[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.

[Mastrap]

Wow. Now that is scary. I could understand the reaction if the slogan would hav been in any way offensive but for this? Amazing.

What are the charges likely to be? Resisting arrest?

[Developer]

It's too bad that we are willing to give up our freedom for perceived security.

[Nonsuch]

The ACLU should be pleading to take this on; this doesn't stand a chance in hell of surviving in court.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
What are the charges likely to be? Resisting arrest?

Probably tresspassing, or something similar. They were on private property against the will of the powers that be (the mall rent-a-cops). If you ask me this is a total bullsh!t call on their part. Censorship, plain and simple. The private sector can legally get away with it.

<jump to conclusions>

Now this kind of pisses me off, because it basically says they can get away with having people arrested for free speech as long as: A) it's on private property, and B) people are asked to leave said property and they don't.

Situation B might be useful for someone causing trouble, but these guys were simply wearing T-shirts. I mean, damn. So what about being associated with a bunch of activists that were there three months prior. How was that even a cause for concern?

</jump to conclusions>

If there's more detailed info on this incident, it would be helpful

[SimeyTheLimey]

Seems kind of dumb, but as others have pointed out, a mall is private property and you can't "protest" in a mall. Maybe he was doing something more than just wearing a T-Shirt? The article doesn't say.

Incidentally, California interpreted its state constitution making protests in malls protected free speech. So this couldn't happen in California.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Maybe he was doing something more than just wearing a T-Shirt? The article doesn't say.

"Mall security 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, the men said.

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


It doesn't say that they were doing anything else but wearing the t-shirts. I suspect had they been protesting in any way mall securitywould had evicted them for that rather then offering them the chance to change shirts, don't you think?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
"Mall security 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, the men said.

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


It doesn't say that they were doing anything else but wearing the t-shirts. I suspect had they been protesting in any way mall securitywould had evicted them for that rather then offering them the chance to change shirts, don't you think?

No, you are right. It doesn't say they were doing anything else. I was just asking a common sense question. I have never seen anyone evicted from a mall solely for walking around in a T-Shirt. That's why I wonder if there is more to the story other than what is in the article.

Not that it is impossible that the two rentacops decided to create a scene and a whole lot of bad publicity for their employer. They can be kind of dumb sometimes. It just seems on balance a little unlikely to me.

[denim]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
What are the charges likely to be? Resisting arrest?

Go back and read the article. The charge is "trespassing". They've got him cold on that one.

The problem is that they asked him to leave in the first place. Given that they can ask anyone to leave for any reason, and it's private property, there's nothing to be done other than to put a boycott on the mall in question.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by denim:
Go back and read the article. The charge is "trespassing". They've got him cold on that one.

The problem is that they asked him to leave in the first place. Given that they can ask anyone to leave for any reason, and it's private property, there's nothing to be done other than to put a boycott on the mall in question.

Exactly, it's privately owned. Just like i can tell anyone that is in my house to leave it anytime I want to. If anything, it is protecting our rights.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
It doesn't say that they were doing anything else but wearing the t-shirts. I suspect had they been protesting in any way mall securitywould had evicted them for that rather then offering them the chance to change shirts, don't you think?

They were asked to leave private property and refused. That's trespassing.

Now, the REASON they were asked to leave was given as the tee shirts. However, one could guess that the tee shirts were only THEIR reason. Possibly they were causing a scene? I don't know, but the article is written from the persepctive of the father and son.

People, this is NOT a loss of "freedom and human rights." How fatalist can you be?

This is two people asked to leave private property and refusing. Trespassing.

[Lerkfish]

I'm confused since it says the tshirts were purchased in that very same mall.
Why didn't they evict the seller of the tshirts?
If the mall itself allowed them to be sold there, there is certainly an implied approval by the mall coporation of said shirt.
this either means the administration of the mall was unaware the shirts were being sold, or, as simey points out, some gung-ho misguided security guards acting on their own.
It appears from the article that their contingent presence at the mall could have been sanctioned by the rentacops if they only removed the tshirts (that's a little unclear, but it appears that is what they were saying) if so, then that would indicate their behaviour prior to the father refusing to remove his shirt would NOT have been enough in and of itself to consider them trespassing, else why ask for the shirts to be removed, if they were being evicted for misconduct anyways? Simply eject them, still wearing the shirts.



either way, I think the article needs to be fleshed out a bit.
I'd like to see the actual police records.

I edited to add: yes, in reading, we get this sentence from the article:

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

That seems to clearly indicate they could have stayed in the mall, sans shirts. And, further, that their resistance occurred AFTER the ultimatum to remove their shirts. Clearly it was the shirts, and not their conduct, which elicited the initial harrassment.
(assuming this article is accurate)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Exactly, it's privately owned. Just like i can tell anyone that is in my house to leave it anytime I want to. If anything, it is protecting our rights.

Your home is different though, because it's not open to the public like a mall. The more public a place becomes, the more free speech rights the public have there. They may not be allowed to have peace demonstrations in the mall if the owners don't want it, but simply wearing a t-shirt would never make the cut, IMO.

[OldManMac]

I've never seen a mall with a "Private Property" sign anywhere near it, that I can recall. If a mall is private property, then why does it have public access doors, with no signs informing the public of prescribed dress code, required demeanor, or other requirements for entry?

If this is true, and we accept it as reported, then it is indeed another huge step in the eradication of our civil liberties and rights! We are slowly abdicating our freedoms to the whims and dictates of large corporations, who, by virtue of their power in shaping government, will someday control much more of our daily activities than we realize now!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Your home is different though, because it's not open to the public like a mall. The more public a place becomes, the more free speech rights the public have there. They may not be allowed to have peace demonstrations in the mall if the owners don't want it, but simply wearing a t-shirt would never make the cut, IMO.

That's probably overstating things. The law in this area isn't a sliding scale. You either have First Amendment rights, or you don't. In this case you simply don't have First Amendment rights in a private mall (although in California you do have rights under the state constitution). The mall is therefore within their rights to impose rules that include ejecting people who are protesting or making political statements. Theoretically, that could include nothing more active than the wearing of a political slogan since wearing a political slogan is political expression.

There is an analogous case that came out the other way where a person was convicted of contempt of court for wearing a jacket that read "F**k the draft!" while in a courtroom. There, the T-shirt was seen as clearly political expression but it was protected by the First Amendment. Since the First Amendment doesn't apply to malls, the mall can ban political expression, including T-Shirts with political slogans.

There are some limits. A mall is a place of public accommodation. I think that the mall couldn't ban along racial lines. But merely banning political expression is OK.

On the other hand, most malls wouldn't want to ban people merely for wearing a T-Shirt unless there is something obstructive or disruptive about it, or the person's conduct. For example, if it is considered obscene or indecent, or if it causes a crowd to gather. Otherwise, financial self-interest would make just leaving people alone the best and smartest course. Just because the mall is within their legal rights doesn't make overpolicing a smart business move.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by KarlG:
If this is true, and we accept it as reported, then it is indeed another huge step in the eradication of our civil liberties and rights!

No, it is not because this isn't a change in the law. No rights are being taken away since you never had them in the first place when you are on private property.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Your home is different though, because it's not open to the public like a mall. The more public a place becomes, the more free speech rights the public have there. They may not be allowed to have peace demonstrations in the mall if the owners don't want it, but simply wearing a t-shirt would never make the cut, IMO.

And the more public the space, the more responsibility one has regarding their behavior.

Perhaps they were asked to leave for their own health (i.e. they had been threatened because of the shirts.)

The point is, even though it's open to the public, a mall is still private - for any time for any reason, the owners (or their agents) can ask someone to leave. If they refuse, they are trespassers.

[davesimondotcom]

DP

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Your home is different though, because it's not open to the public like a mall. The more public a place becomes, the more free speech rights the public have there. They may not be allowed to have peace demonstrations in the mall if the owners don't want it, but simply wearing a t-shirt would never make the cut, IMO.

Doesn't matter, private property is private property. Taking away the right for the owner to remove someone, no matter what, would actually be taking away our rights. Not the other way around.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I've never seen a mall with a "Private Property" sign anywhere near it, that I can recall. If a mall is private property, then why does it have public access doors, with no signs informing the public of prescribed dress code, required demeanor, or other requirements for entry?

If this is true, and we accept it as reported, then it is indeed another huge step in the eradication of our civil liberties and rights! We are slowly abdicating our freedoms to the whims and dictates of large corporations, who, by virtue of their power in shaping government, will someday control much more of our daily activities than we realize now!

The mall where I live is privately owned. The police cannot give tickets to anyone in the parking lot without permission of the Mall. Meaning, if someone is speeding there, cops can't do crap about it.

[Timo]

Malls can't discriminate for any reason: my sense is that specifically restricted reasons for exclusion (race, handicap, national orgin, and perhaps in some places, sexual orientation) can't be used. Similarly, mall's are subject, like any other building, to building code and fire department regulation. But of course the fire department and building department have little to say about freedom of speech and assembly. The malls are in fact free to restrict whomever they please, so long as they don't run afoul of excluded categories of discrimination and keep the place safe for public assembly.

Back in architecture school we spent a lot of time thinking about the problems with moving our civic space from outdoor and public areas to these private, indoor areas. Mall developers, to my mind, benefit from the confusion about whether a mall is a civic space or not: they get all of the benefits of a civic space, with none of the drawbacks.

But there are problems with the "private property = do as I say" model. For example, if a city or state floats a bond issue to pay for highway improvements that benefit the access of the mall (and curtail massive traffic clogs because of mall traffic), do they then have a say in how the mall is run?

Anyhow, people should wake up. If you think it's ok to replace your town center with a shopping center, you'd better be ready to let the shopping center folk tell you what you can do. Of course, most people don't care.

[spacefreak]

Police Chief James Murley said his officers were just responding to a complaint by mall security.

"We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property," Murley said.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's probably overstating things. The law in this area isn't a sliding scale. You either have First Amendment rights, or you don't.

From Marsh v. Alabama 1946, a case very similar to this one:

"The more an owner, for his own advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it."

(Sorry don't have a link.)

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
From Marsh v. Alabama 1946, a case very similar to this one:
(Sorry don't have a link.)

Sorry, but this would require a long analysis that we don't have time for here. The law of the public forum doctrine has had some ups and downs as the Supreme Court has developed it over the years. It also has a lot of inconsistencies to it that can be maddening. You can't simply cite a 1946 case and think that it states the entire law on the subject because I'm afraid it doesn't.

Marsh is a different set of circumstances. It isn't about malls, it is about an entirely company-owned town. That distinction is discussed in a case that is exactly on point to what we are discussing here. Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972) concerned protests in private shopping malls and held that the owner can ban protests.

This is the holding of Lloyd:

We hold that there has been no such dedication of Lloyd's
privately owned and operated shopping center to public use as to entitle respondents to exercise therein the asserted First Amendment rights.

The case also discusses the fact that the openness of a mall in no way diminishes its private property nature. You can also take a look at Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), which says much the same thing although acknowledging that state constitutions may provide more free speech protection.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by Timo:
[...] Of course, most people don't care.

... Which is something we should be very worried about, IMHO: why don't people ("of course") care about the very foundations of their individual and communitary dimensions of living? How did we get to this point? How could we go beyond the current state of things?

Personally, I sometimes think about the most contradictory aspects of today's society as something like a crashed/corrupted hard disk: the information is still there, (almost) integrally - but somehow we cannot fully access it...

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I've never seen a mall with a "Private Property" sign anywhere near it, that I can recall. If a mall is private property, then why does it have public access doors, with no signs informing the public of prescribed dress code, required demeanor, or other requirements for entry?

Privately owned property. Just because the doors are open doesn't mean it makes it publicly owned.

Ever seen a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ?

So far, all I've heard of this story is the Father/Son's side of the story. Don't news organizations even bother to place a call to the mall or security company so they can at least say, "The mall had no comment."

Yeah, but the aren't biased!

[Timo]

Originally posted by Sven G:
... Which is something we should be very worried about, IMHO: why don't people ("of course") care about the very foundations of their individual and communitary dimensions of living? How did we get to this point? How could we go beyond the current state of things?

I don't know. It's very

[keekeeree]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Privately owned property. Just because the doors are open doesn't mean it makes it publicly owned.

Ever seen a sign that says, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" ?

So far, all I've heard of this story is the Father/Son's side of the story. Don't news organizations even bother to place a call to the mall or security company so they can at least say, "The mall had no comment."

Yeah, but the aren't biased!

Read the story...

A mall spokeswoman did not return calls Tuesday seeking comment.

...before you start spouting conspiracy theories.

[Zimphire]

keekee what we are trying to say is, this isn't taking away anyone's rights. A person doesn't have the right to be on private property without permission. If said owner wants anyone off of said property said owner can tell them under law to leave. That is enforcing our rights, not taking them away.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The case also discusses the fact that the openness of a mall in no way diminishes its private property nature. You can also take a look at Pruneyard Shopping Ctr. v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980), which says much the same thing although acknowledging that state constitutions may provide more free speech protection.

OK, you're right, thanks for citations.

As I understand it after looking through those, a state can enact laws that permit free speech on open private property such as malls, and those laws don't infringe on the private property rights of the mall owners. The arguments being made by some people in this thread are that because a mall is private property, the right to exclude people is absolute. That's just not true, based on my reading.

I have no idea whether NY has a "free speech in malls" law, but if they had, clearly this arrest would be wrong. I think others are saying here that such a law would violate the private property rights of the mall owners.

And I still wonder if one of the underlying issue is that a mall is a "public" place, and therefore different than other private places like homes. My guess is that the state could not pass a law saying it's OK to set up shop in someone's front yard. That would probably be held to violate the 14th amendment because it's more "private" private property than a mall.

And I also wonder if a private property owner really could exclude someone for something so innocuous as a t-shirt. Most of these cases have been about groups basically holding rallies. What do you think? It seems to me that that's the real test - if someone truly has zero First Amendment rights in a mall, then that should be an easy case to decide. I just have an intuition that it wouldn't be so easy to decide because it's such a public place.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by keekeeree:
Read the story...

...before you start spouting conspiracy theories.

Sorry, you are correct about that story. In my defense, at the time I typed that, ABC news was reporting on the radio the same story, not presenting both sides.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
OK, you're right, thanks for citations.

As I understand it after looking through those, a state can enact laws that permit free speech on open private property such as malls, and those laws don't infringe on the private property rights of the mall owners.

Not quite. It's not just a state law. It's the state constitution. State constitutions and the federal constitution coexist. The standard way of describing it is that the Bill of Rights of the federal constitution provides a floor of individual rights, but it doesn't provide the ceiling. States are therefore free to enact provisions of their constitutions that provide more protection. Or more commonly, a state supreme court can interpret its constitution (but not the federal constitution) as providing additional protections.

In the case of free speech in malls, California's supreme court interpreted Article 1, Section 2(a) of the California Constitution as providing the free speech right to protest inside a private shopping mall. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Ctr., 592 P.2d 341 (Cal. 1979). That's a right that is independent of the federal First Amendment.

I don't know how many other states (such as NY) have similarly expanded their free speech rights in this area. I only know about it because I happened to do some research a couple of weeks ago on the California constitution. I suspect that not many have followed California. Even the California supreme court has hinted that they probably wouldn't reach the same decision today. Golden Gateway Ctr. v. Golden Gateway Tenant's Ass'n., 29 P.2d 797, 803 (Cal. 2001).

Anyway, this is getting to be like a legal memorandum.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I'll answer your other points briefly, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by BRussell:
And I still wonder if one of the underlying issue is that a mall is a "public" place, and therefore different than other private places like homes. My guess is that the state could not pass a law saying it's OK to set up shop in someone's front yard. That would probably be held to violate the 14th amendment because it's more "private" private property than a mall.

What do you mean by set up shop? Do you mean protest, or set up a business? In either case, I think it would be a common-law tort of trespass. If you mean the state giving permission for someone to conduct a business on private property, then the state would have to provide compensation under the 5th Amendment. It would be an eminent domain issue. Either of those cases are property law, not first amendment law.

And I also wonder if a private property owner really could exclude someone for something so innocuous as a t-shirt.

Yes, I think they could. I think that's the implication of the case I referred to earlier where a person was convicted of breach of the peace because of the slogan on his jacket. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Cohen's jacket was political expression. His conviction was overturned because the state couldn't prevent him from expressing his opinions.

But the first amendment is only triggered by government action. The state, as in Cohen, can't restrain you from exercising your free speech rights, but that doesn't mean that private actors can't. Since a private shopping mall is a private facility where the first amendment doesn't apply, I'm certain that the owners of that private facility can ban all political expression, even something as minor as a T-shirt.

[finboy]

Originally posted by KarlG:
I've never seen a mall with a "Private Property" sign anywhere near it, that I can recall. If a mall is private property, then why does it have public access doors, with no signs informing the public of prescribed dress code, required demeanor, or other requirements for entry?

If this is true, and we accept it as reported, then it is indeed another huge step in the eradication of our civil liberties and rights! We are slowly abdicating our freedoms to the whims and dictates of large corporations, who, by virtue of their power in shaping government, will someday control much more of our daily activities than we realize now!

We're talking about a U.S. shopping mall. It's a big place with stores and stuff, sometimes enclosed.

Of course it's private property. And every mall that I've ever seen has posted "no shirt no shoes no admittance" or something like it. Plus "no solictors" and similar.

[anarkisst]

Malls suck. Suburbia sucks. Continue...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by finboy:
Plus "no solictors" and similar.

That one always got a laugh out of me, seeing as how a solicitor in the UK is a lawyer. On the other hand, barristers are apparently welcome.

[Lerkfish]

ok, you lawyer-types...since people keep ignoring this point...help me out here...

If the mall SELLS these t-shirts, do they legally have a leg to stand on in evicting people who wear them?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
ok, you lawyer-types...since people keep ignoring this point...help me out here...

If the mall SELLS these t-shirts, do they legally have a leg to stand on in evicting people who wear them?

Of course. Do you think that a person buying a G string automatically gets the right to wear it in public just because they bought it in a mall?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course. Do you think that a person buying a G string automatically gets the right to wear it in public just because they bought it in a mall?

well..but that would be a heck of a lot more fun!

er...wait a minute...depends on who it is.

thanks for the clarification...but that would fall under local laws of decency...right? I mean, instead, this is a tshirt that has a message....different area, right?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What do you mean by set up shop? Do you mean protest, or set up a business? In either case, I think it would be a common-law tort of trespass. If you mean the state giving permission for someone to conduct a business on private property, then the state would have to provide compensation under the 5th Amendment. It would be an eminent domain issue. Either of those cases are property law, not first amendment law.

I mean protest. I used the phrase "set up shop" because in one of those cases the mall tried to kick out people who had set up a table for distributing fliers. I was making an analogy to that situation.

To the broader issue, aren't we really talking about property law in all these cases? My point is this: the cases you provided say that the federal constitution's taking and due processes clauses don't override a state constitution's right to protest in malls. But what I'm arguing is that I believe if that same state constitution was interpreted so as to allow you to set up a table distributing fliers in someone's front yard, it would be in violation of those federal constitutional private property protections.

From that Pruneyard case:

Here the requirement that appellants permit appellees to exercise state-protected rights of free expression and petition on shopping center property clearly does not amount to an unconstitutional infringement of appellants' property rights under the Taking Clause. There is nothing to suggest that preventing appellants from prohibiting this sort of activity will unreasonably impair the value or use of their property as a shopping center. The PruneYard is a large commercial complex that covers several city blocks, contains numerous separate business establishments, and is open to the public at large. The decision of the California Supreme Court makes it clear that the PruneYard may restrict expressive activity by adopting time, place, and manner regulations that will minimize any interference with its commercial functions. Appellees were orderly, and they limited their activity to the [447 U.S. 74, 84] _common areas of the shopping center. In these circumstances, the fact that they may have "physically invaded" appellants' property cannot be viewed as determinative.

As I read it, the government is allowed to provide citizens freedoms on your private property, but it depends on the property and the extent of the freedom provided. If the state wants to permit protests in private malls they can; I'm just arguing that I bet they wouldn't be allowed to permit protests in your front yard.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well..but that would be a heck of a lot more fun!

er...wait a minute...depends on who it is.

thanks for the clarification...but that would fall under local laws of decency...right? I mean, instead, this is a tshirt that has a message....different area, right?

Yeah that is kind of funny. The store selling the shirt must have it displayed somewhere, no different than wearing it (unlike displaying vs. wearing a g-string, which I think is different ). So they seem to be applying their rules unequally, which seems like it could be a problem for them.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Yeah that is kind of funny. The store selling the shirt must have it displayed somewhere, no different than wearing it (unlike displaying vs. wearing a g-string, which I think is different ). So they seem to be applying their rules unequally, which seems like it could be a problem for them.

right. I think that's going to be the weak point in the case. If they did not remove the tshirt from sale on their own, then why make the patron remove it?

I think they're in trouble anyways, considering the father is a lawyer, and one that independently reviews judges for fitness on the bench (I think another story said). They better have their i's dotted before putting that guy in jail.

[Timo]

Originally posted by BRussell:The store selling the shirt must have it displayed somewhere, no different than wearing it

Could be that they made their T-shirts. Hold on.

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

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
From that Pruneyard case:
As I read it, the government is allowed to provide citizens freedoms on your private property, but it depends on the property and the extent of the freedom provided. If the state wants to permit protests in private malls they can; I'm just arguing that I bet they wouldn't be allowed to permit protests in your front yard.

That's probably a reasonable interpretation. You obviously have two constitutional rights in conflict. One is the California constitution's free speech clause, and the other is the federal takings clause. What the mall argued in Pruneyard (which I have only skimmed) seems to be that the California supreme court was, in effect, carrying out a regulatory taking by allowing free speech in their mall. The California supreme court weighed those two competing interests and in this context came out in favor of free speech. The Supreme Court held that was reasonable under the California Constitution.

I think the factors are the fact that state supreme courts are the masters of their own constitutions. So there is judicial deference involved. Also, regulatory takings is generally a weaker constitutional argument. Certainly it is a weker interest than free speech. Third, I think it does make a difference that this is a commercial space. I think you are right to the extent that they might have come to a different decision if this was a residence.

But again, remember that the California court went out on a limb in interpreting their constitution this way. They haven't retreated, but in 2001 they said that they would maybe not rule the same way as they did in 1979. We are also talking here about California law whereas the T Shirt case was in New York. We shouldn't lose track of the fact that there is probably no free speech right in a mall in NY.

[Earth Mk. II]

well, it's nice to see my hometown region making waves in national news... too bad it's over a t-shirt.

Anyway, there's a followup article over at timesunion.com and apparently there was a protest march through the mall around noon today, with the march leaders scheduled to meet with the mall's management.

About the actual incident, the son complied and removed his shirt while the father refused. However, the father's sirt didn't even refrence any war directly, just saying "peace on earth" and "give peace a chance" -- hardly offensive, or even contraversial sentiments.

It should also be clarified that the store the shirts were bought from will print custom slogans on shirts while you wait... they don't have these shirts pre-made.

Anyway, the mall is provate property, but this is a rather odd thing to throw customers out over. The amount of bad press the mall is getting in local media has spawned more than a little talk of boycotting the mall until a full formal apology is issued.

I can see the mall having the authority to toss folks out, but over a t-shirt? That's just bad business, legalities aside.

[calamar1]

Originally posted by denim:
Go back and read the article. The charge is "trespassing". They've got him cold on that one.

The problem is that they asked him to leave in the first place. Given that they can ask anyone to leave for any reason, and it's private property, there's nothing to be done other than to put a boycott on the mall in question.

Hehe... As a former student in the area (well, Troy, which is close enough), you can't just boycott Crossgates. Crossgates mall is huge--it has like 30 movie screens, and is like 2 normal malls stacked on top of each other. Not only that, but the Albany area is so bereft of other things to do that the entire region flocks to Crossgates every weekend. Other reasonably good malls in the area languish because people are drawn to the might that is Crossgates. Even so, this might be enough to drive me to go to Colonie Center (if Crossgates didn't have the Apple Store).

OTOH, there was a reason i got the hell out of Troy.

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.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Earth Mk. II:
I can see the mall having the authority to toss folks out, but over a t-shirt? That's just bad business, legalities aside.

I think we're all agreed on that.

[anarkisst]

So...t-shirt bad.



Army man action figure in Easter basket...good?



Retailers Put All Their Grenades in One Basket

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, I think they could. I think that's the implication of the case I referred to earlier where a person was convicted of breach of the peace because of the slogan on his jacket. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Cohen's jacket was political expression. His conviction was overturned because the state couldn't prevent him from expressing his opinions.

But the first amendment is only triggered by government action. The state, as in Cohen, can't restrain you from exercising your free speech rights, but that doesn't mean that private actors can't. Since a private shopping mall is a private facility where the first amendment doesn't apply, I'm certain that the owners of that private facility can ban all political expression, even something as minor as a T-shirt.

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?

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

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

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?

[finboy]

Originally posted by calamar1:
Not only that, but the Albany area is so bereft of other things to do that the entire region flocks to Crossgates every weekend.

Monopoly!!!! Bastards!!

Quick, call the Justice Dept.