[zigzag]

Originally posted by Timo:
Which is a double standard.

I guess I saw it more as a "change of heart."

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I guess I saw it more as a "change of heart."

LOL.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
(Ignore other post...a glitch in the system)

"Freedom and human rights are doomed in America" - - Bin Laden, October 2001

I find this to be quite scary. I'm sure some will say it's trivial, after all, it's just a t-shirt. But that's my point. It's...just...a...t-shirt. Before 9/11, this kind of harassment would be unimaginable. But now, as disturbing as I find it, I don't find it surprising.

I have no idea if this is what Bin Laden meant when he said this, but is has a ring of truth to it.

enjoying your "freedoms"?....muahahahahahaha

oh, wait, this isn't really funny anymore

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by 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!

'

Again, you are making up scenerios. All we know is, these people were causing problems in the mall. A few said they were starting arguements with other people. They were asked to leave. They didn't.

Now I would tend to believe you take on the story, you know them just being nice peacnicks walking in the mall while getting attacked for wearing a t-shirt if only for the fact then they REFUSED to leave. That tells me a lot. That tells me they aren't peaceful innocent people that wasn't trying to stir up crap.

What we don't know, who started it. What we do know, when they was asked to leave, they refused. Again, this tells me a lot about these certain "peace loving" people.

[deekay1]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
when they was asked to leave, they refused. Again, this tells me a lot about these certain "peace loving" people.

oh, please fu<k off! and i mean that in the most peaceful manner!

and it's "were" not "was"...geez

[OreoCookie]

This is discrimination (granted that father and son were not causing any trouble). And a mall is not a private home, it is public (not public as in owned/run by the government, public as in publically accessible).

Discrimination of blacks and gays is prohibited also in privately owned companies. Or denying admission to the mall, because a gay couple wants to go shopping is also discrimination. I am no expert at law, especially not at American law, so I don't pretend to know how such discrimination is prohibited, but there are limits on private grounds as well!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
This is discrimination (granted that father and son were not causing any trouble). And a mall is not a private home, it is public (not public as in owned/run by the government, public as in publically accessible).

Discrimination of blacks and gays is prohibited also in privately owned companies. Or denying admission to the mall, because a gay couple wants to go shopping is also discrimination. I am no expert at law, especially not at American law, so I don't pretend to know how such discrimination is prohibited, but there are limits on private grounds as well!

Nice thoughts. Legally wrong. But nice thoughts.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nice thoughts. Legally wrong. But nice thoughts.

Care to elaborate?

[Timo]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Care to elaborate?

Um, read the thread?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Care to elaborate?

We've already gone through the first amendment law in this thread in exhaustive detail. Rather than rehash that, I'd invite you to please reread the thread. There is no discrimination element because the mall is free to ban political speech from its mall. A mall is not generally considered to be open to the public in the way, say, a public street is. You enter a mall on the invitation of the owners. That invitation can be withdrawn at any moment for any reason, or for no reason.

One exception probably relates to racial discrimination, and perhaps discrimination on other grounds - ethnicity, gender, religion. That's a big subject and it would take a long time to go into. It would also involve a lot of research into state and local law. However, you should know that in most cases, gays and lesbians are not included in anti-discrimination statutes. And even when they are those statutes are often only protective in employment and housing situations.

So I'm sorry, I don't find much in your statement that resembles US law. But the sentiments are nice.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Heh. I like the (this time for real) caveat slapped onto the threat title.

So wait, all the other countless times everyone lost all their freedoms wasn't for real?

So here I was, setting my watch to the predictable drumbeat of everyone losing all of their freedoms every other minute, and it wasn't �for real�?

Say it isn't so!

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Again, you are making up scenerios. All we know is, these people were causing problems in the mall.

Wrong. We don't know that at all. All we know is that the rent-a-cops said, in a statement to the police, that they received complaints.

A few said they were starting arguements with other people.

Source? The only accusation to this affect is assumed from the police report which only states that there were "complaints about defendant wearing a T-shirt" and that they were "stopping other shoppers". So far as I know, no witnesses have stepped forward to say that these men were harassing anyone.

What we do know, when they was asked to leave, they refused. Again, this tells me a lot about these certain "peace loving" people.

Yeah, it tells me that, on the condition that they weren't hasseling shoppers who were minding their own business, they deserve a whole lot of respect for standing up for their convictions (oops...no pun intended )

Your comment here about their refusal tells me a lot about you.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Heh. I like the (this time for real) caveat slapped onto the threat title.

So wait, all the other countless times everyone lost all their freedoms wasn't for real?

So here I was, setting my watch to the predictable drumbeat of everyone losing all of their freedoms every other minute, and it wasn't ?for real??

Say it isn't so!

Just for clarification purposes, that was put there because of a glitch in the server

(me--><--server)

It was supposed to emphasize the fact that the other topic by the same title was an OOPS! I have found it interesting how it has fanned the flames for some johnny-come-latelies to the thread who missed the glitch thread (my first post mentions the other thread)

[L'enfanTerrible]

I find it troubling that the mall owners/security guards felt urged to tell the man and his son to take off the shirts. I mean, no one would ask a person to take off a nike hat or adidas jacket. They are both the same thing (clothing with a slogan): one is peace, the other is corporate control.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by L'enfanTerrible:
I find it troubling that the mall owners/security guards felt urged to tell the man and his son to take off the shirts. I mean, no one would ask a person to take off a nike hat or adidas jacket. They are both the same thing (clothing with a slogan): one is peace, the other is corporate control.

Actually, it was an artful legal dodge allowing the mall security to evict them. You see, while the mall didn't have a sign saying "no shirts with political slogans," it did have the standard "no shirts, no shoes, no service" signs on the doors. Thus, once they were induced to take those shirts off - gotcha!

And they say rentacops are dumb.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
[B]Just for clarification purposes, that was put there because of a glitch in the server

(me--><--server)

Ahh sorry, my bad.

I am curious though, what was the last incident that lost all our freedoms for us? I've forgotten. (Anyone keeping tally of exactly what freedoms we have left? Let�s see� the freedom to pour myself a bowl of Berry-Berry Cheerios� yup, that one�s still here.)

From this thread, I've learned that I've lost the freedom to go to a mall wearing some slogan t-shirt and start lecturing other patrons, and that if people complain, security asks me to leave; I've lost the freedom to resist them.

DAMMIT! There go my plans for this afternoon shot all to hell! Fascists!

The slippery slope! Next thing you know I won't be able to shout fire in a crowded theatre! Or block traffic! Or harass people on the street and harangue them with my political views! What is freedom coming to? DAMMIT!

And to think, Bin Laden in all his infinite wisdom warned us of this impending mallrat disaster! Bless �em!

[theolein]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
Ahh sorry, my bad.

I am curious though, what was the last incident that lost all our freedoms for us? I've forgotten. (Anyone keeping tally of exactly what freedoms we have left? Let�s see� the freedom to pour myself a bowl of Berry-Berry Cheerios� yup, that one�s still here.)

From this thread, I've learned that I've lost the freedom to go to a mall wearing some slogan t-shirt and start lecturing other patrons, and that if people complain, security asks me to leave; I've lost the freedom to resist them.

DAMMIT! There go my plans for this afternoon shot all to hell! Fascists!

The slippery slope! Next thing you know I won't be able to shout fire in a crowded theatre! Or block traffic! Or harass people on the street and harangue them with my political views! What is freedom coming to? DAMMIT!

And to think, Bin Laden in all his infinite wisdom warned us of this impending mallrat disaster! Bless �em!

Nice way of exagerating things there, don't you think. The article says nothing about them lecturing ,harrassing or disturbing anything or anyone. It does, however, mention them wearing *shock* T-Shirts, with *even greater shock* peace slogans on them. How un-american of those two men to actually want peace. How terrible. The entire moral foundation of sh!thole, NY, is going to the dogs.

I find this thread incredibly ironic. In other threads, such as the ones on guns, you have the other half of the group of baboons here that labels itself as conservative threatening to take to arms because someone might threaten their ability to carry guns. In this thread we have that same troop of baboons taking the other position and accusing the other half of the group of baboons that labels itself as liberal of being too hyper because someone was wearing a fukken T-shirt.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by theolein:
[B]Nice way of exagerating things there, don't you think. The article says nothing about them lecturing ,harrassing or disturbing anything or anyone.

Yeah, it also doesn't mention the fact that the head of security said the incident had to do with the man's BEHAVIOR, complaints from other mall patrons, as well as what he was wearing as other reports outlined. Also the fact that the mall has had problems in the past with �protestors�. Nah, no slant involved that these things are skipped over. It was just an isolated incident strictly about the content of a T-Shirt. Riiiiight.

So of course, if you want to start a propaganda blitz and this was your goal all along, focus on the T-Shirt. Next time any loon wants to create any sort of disturbance wear an anti-war T-Shirt while doing so. That's the lesson I'm sure many will pick up on here.


Here in California's big cities, you can't wear what is considered gang-attire in many public places that have had problems with gangs. You can be asked to leave for doing so. Is it because the places that have these policies are all fascists and everyone has lost their freedoms, or is it because a narrow segment of ********s has to abuse things until heavy-handed rules must be imposed on everyone in order to oust the misbehaving few? You decide.

Sounds to me like this mall is plagued by a bunch of peacenik nitwits who have a history of targeting that particular mall. Indeed, in following reports I read about this, 100 protestors all showed up the day after this, to 'protest' the guy getting arrested. Nah, doesn�t sound like a planned photo-op to me.

The mode of operation in this instance seems to be as follows-

First: create the problem so the mall has to implement some sort of draconian dress policy to rid itself of harassment.

Second: Show up, violating the dress policy you and your annoying friends created the need for.

Third: Get arrested and make a big scene. Show up again and 'protest' the consequences of your actions. Complete your original goal, which was to call attention to yourself and your cause, while using the forced polices of some mall and the poor schmuks that have to work there.

Above all- be certain you're never actually doing anything that's EVER making anyone's life any more peaceful. (Ahh but then that rarely seems to be the actual goal).


I challenge anyone here: go down to your local mall wearing a "Give Peace A Chance" t-shirt and see if anyone bugs you for it! Go on! Suuuuuuuurely it's a 'freedom' we've all lost and nothing to do with specific incidents and policies of a specific mall. Why it's so bad out there... go make some headlines people! I wanna hear some good T-Shirt martyr stories!

[ThinkInsane]

If you read the supporting depositions filed, it states that the police were not called, that a patrol officer was passing by, and the hired goon asked the cop for assistance. The police officer spent a considerable amount of time trying to convince the guy to leave, even quoting section and verse to him, which, as a lawyer, Mr. Downs had to know he was in clear violation of the law. After he was arrested and processed in the Malls police substation, he STILL refused to leave the property. Regardless of the message on his shirt, he was acting like a bonehead.

I think it's kinda ironic that many of the people who are up in arms over this wouldn't bat an eye if it was someone preaching in the mall that got arrested, because they annoy you personally. Not even preaching, lets just say handing out pamphlets, or even wearing a Jesus shirt. Or trying to engage people in casual conversation about their beliefs. If that were the case, many people here would be pointing out how obnoxious "those people" are and fully supporting the removal and arrest of these people. Of course it wouldn't have made national news. But hey, it's only hypocrisy.

[thunderous_funker]

The Mall and the rentacop aren't the bad guys, as I see it. They just enforced Mall policy regarding BEHAVIOR. Compain all you want, but it's still private property and once you're asked to leave, you don't get the right to refuse without being guilty of tresspass. Pretty straight up.

What I'm curious about are the "complaints". Was he really bothering people or were people just offended by his T-shirt?

If he was bothering people, he's an activist and got thrown out like any other, just like ThinkInsane points out. Don't get on soapboxes on private property and then complain that they throw you out. It's private property.

OTOH, if the "complaints" were just people who didn't like seeing some "hippy peacenik" strut around in a T-shirt, this speaks to the level of discourse and lack of tolerance amoungst Americans, not the fascism of the Mall owner or the rentacop.

It upsets me to think that people would complain if they don't like my T-shirt. Sad commentary on the public, to be sure.

But it's still private property and the Mall has a right to throw him and out and no matter what else, he has NO right to refuses.

The rentacop just did his job. It even sounds like he was pretty nice about it. It's not like they Rodney King'ed his arse or shot him when he reached for his wallet, or sodomized him with a broom handle.

Some of you hit the Fascism Alarm waaaaaay too easily.

[BRussell]

I'm still not convinced that the mall could win their case here. Maybe they could, but I doubt it's quite the slam dunk that everyone else here is suggesting. Most of the other cases brought up earlier in this thread were actual organized protests, not simple disagreements between individuals, and certainly not focusing on a t-shirt that says "Give peace a chance."

I know Simey has argued convincingly that the law is clear in this regard, but I still have some doubt given 1) the very public nature of the mall, 2) the focus on the content of the t-shirt in the complaint, 3) that the t-shirt was bought in the mall itself - how can the mall complain about a shirt that was bought there? and 4) that we don't really know if anything in the state constitution of NY could be interpreted as allowing political expression of this kind in malls.

Originally posted by ThinkInsane:
I think it's kinda ironic that many of the people who are up in arms over this wouldn't bat an eye if it was someone preaching in the mall that got arrested, because they annoy you personally. Not even preaching, lets just say handing out pamphlets, or even wearing a Jesus shirt. Or trying to engage people in casual conversation about their beliefs. If that were the case, many people here would be pointing out how obnoxious "those people" are and fully supporting the removal and arrest of these people. Of course it wouldn't have made national news. But hey, it's only hypocrisy.

Someone gets arrested for a Jesus t-shirt and we all support it and it doesn't get on the news!?! Wow. It sure is fun to make sh1t up, huh?

The fact is, based on reading through this thread you seem to be the only one here who actually supports what this mall did and would do the same thing yourself. Anything else is just sh1t you're making up in order to try to find equivalence.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Someone gets arrested for a Jesus t-shirt and we all support it and it doesn't get on the news!?! Wow. It sure is fun to make sh1t up, huh?

The fact is, based on reading through this thread you seem to be the only one here who actually supports what this mall did and would do the same thing yourself. Anything else is just sh1t you're making up in order to try to find equivalence.

That's not true at all. I personally think that it is ridiculous to tell someone to remove a shirt or leave. That doesn't change the fact that the property owner or their designee, in this case the mall's hired goon, have the right to ask someone to leave, and when they won't, have them arrested for trespassing. That is the law.

I have also read all the supporting depositions that were filed in connection with this, and I think that Mr. Downs was not the poor victim that people are making him out to be. Several times he refused a lawful order to leave the premises. He did not and he was arrested. He is a lawyer, and he new the consequences of his actions. A 60 year old lawyer, the chief council of the New York State Judicial Review Board, should not be surprised that he is arrested for trespassing after being given a lawful order to leave.

As to your other point, about me "Making **** up", I was just pointing out that quite a few people posted in other threads about how they don't like being preached at, they don't want to hear any Christian propaganda, they don't want to see Christians in here with religious related signatures, and numerous other complaints. Do I think these same posters would show the same righteous indignation for someone in a Jesus shirt going through what Mr. Downs went through? No, I don't. I think that IF such a story made national news, and thread regarding it was started here, it wouldn't be under the "we're losing our liberties" title, and a lot of people that are indignant about Mr. Downs would gleefully point out how annoying Christians are.

Nothing in my post was directed at you personally, it was just a general statement about a trend I have noticed here. I think it is somewhat hypocritical.

And yeah, if someone was bothering my customers, I would have them removed. I wouldn't let anyone use my property for a soap box. Even if I agreed with them. Mixing your business and politics isn't good for business.

P.S. They had the shirts made at a t-shirt shop in the mall. The store wasn't selling shirts with that slogan. They requested the slogan be put on a shirt. For whatever that's worth.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I know Simey has argued convincingly that the law is clear in this regard, but I still have some doubt given 1) the very public nature of the mall, 2) the focus on the content of the t-shirt in the complaint, 3) that the t-shirt was bought in the mall itself - how can the mall complain about a shirt that was bought there? and 4) that we don't really know if anything in the state constitution of NY could be interpreted as allowing political expression of this kind in malls.

I'll grant you #4. I have no idea what the NY state constitution says about political expression on private property. But I beg to differ about 1, 2, & 3. At least under the federal consitution, this is a slam dunk case and the T-shirt guy loses (or would lose if charges were in fact being pressed).

The court of public opinion, of course, probably would come out differently from a court of law. And in my opinion based on what we know about the facts of the case, that probably is all well and good.

[zigzag]

Some random points:

- The Tanner case pretty clearly holds that private property rights trump First Amendment rights, except where the First Amendment activity is directly related to mall business. In the Tanner case, the protesters were peacefully handing out invitations to an anti-war meeting. The Court nonetheless held that the mall could eject them, although it was a split decision. It's conceivable that if the present case went to the Supreme Court, it could be distinguished from Tanner on the basis that wearing a t-shirt is a passive as opposed to active form of expression. At least, that's what I would argue if I were Downs. However, I would be surprised if the Supreme Court in its current form would go for that argument. I would expect them to use the same reasoning that they did in Tanner.

- As I understand it, there is no law in NY affording additional protection, although it's possible that the courts there could interpret the state constitution in such a way. However, according to at least one article, before this even happened someone in the New York legislature had introduced a bill that would give people free speech rights within malls. I'm happy to hear this because I've always wanted to run naked through a mall in New York State.

- The fact that they bought the shirts at the mall would make for an interesting argument against the trespassing charge. Downs could argue that by allowing the sale of such shirts, the mall implied that he had permission to wear it there (this would be different from the First Amendment defense). It's kinda moot because this case will never get to a courtroom (unless Downs sues), but a judge and/or jury would probably consider such an argument. They wouldn't necessarily buy it, but they would probably consider it.

- The fact that Downs is a lawyer doesn't necessarily mean that he would know the law in this situation. He's probably never dealt with such a situation and may have honestly thought that he had First Amendment protection. Unless, of course, it was a big peace-nik conspiracy, as some have suggested, but that seems unlikely here (note that the son voluntarily removed his shirt).

- I think the Jesus t-shirt idea makes an interesting point about attitudes - some of us would probably sneer at a Jesus t-shirt but not at an anti-war t-shirt, while others would sneer at an anti-war t-shirt but not at a Jesus t-shirt. You know who you are!

I would note, however, that I see Jesus t-shirts all the time and am not aware of any malls ejecting the people who wear them. Being anti-war is probably more controversial these days.

An interesting thought: what if the t-shirt had said "Jesus would be against the war!"

OK, forget it.

As Mr. Jackson would say, Increase the Peace!

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by deekay1:
oh, please fu<k off! and i mean that in the most peaceful manner!

Your such a cool guy.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Wrong. We don't know that at all. All we know is that the rent-a-cops said, in a statement to the police, that they received complaints.

Yes, and they have reason to lie why?

Source? The only accusation to this affect is assumed from the police report which only states that there were "complaints about defendant wearing a T-shirt" and that they were "stopping other shoppers". So far as I know, no witnesses have stepped forward to say that these men were harassing anyone.

Yes, customers complained they were stopping people. To me that is harrasement.

Yeah, it tells me that, on the condition that they weren't hasseling shoppers who were minding their own business, they deserve a whole lot of respect for standing up for their convictions (oops...no pun intended )

Your comment here about their refusal tells me a lot about you.

Please, they deserve no respect. They broke the law because they were being self rightous. Probably the same reason they were stopping said customers.

WAR BAAAD

Peace GOOOOD.

Fact is the reaction to this, and the topic of this thread is a major overreaction. People get asked to leave malls daily for silly reasons. Someone thought this would be a great PR trip against the War on Iraq. It's that simple.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yes, and they have reason to lie why?

Oh, I don't know...how about job security considering this incident has produced nation-wide attention?

Yes, customers complained they were stopping people. To me that is harrasement.

This is not an answer. Source? Beyond the rent-a-cop's version of the story, what is your source? Where are the witnesses?

Fact is the reaction to this, and the topic of this thread is a major overreaction. People get asked to leave malls daily for silly reasons. Someone thought this would be a great PR trip against the War on Iraq. It's that simple.

It may be that simple to you, but maybe that's what you need to boil it down to...simplicity.

I don't know of any malls that ask people to "leave daily for silly reasons". Have a few examples, even personal examples, to back this up?

Until I hear first-hand accounts of harassment, and the story sticks that they were asked to remove their shirts or leave, I'm inclined to believe the father and his son's version of the story.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by keekeeree:


Oh, I don't know...how about job security considering this incident has produced nation-wide attention?

Said report was made before there was a big deal made out of it.

This is not an answer. Source? Beyond the rent-a-cop's version of the story, what is your source? Where are the witnesses?

Who else is saying differently? The "vicitims" why should I beleive them? They want to look like victims. The security guys have no motive to lie.

It may be that simple to you, but maybe that's what you need to boil it down to...simplicity.

I don't know of any malls that ask people to "leave daily for silly reasons". Have a few examples, even personal examples, to back this up?

Until I hear first-hand accounts of harassment, and the story sticks that they were asked to remove their shirts or leave, I'm inclined to believe the father and his son's version of the story.

Oh, I am sure you believe their story. There is no doubt in my mind you agree with it.

I don't buy it for a second.

If someone was picking a arguement with them, they would have been escorted out.

[zigzag]

It goes from bad to worse:

http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/...ws/?ArID=17098

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...sdate=3/8/2003

Either the guard is not as forthright as Zimphire seems to think, or the mall management is eager to get even more bad publicity by scapegoating him.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by zigzag:
It goes from bad to worse:

http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/...ws/?ArID=17098

http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories...sdate=3/8/2003

Either the guard is not as forthright as Zimphire seems to think, or the mall management is eager to get even more bad publicity by scapegoating him.

Bing Bing

"I guess that when it comes down to it," he added, "It's the people who sign the paperwork who get the blame, not the people who told you to do it."

They aren't going to take ANY crap from it, so they can just say "Oh we fired him (for doing his job)"

Because if he was allowed to stay, every anti-war protester outside of 50 miles of that place would be there harrassing him.

I noticed non of the articles mentioned the customer complaints of them harrassing people.

Again, this is all political, it has been made into a political rant.

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Who else is saying differently? The "vicitims" why should I beleive them? They want to look like victims. The security guys have no motive to lie.

One possible motive would be to legitimize the removal of two perceived "hippy peaceniks". So far nobody has explained why they were asked to remove their t-shirts before they were asked to leave the property.

Oh, I am sure you believe their story. There is no doubt in my mind you agree with it.

I don't buy it for a second.

If someone was picking a arguement with them, they would have been escorted out.

This doesn't answer my question you quoted. So let me ask it again.

I don't know of any malls that ask people to "leave daily for silly reasons". Have a few examples, even personal examples, to back this up?

[Timo]

Originally posted by zigzag:
However, according to at least one article, before this even happened someone in the New York legislature had introduced a bill that would give people free speech rights within malls. I'm happy to hear this because I've always wanted to run naked through a mall in New York State.

Not without some prior warning, I hope!
THINK of the CHILDREN!

heh.

As for the rent-a-cop losing his job, I think we've got more evidence for serious bone-headedness by the mall higher ups. It's my impression that these rent-a-cops were put on high alert by the mall czars because of previous anti-war folks who were not nearly as subtle at the Downs. So, you're a hammer, you go out looking for nails -- and find these t-shirts.

Ironic how the zealous pursuit of your job gets you fired.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Timo:
Not without some prior warning, I hope!
THINK of the CHILDREN!

heh.

As for the rent-a-cop losing his job, I think we've got more evidence for serious bone-headedness by the mall higher ups. It's my impression that these rent-a-cops were put on high alert by the mall czars because of previous anti-war folks who were not nearly as subtle at the Downs. So, you're a hammer, you go out looking for nails -- and find these t-shirts.

Ironic how the zealous pursuit of your job gets you fired.

Yup. I hope that people protest on behalf of the guard just as they did for the 60 year old lawyer. I think the guard is by far the more victimized.

[Spliffdaddy]

I think the guard is likely to look up the pair of T-shirt-wearing hoodlums and kick their asses. That would be justice.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
OI don't know of any malls that ask people to "leave daily for silly reasons". Have a few examples, even personal examples, to back this up?

Yes, and I DID give a example a few pages back. One of my friends when I was in HS was asked to either change his shirt or leave the mall. Said shirt was ALSO sold at the mall. It was one of those Metallica "Metal up your ass" tshirts. Security was having no problem with it, but appearently some customers were whining.

Of course, friend made some wise cracks, but he didn't resist.

[Hash]

"Peace on Earth" and "Give peace a chance" in no way are as offending as "Metal up your ass" which is maybe perfect for Metallica fans, but not really suited for others.

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yup. I hope that people protest on behalf of the guard just as they did for the 60 year old lawyer. I think the guard is by far the more victimized.

Agreed, the coverage paints him to be a nice enough guy. I think - given the situation - he won't have much trouble finding some new work. At least, I hope he doesn't.

It looks like the mall's management (Pyramid) is just trying to save face now, and it's still unclear what exactly happened. Maybe if he brings some sort of action against Pyramid, as this article suggests may happen, some more facts will be dragged out. But it's all academic at this point - the charges have been dropped and most of the damage is over and done with.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Hash:
"Peace on Earth" and "Give peace a chance" in no way are as offending as "Metal up your ass" which is maybe perfect for Metallica fans, but not really suited for others.

Doesn't matter, point being, customers were complaining. So do they, lose a bunch of customers, or ask the offending parties to leave?

It's privite property, and their reason for beign there isn't to rally people together for anti-war propaganda, but to make money. That is their priority. When something threatens that, they react upon it.

[zigzag]

Not only is there more incontrovertible evidence that those damn peace-niks were "harassing" customers, but now they're gloating over the firing of the security guard! It was all a big peace-nik conspiracy after all! They must have been planning this caper for months, the sneaky bastards . . .

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...ts/5355016.htm

http://www.startribune.com/stories/1451/3745260.html

[Earth Mk. II]

Originally posted by zigzag:
http://www.startribune.com/stories/1451/3745260.html

heh - Looks like Slimy got his wish. The peace protesters protested for the guard that got fired. hehe.. that's great!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
heh - Looks like Slimy got his wish. The peace protesters protested for the guard that got fired. hehe.. that's great!

Good for them!

[Hash]

How Give Peace a chance could be offending to anyone?

[andi*pandi]

shhhh, hash, the thread is over. Go home.... shhhh....