That is their right to throuw them out. But equally, they have to live with the consequences if their customers object to their policy.



As an aside, I think an interesting argument could be made about whether malls ought to be within the public forum doctrine instead of just being handled as purely private space. Leaving out for a moment the fact that the supreme court has said pretty clearly that malls are not public forums. But suppose they were to be seen as public forums. That would give some flexibility to the law.

1. They could be public forums, in which case protests would be allowed subject only to limited time, manner, and place restricutions (e.g. permits could be required, but would have to be fairly administered in a content-neutral way).

2. They could be a limited public forums. In a limited public forum, all speech could be banned, but if it is allowed, the authorities have to grant access in an even-handed manner (again, with time, manner, and place restriction).

Food for thought, although not how the law actually is in this area at present.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Read the police report. Customers complained. They were harrassing and starting arguements in the mall. Yes indeed, something is rotten. Over-zealous war protesters.

I love how they like to play the victim.

OK, trying again after reading the whole police report.

Zim, you've inferred from the woman's statement that Downs was "harassing" people. As others have said, it's possible that someone else saw the t-shirts and confronted Downs. It could have happened either way - the danger is in assuming. No witnesses have been produced to say that Downs was "stopping" or "harassing" people. Indeed, when he was arrested, he was simply getting a sandwich in the food court. Doesn't sound very zealous to me. How likely is it that a father and son, all by themselves, would start "harassing" people in a mall? Not even the most zealous anti-war people do that - they hold organized protests.

We all seem to agree that the mall was within its legal rights to eject Downs. But I think it's presumptuous to conclude that he was "harassing" people.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Timo:
But I'm going after the motive for the original mall harrassment. Seems this mall has an arbitrary and double standard for when they chose to exercise their right to ban "political speech": arresting one man one night, letting 150 march the next. The upshot: they are free do keep as arbitrary or idiotic standards as they see fit, and we (as commentators) are free to call a spade a spade as we see fit.

I think what happened is not that they have double standards - I think they allowed the subsequent protest simply because they were getting bad PR from the arrest. I could be mistaken, but that's my impression.

Also, as an aside, I'm not much for the argument that "everyone overreacted." This story touches on important issues about public and private space (stuff I wrestle with all the time), and distilling it to a legal nuance suggests, perhaps, we serve the law rather than the law serves us.

Ironically, as I understand it there was already a bill pending in Albany that would require the allowance of a limited amount of public assembly in private malls.

I'm of two minds about it - I respect the desire of mall owners to control their premises. On the other hand, mall owners usually benefit greatly from public accomodations, and in many areas have become the de facto civic center. A tough question.

Frankly, if I were an anti-war protester, the last place I'd want to be is in a huge suburban mall. But I have to hand it to anyone who has the nerve to do it, whether they're pro-war or con.

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I think what happened is not that they have double standards - I think they allowed the subsequent protest simply because they were getting bad PR from the arrest. I could be mistaken, but that's my impression.

Which is a double standard. I'm not divining the motives of the Mall Powers that Be, I'm speaking about the results of their actions. Of course, round 2, they didn't throw anyone out, because the PR would only get worse. But undoubtably the protest of 150 people had the same or stronger possibility of "harrassing" shoppers.

Ironically, as I understand it there was already a bill pending in Albany that would require the allowance of a limited amount of public assembly in private malls.

Interesting.