 |  | top stories | | 1 new story
no new comments | | etcetera | 2 new stories
31 new comments | | filmtv | 3 new stories
41 new comments | | media | 1 new story
44 new comments | | politics | 3 new stories
109 new comments | | scitech | 1 new story
1 new comment | | work | 2 new stories
28 new comments | |
| | | | | Peace Sells... But Not At The Mall (With Apologies To Megadeth) | | | | | found on Boston.com
written by Jedi Paramedic, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ]
posted Wed 5 Mar 7:03am | | | | |
 | "An Albany, New York, father-son team was asked to leave an area mall on Monday evening," Jedi Paramedic tells us. Their crime? Wearing T-shirts they had just purchased at the mall.
Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son, Roger Downs, had the peace T-shirts made Monday night at a Crossgates Mall store and wore them in the mall, atop other clothes. Mall security approached the two in the food court and asked them to remove their shirts or leave the mall. The men refused.
The security guards returned with a police officer, who gave the men the same choice. Downs' son took his T-shirt off, but he refused.
| |
| | | "I think that the mall is on firm legal footing for asking people to leave private property, but how can we as a society let malls (and their management) infringe on people's rights in what have really become de facto public places? Free speech issues aside, what does it say when a mall expels people who have ostensibly unpopular political views?
"While it's easy to brush this aside as nothing more than an aging hippie looking for attention (and I'm sure that there's another side of the story that the police refrained from airing in the interest of good taste), is 'peace' such a subversive message that a mall would designate two individuals as to get them off the property?"
Deetective Deeluxx did some more digging and adds, "The father, Stephen, is a lawyer.
"Also, not really related, per se, but in trying to dig up any recent news coming out of that mall (to see if they had any recent 'incidents', I came across this. I guess they weren't arresting protesters at the mall that day. Probably because there were news cameras around, but funny that it would be the same place." |
| | |
[ more plastic... ] |
| | | | | | | 1. Another source... | | | | by Jedi Paramedic |  | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:09am | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
The local paper has a more balanced view than the original boston.com story...
Apparently the cops pleaded with the elder Downs for an hour to take the shirt off and leave so that everyone could just go home without a criminal complaint issuing, but he stuck to his guns.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 9. Re: Another source... | | | | by shatov |  | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:36am | score of 4 interesting | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
He was repeatedly told the mall was private property and what he was wearing was unacceptable, the same as if he went to someone's home wearing something unacceptable.
So, if I understand this correctly, he was charged with trespassing because of a t-shirt that he was wearing. If he had have removed the t-shirt, then he wouldn't have been trespassing.
I always thought that trespassing was concerned with physical presence: you were trespassing by being somewhere that you shouldn't be. But he was arrested for wearing something that he shouldn't have been wearing.
The mall seems to be using the reasoning that he was doing something that did not conform with the activities that the mall owners allowed their guests to do. Namely, he was wearing a political t-shirt, and thus making a political protest, which is not shopping. Now, this seems, to me, to be quite a stretch, so lets look at a different example.
A comparable instance that I can think of is going to the mall with no clothes on at all. Again, the issue is what you are wearing (or not wearing) But you wouldn't be charged with trespass, but rather with public indecency. Obviously that charge would not hold against the t-shirt. Also, unlike a sophisticated restaurant, for example, there isn't an strict dress-code for malls.
The mall is on stronger grounds with the larger group of people wearing the t-shirts, although I still thick that that is a little stretched. But this seems to be ridiculous.
To clarify why, take the example of wearing a USA flag, or having the flag on your car, after 9/11. Again, it is a political statement, and I am sure that many people carried out these activities in the mall. Furthermore, the incidence of flag-bearing must have increased enough that it could not be interpreteted as normal 'shopping activity'. Of course, the flags were being worn everywhere outside the mall as well, so it was not particularly odd. But surely the t-shirts were not purchased solely to wear in the mall either.
Both actions are clearly political, yet one is allowed, and the other not. Why? The only reason that I can think of is that the mall owners did not mind the flag waving, while the t-shirts irritated them. So the mall owners decision, I would suggest, is clearly political. Arresting them for wearing the t-shirts appears to be an infringement of freedom of speech.
A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 15. Re: Another source... | | | | by mischief |  | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:54am | score of 0.5 disingenuous | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
if I understand this correctly No, you completely misunderstood it. He was given the option to leave private property OR take off the t-shirt. He chose neither option. So, his physical presence then constituted trespassing. He was NOT arrested for what he wore. This is a fairly easy concept to understand.
As for the earlier, larger group, I would bet that much more happened than what the news is reporting.
"And then... and then... and then...", and then the man who stuttered died, his last words an echo of his life
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 17. Bing! Give the man a prize! | | | | by iarnuocon |  | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:57am | score of 3.5 astute | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
Both actions are clearly political, yet one is allowed, and the other not. Why? The only reason that I can think of is that the mall owners did not mind the flag waving, while the t-shirts irritated them. So the mall owners decision, I would suggest, is clearly political. Arresting them for wearing the t-shirts appears to be an infringement of freedom of speech.
You hit the nail squarely on the head. Not only that, but I also have some problems with the assertion that Downs was engaged in an activity that "was unacceptable, the same as if he went to someone's home wearing something unacceptable." Pardon my french, but what the fuck? For a variety of reasons that analogy is both incorrect and disingenuous. Private homes are not involved in commerce. Private homes do not advertise in the newspaper in an attempt to draw crowds. Private homes do not leave the doors open with the tacit understanding that virtually anyone from the street can come in and have a seat. Private homes don't require commercial zoning, nor do they get tax incentives or other government incentives for being located in one city as opposed to another.
If we were to buy the explanation that private property allowed the mall to exclude individuals for any particular reason, wouldn't we have to accept the premise that the mall could eject someone for, say, being black? After all, it's private property, and the implication of what both security and the police were saying is that because the owners find someone unacceptable it's sufficient reason for requesting that person to leave.
Jedi Paramedic is right in identifying a mall as a de facto public space. If spaces such as malls can be claimed as "anti-free speech zones", what are the ramifications. In large measure, malls have become modern America's version of the "public square." Short of maintaining public order (i.e. quelling an actual disturbance), I can't see a compelling reason to eject a person for simply asserting their right to free speech.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 73. Re: Another source... | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:06pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
Yeah. I bet if it was Pamela Anderson wearing the t-shirt and nothing underneath it, such a request to take it off or leave would probably result in a huge lawsuit...
The cops and the Mall thought they could get away with it because it was a 60 year old man. Screw that!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 78. Re: Another source... | | | | by gerrymander | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:16pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 9 | | | | | |
A comparable instance that I can think of is going to the mall with no clothes on at all. Again, the issue is what you are wearing (or not wearing) But you wouldn't be charged with trespass, but rather with public indecency.
Assuming the mall had posted "proper attire only" or "shoes and shirt required" signs at the entrances, there's a good chance our hypothetical nudist would be charged with both indecent exposure and tresspass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 21. Re: Another source... | | | | by iarnuocon |  | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:12am | score of 2 brilliant | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
No, you completely misunderstood it. He was given the option to leave private property OR take off the t-shirt. He chose neither option. So, his physical presence then constituted trespassing. He was NOT arrested for what he wore. This is a fairly easy concept to understand.
On the contrary, it's only easy to understand if you buy the premise that the mall (an ostensibly public place- despite being private property- with no active restrictions on who may enter) is precisely the same as a private dwelling (most obviously NOT a public place, and having fairly OBVIOUS restrictions on who may enter.) I don't buy that premise, and evidently neither did Stephen Downs. It's hard to buy that premise when the mall places no restrictions on entry, and does its utmost to attract the public.
The options should more readily be characterized as either shut up or leave. It's difficult to then argue that telling someone to shut up is reasonable after you've invited them to speak. The fact that the mall sold the shirt that Downs was wearing seems clearly an invitation to speak. If other individuals in the mall were engaged in speech (whether in verbal form or in the form of T-shirt slogans), but were not asked to leave, it then becomes evident that Downs was singled out because of what he was saying.
The police did what they were required by law to do. Malls are currently considered by the law as being no different from a home. It takes a case like this to draw the distinction, and personally I'm glad Downs stuck to his guns. I hope he takes it all the way to the Supreme Court, and we get a clarification on whether malls can be considered a public space, despite their private ownership.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 75. No prize. | | | | by gerrymander | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:10pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 17 | | | | | |
Private homes are not involved in commerce. Private homes do not advertise in the newspaper in an attempt to draw crowds.
To the contrary, some do. I have a number of friends who run businesses out of their homes, and some who have circulated fliers to promote parties. Do these things mean they must allow anyone to come in and say/wear anything they choose?
If we were to buy the explanation that private property allowed the mall to exclude individuals for any particular reason, wouldn't we have to accept the premise that the mall could eject someone for, say, being black?
That's extending the grievance a bit too far. A closer example might be if they ejected people for wearing obviously inflammatory racially-based slogans. My guess (and hope) is an impromptu KKK rally in the mall would suffer the same fate as these two. Do you feel differently?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 83. Re: Another source... | | | | by bradleytank | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:22pm | score of 2 scholarly | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
Okay, let's look at the law.
According to NY Penal Statue:
S 140.15 Criminal trespass in the second degree.
A person is guilty of criminal trespass in the second degree when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in a dwelling.
Now, the meaning of unlawfully, by statute:
Sec. 140, ss 5. 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 of such premises or other authorized person.
So in the final analysis, here's the Plaintiff's case:
1. Everyone who enters a public place that is private property does so with a license from the owner of that place.
2. The owner, and solely the owner, decides the grounds on which licenses are given. He/She/It felt that the t-shirts were inappropriate, so the license was revoked.
3. The defendants were given the option: remove the 'offensive' shirts, or the license will be revoked, they chose to keep the shirts on, thereby revoking their license to be there.
4. When told that their licenses had been revoked, the defendants unlawfully remained upon the premises.
5. Hence, a trespass charge is lawful.
6. Because this is public space but private property, constitutional questions are moot; They were invitees who were no longer welcome.
So it can be said that their license to be there was revoked because of the shirts. They were arrested, however, because they unlawfully remained after being told that their license to be there had been taken away.
With regard to the constitutional issue, I wonder if free speech is more fundamental a right than the entitlement to do what you want with your property, because that's the issue here. Must a property owner suffer the unwanted presence of people on his/her/its premises solely because they're exercising their right to free speech?
I think not.
...you'll take what you're given.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 87. Re: Another source... | | | | by bradleytank | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:33pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
oops. I meant to include this instead of the first citation, a mall is not a dwelling.
From the same document, sec. 140.05
A person is guilty of trespass when he knowingly enters or remains unlawfully in or upon premises.
sorry about that.
...you'll take what you're given.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 89. Re: Another source... | | | | by 6percent | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:36pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 29 | | | | | |
Not exactly. If I drive to a convenience store and rob it, and I am subsequently arrested, by your logic I have been arrested for driving to the convenience store - if I hadn't driven to the convenience store, I wouldn't have been arrested. But the fact remains that I was arrested for robbing the store, not for driving there.
If he had taken his shirt off, he would have been welcome to stay. When he refused to take his shirt off, he was then unwelcome to stay (in the eyes of the property owner), at which point he has the choice of leaving the property or being arrested for trespassing.
Failure to take the shirt off didn't cause his arrest. The circumstance of being an unwanted visitor on private property did, thus the charge of trespassing.
Now having said that, I don't really believe that the mall is private property in the same sense as a person's home, but there's no sense in being obtuse with regard to the nature of his arrest.
sixpercent.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 97. Re: Another source... | | | | by bradleytank | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:47pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 89 | | | | | |
"If I drive to a convenience store and rob it, and I am subsequently arrested, by your logic I have been arrested for driving to the convenience store - if I hadn't driven to the convenience store, I wouldn't have been arrested. But the fact remains that I was arrested for robbing the store, not for driving there."
I don't see how this works. If you park the car in the parking lot while you commit the offense, then you're guilty of the lesser and included offense of tresspassing -- certainly the owner doesn't give robbers license to be there. Driving there is perfectly legal, supposing you don't break any laws on the way there.
"Failure to take the shirt off didn't cause his arrest. The circumstance of being an unwanted visitor on private property did, thus the charge of trespassing."
I've argued that the owner revoked their licenses to be there because of the shirts, thereby making their presence there illegal, and that by not leaving, they are guilty of tresspass. How is this different from the above quoted text?
I totally agree with you about the ambiguity here, I am looking forward to the case, if it gets any coverage.
I don't mean to be flippant, but how am I being obtuse? Maybe my meaning is unclear?
...you'll take what you're given.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 101. Re: Another source... | | | | by David Flores | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:06pm | score of 2 compelling | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
So it can be said that their license to be there was revoked because of the shirts. They were arrested, however, because they unlawfully remained after being told that their license to be there had been taken away.
Right. They were arrested because they wore an anti-war T-shirt in a mall and refused to take it off or leave. No one else was singled out and asked to take off their shirt, or asked to leave. Ultimately it was the wearing of an Anti-war T-shirt that got them arrested, because that was the one and only thing that differentiated them from all the other shoppers in the mall who were not arrested. They will not be charged with "wearing an anti-war shirt," they will be charged with "trespassing" but it is quite disingenuous to pretend that it was not the wearing of an anti-war shirt that, ultimately, occasioned their arrest.
Must a property owner suffer the unwanted presence of people on his/her/its premises solely because they're exercising their right to free speech?
As the public sphere becomes ever more privatized, the question you pose becomes more complex. Today can be difficult, in many towns, to find a "public space" that is frequented by the citizenry, and where one can petition one's fellow citizens. In many towns and small cities in America there is no such thing any more as "the public square" where large numbers of citizens interact as a matter of course. In this sort of environment, interactions between citizens more and more are mediated by private corporations (advertisers, TV and Newsprint Media, Mall Owners etc.) A private property absolutist sees no problem whatsoever with this arrangement, but those of us who are not private property absolutists recognize that even in private spaces (especially those that have supplanted the public square, such as shopping malls) our society has a compelling interest in making reasonable accommodations to protect the right of individuals to make their views known to their fellow citizens. One can argue about what it is, precisely, that constitutes "reasonable accommodations" but I don't think that it's arguable that the simple fact of wearing a T-shirt that says "Give Peace a Chance" on one side and "Let The Inspectors Work" on the other constitutes an act so disruptive that allowing for it would exceed a "reasonable accommodation" by anyone.
GAFB and GAFB2
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 105. Re: Another source... | | | | by bradleytank | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:17pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 101 | | | | | |
"it is quite disingenuous to pretend that it was not the wearing of an anti-war shirt that, ultimately, occasioned their arrest."
I'm going to take this as commentary on the law, rather than an attack against me, as I've tried to present the legal gymnastics behind the charge. I don't agree with it necessarily, but it appears the mall owners DO have a legal basis for what they've done. That's my point. Now SHOULD they? that's a totally different matter.
And I totally agree with you that the issue is much more complex, I just don't have the resources to make a definitive argument either way, so I was happy instead to provide the underpinnings of the charge/arrest.
...you'll take what you're given.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 109. Re: Another source... | | | | by gregdillon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
But the question is, did the mall have the right to ask him to remove his shirt? If they DID I would say that the tresspassing charge is correct. However, if they DID NOT then there would be no basis for trespassing.
--- Don't eat meat, eat vegans.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 122. Re: Another source... | | | | by mmandell | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:33pm | score of 1.5 interesting | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
"2. The owner, and solely the owner, decides the grounds on which licenses are given"
Really? Didn't the infamous Lester Maddox say just about the same thing, when he refused to admit Negroes to his fried chicken restaurant?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 123. Re: Another source... | | | | by Korovyov | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:35pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 101 | | | | | |
it is quite disingenuous to pretend that it was not the wearing of an anti-war shirt that, ultimately, occasioned their arrest.
I don't think this is what bradleytank was saying. I think (if I've read correctly) that it not just the wearing of an anti-war shirt that occasioned his arrest. It was the wearing of an anti-war shirt and his refusal to leave the premises. The fact that it's an anti-war shirt is sort of incidental. All that matters is that it was a shirt that the owners of the mall did not like.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 127. Re: Another source... | | | | by AugustIcon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
Nice analysis, bradleytank. On the First Amendment issue, I would just add that the Supreme Court has held that customary constitutional protection for free speech does not apply to shopping malls b/c no state action is involved. See Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972).
Moreover, the highest state court in New York has declined to adopt free speech rights that are broader than those provided by the First Amendment. Shad Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 488 N.E2d 1211 (N.Y. 1985).
So, any case that Downs brings against the mall based on asserted free speech rights seems like a loser.
It's too bad that this incident didn't occur in New Jersey, where, I think, that state's supreme court has done a better job of balancing First Amendment rights of shoppers with property rights of owners. New Jersey Coalition Against War in the Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty Corp., 650 A.2d 757 (N.J. 1994).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 128. Maybe a Stan Lee Noprize. | | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:22pm | score of 1.5 clever | | in reply to comment 75 | | | | | |
. I have a number of friends who run businesses out of their homes, and some who have circulated fliers to promote parties. Do these things mean they must allow anyone to come in and say/wear anything they choose? That you have anecdotal evidence regarding a number (what number, particularly) of friends willing to try to make their homes periodically resemble businesses does not make malls any closer in essence to private residences. And for what it's worth, the percentage of homes engaged in commerce in a business sense would seem to be tiny; the number who circulate fliers to gather attendees at parties likely don't throw parties everyday, so even from the point of view of homes resembling businesses (and not the other way around) the line of demarcation seems crystal clear. But to answer your question, if you had a friend who unlocked her house at 8 am, rented space to vendors in which to sell their wares, paid little to no attention to what persons went in and out the doors, worked hard at attracting the public in order to maintain demand for rental space, and lobbied the local government for special considerations such as zoning variances and tax breaks, then yes, I'd have to say she must pretty much allow anyone to come in and say/wear anything they chose.
Of course, this doesn't even begin to address the fact that malls of necessity blur the distinction between private property and public property. There's very little distinction between a store within a mall and a store on the streetfront. Hence the fact that the majority of people, unless confronted with a situation such as this, will treat a mall as though it were a public space.
That's extending the grievance a bit too far. In what way? It's private property, isn't it? What you're advocating is that individuals who own private property can exclude other individuals from that property based on a personal whim. Why would prejudice as a whim be any different from consideration than support for the war? Simply because it's self-evident that racism is wrong, but not so evident that opposition/support for war is?
I'd also point out that there's a difference between wearing racially inflammatory t-shirts and an impromptu KKK rally. It supports your argument to conflate the two, but they are inherently different. If some nutball wants to wear a racial epithet on his t-shirt, more power to him. I like it when the idiots and oddballs identify themselves publicly. It's easier to avoid/confront them. Rallies, on the other hand, bring up safety implications in terms of impeded traffic flow, necessity for police presence to control violence, etc... all the same things that the SC has upheld as reasons for curtailing free speech in the form of requiring parade permits and such. It's a different animal, a different grievance.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 129. Re: Another source... | | | | by shatov | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:26pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 78 | | | | | |
Assuming the mall had posted "proper attire only" or "shoes and shirt required" signs at the entrances, there's a good chance our hypothetical nudist would be charged with both indecent exposure and tresspass.
And where was the sign saying "This is a peace-free zone"?
A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 130. Re: No prize. | | | | by shatov | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:29pm | score of 1.5 clever | | in reply to comment 75 | | | | | |
That's extending the grievance a bit too far. A closer example might be if they ejected people for wearing obviously inflammatory racially-based slogans. My guess (and hope) is an impromptu KKK rally in the mall would suffer the same fate as these two. Do you feel differently?
So wearing those t-shirts was causing offence and/or creating a threat to the public peace? Because those are the reasons why wearing KKK clothing might be banned. 'Peace' t-shirts causing a threat to the public peace?
A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 134. Re: Another source... | | | | by shatov | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:34pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 89 | | | | | |
Not exactly. If I drive to a convenience store and rob it, and I am subsequently arrested, by your logic I have been arrested for driving to the convenience store - if I hadn't driven to the convenience store, I wouldn't have been arrested. But the fact remains that I was arrested for robbing the store, not for driving there.
Robbing a convenience store happens to be illegal. Whereas wearing a t-shirt is not. What was illegal was staying in the mall after being asked to leave. But is the reason why he was asked to leave that is being debated.
After your robber has been asked to leave the convenience store and then been charged with trespassing (rather than armed robbery) we can use your example.
A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 138. Re: Another source... | | | | by shatov | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:48pm | score of 1.5 brilliant | | in reply to comment 123 | | | | | |
It was the wearing of an anti-war shirt and his refusal to leave the premises. The fact that it's an anti-war shirt is sort of incidental. All that matters is that it was a shirt that the owners of the mall did not like.
A little thought experiment:
Imagine the scene....
A man is wearing a plaid shirt in the mall, just shopping, when two store-guards approach him.
SG1: Excuse me, but would you mind taking your shirt off?
M: Eh?
SG2: I'm sorry, but the mall owner is feels sick at the sight of plaid, so he asks that nobody be allowed to wear plaid in the mall.
M: But there were no signs at the entrance.
SG2: Well, it is a recent policy.
M: No, I love my plaid shirt. I'm not taking it off.
SG1: Then we will have to ask you to leave the premises.
M: No. I have to get some food for this evening's dinner.
SG1: Then we will have to call the police and charge you with trespass.
The guard makes a call, and 5 minutes later a policeman arrives at the scene.
P: 'ello 'ello 'ello. What's goin' on 'ere then?
SG1: We want to to arrest this man for trespassing. He refused to leave the mall.
P: Why did you ask him to leave?
SG2: Because he wouldn't take off his plaid shirt.
P: ........
I leave you to fill in the policeman's response. I think that it may well not be very civil. Would a policeman arrest somebody for trespass if the mall owner was getting people to take off their plaid shirts?
A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 139. Re: Another source... | | | | by bradleytank | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:49pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 122 | | | | | |
you're right.
I did not intend to do damage to civil rights. What I did intend was to suggest the legal justification -- not that I think it's justified -- for the mall owners' actions.
I'm sure free speech would prevail if it would be given a chance in this case. What I'm afraid of is that the plaintiff will frame the argument so as to render discussions of 1st amendment irrelevant, exactly by the method I've suggested -- it's about trespass and their refusal to leave, not about the damn shirts, they'll say, and they'll strike all attempts by the defense to draw 1st amendment conclusions from the case.
Is it bullshit? of course. Does the plaintiff have a leg to stand on otherwise? NO.
...you'll take what you're given.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 141. Holy christ, it was an analogy, | | | | by 6percent | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:52pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 134 | | | | | |
not an example of criminal trespass.
A non-criminal act (driving to store, wearing t-shirt) preceded a criminal act (robbing store, trespassing). The original comment was trying to blame the arrest in this case on the non-criminal act of wearing a t-shirt, which I would equate to blaming the arrest of a robber on the non-criminal act of driving to the store.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE HYPOTHETICAL ROBBER MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRESPASSING.
Is all subtlety gone from Plastic today?
sixpercent.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 148. Re: Another source... | | | | by madison | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 4:17pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
So it can be said that their license to be there was revoked because of the shirts. They were arrested, however, because they unlawfully remained after being told that their license to be there had been taken away.
It could be said that their license to be there was revoked, but this doesn't really help.
It should be clear that not all reasons for revoking someone's license to remain are considered legal, e.g. racial segregation, but the statute you cite makes no mention of that. So there must be other relevant law here that you've left out.
I think maybe the problem is that the words "private" and "public" are being used in a couple of different contexts here. A "privately" owned business that is open to the "public" is not considered to be a "private" place and therefore it's operation can be regulated by the "public". In some cases the words "public" and "private" mean governmental and non-governmental, and in other cases the words describe the nature of the space we are talking about.
Personally I don't think we should have to give up our rights as long as we are in "public".
The mall was trying control the Downs' speech in a public place. If they want to have the kind of control that goes with being a "private" place they should convert to a members' only admission policy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 152. Re: Another source... | | | | by vurt | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 4:52pm | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 129 | | | | | |
This is America, shatov. The whole damn country is a no-peace zone; love it or leave it, you marxist punk. :)
And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 153. Re: Another source... | | | | by snarkism | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:22pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 15 | | | | | |
No, you completely misunderstood it. He was given the option to leave private property OR take off the t-shirt.
So, why weren't other patrons told to remove their shirts?
If it were a dress-code thing, then all people wearing T-shirts would have to be expelled. there were no signs prohibiting the wearing of T-shirts in the mall.
Why is it trespassing to express an opinion on a T-shirt? What about freedom of expression?
snarkism
That's using your ass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 156. Re: No prize. | | | | by snarkism | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:30pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 75 | | | | | |
A closer example might be if they ejected people for wearing obviously inflammatory racially-based slogans.
That's still freedom of speech, and they should not be able to eject those people either.
snarkism
That's using your ass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 157. Re: Another source... | | | | by snarkism | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:36pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 83 | | | | | |
Because this is public space but private property, constitutional questions are moot; They were invitees who were no longer welcome.
Really?
Could they get away with telling a guy "stop being black, or else you are trespassing"? I don't think so.
If the order was unconstitutional, then it is not lawful. I don't think trespass law supercedes the constitution.
snarkism
That's using your ass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 159. Re: Another source... | | | | by snarkism | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:39pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 127 | | | | | |
I would just add that the Supreme Court has held that customary constitutional protection for free speech does not apply to shopping malls b/c no state action is involved.
Ahhhh, but this case DOES involve the state. Because the police (paid for by the State) tried to enforce an unconstitutional request in also asking him to remove the shirt.
Also, the State gives greater protection to malls than the public, so the state most certainly is involved.
snarkism
That's using your ass.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 161. Re: Another source... | | | | by stankow | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:24pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 159 | | | | | |
Ahhhh, but this case DOES involve the state. Because the police (paid for by the State) tried to enforce an unconstitutional request in also asking him to remove the shirt. No, the police enforced a constitutional request in saying, "Sir, your behavior is upsetting to the owner of this property and/or his duly appointed representative. Therefore, said representatives have asked you to depart the premises or to cease said behavior." Would you prefer if they simply clapped the irons on him without giving him the option?
Should the behavior have been protected speech? No, I don't think so. If I went to a mall and started telling people that the mall sucked and they were losers, then the mall could request that I either stop or leave. Absolutely within their rights.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 162. Re: Holy christ, it was an analogy, | | | | by shatov | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:30pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 141 | | | | | |
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE HYPOTHETICAL ROBBER MIGHT HAVE BEEN TRESPASSING.
The issue is the reason that the security guards gave for asking the t-shirt wearers to leave. The analogy of the robbery was a bad one, which I was showing. The t-shirt wearing is directly related to the criminal act of trespassing, while robbing a store is not connected in the same way to driving to the store.
A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 182. Re: Another source... | | | | by Korovyov | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 8:09am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 138 | | | | | |
Would a policeman arrest somebody for trespass if the mall owner was getting people to take off their plaid shirts?
Plaid shirts don't convey any sort of message. What if somebody was wearing gang colors? Would we even care if mall owners didn't allow the Bloods to wear red in their malls?
I leave you to fill in the policeman's response. I think that it may well not be very civil.
The articles point out that the cops were pretty reluctant to arrest this guy. They pleaded with the guy for an hour to remove his shirt instead of getting taken in.
My previous post wasn't meant to support the arrest. Rather to defend bradleytank who I thought was kind of getting jumped on for simply pointing out the way the law was phrased.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 184. Re: Another source... | | | | by AugustIcon | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 8:59am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 161 | | | | | |
No, the police enforced a constitutional request in saying, "Sir, your behavior is upsetting to the owner of this property and/or his duly appointed representative. Therefore, said representatives have asked you to depart the premises or to cease said behavior."
The police would not be enforcing a "constitutional request" because this is the request of a private owner. In other words, the police are enforcing private property rights. Otherwise, you're right, a court would not perceive the police escorting this man off mall property as sufficient to justify "state action" by the shopping center's owner.
It's analogous to a private home owner calling the police to have an unwanted trespasser removed from the property. Remember, at least under the common law, you or I can call the police and have an unwanted trespasser escorted or removed from our property, if they refuse to go when you ask them. However, discussion of arresting that person is probably going too far, unless the trespasser escalates the incident.
Also, trespassers, again under common law, are only liable for actual damages done to the property. So we're not talking about arrest and summary execution of shopping mall protestors here. Just the mall owner's ability to remove unwanted folk from his property, called the "right to exclude."
As a civil libertarian, I agree with you in substance, snarkism. But as a legal claim, this is a settled point of law. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses its opinion in Lloyd Corp., where the Court ruled that a shopping center owner's right to exclude outweighed the shopper/protestors' free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, this claim is a loser. (The only exception I can think of is if this mall is unusually imbued with public facilities like a post office, other government office, and it holds itself out as a public meeting place -- inviting the public to come in and conduct commerce is not enough.)
In a case called Pruneyard Shopping Center, the Supreme Court ruled that a state's constitution could provide protection for free speech that went beyond that provided by the U.S. Constitution, but so far, almost all states, including New York, have declined to do so.
So, while this may run against our libertarian instincts, private shopping mall owners' currently have the right to remove political activists, people wearing plaid, and the topless from their buildings.
Oh, as an aside, the reason that the mall owner would not be able to exclude people based on race, sex, or some other protected class is because of the protection provided to these classes by federal and state anti-discrimination laws. I don't know this regime very well though, and will leave it to someone more knowledgeable to run through it.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 189. Re: Another source... | | | | by madison | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 12:08pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 184 | | | | | |
In a case called Pruneyard Shopping Center, the Supreme Court ruled that a state's constitution could provide protection for free speech that went beyond that provided by the U.S. Constitution, but so far, almost all states, including New York, have declined to do so.
Out of curiosity I looked up the Pruneyard case, and I found this scorecard.
It looks like only eight states protect the public's rights in public places to some extent.
As a civil libertarian, I agree with you in substance, snarkism. But as a legal claim, this is a settled point of law. Unless and until the Supreme Court reverses its opinion in Lloyd Corp., where the Court ruled that a shopping center owner's right to exclude outweighed the shopper/protestors' free speech rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, this claim is a loser.
The case Marsh v. Alabama is an interesting precedent. The issue in Marsh was whether the state can deny the free speech rights of its citizens in a company owned town when citizens' express interests contrary to the owner's wishes. Or in other words, should the state enforce trespassing laws when the practical effect is to limit freedom of expression?
The Court decided in favor of the public:
While the Court noted the importance of private-property rights, it concluded that because the company-owned town displayed many attributes of a municipality, the state-action requirement was satisfied for the constitutional purposes of sustaining free-speech rights. According to the Court, "whether a corporation or a municipality owns or possesses the town the public in either case has an identical interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channels of communication remain free. The Court noted that it was necessary for all citizens, even those living in company-owned towns, to have access to "uncensored" information in order to make informed decisions about those things that affect the welfare of the community as well as the nation.
Justice Black wrote for the majority:
"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."
Since, as many others have pointed out in this discussion, malls have become the new city centers maybe the Marsh case is really the relevant law here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 190. Re: Another source... | | | | by Jedi Paramedic | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 1:08pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 182 | | | | | |
Would we even care if mall owners didn't allow the Bloods to wear red in their malls? I think you raise a good point, one that the Supremes have, in the past, delineated with different levels of scrutiny in their review of how one action infringes upon the rights of another...
If there's a compelling state interest in avoiding violence, there might be a good reason to ask people to not wear gang-identifying colors at the mall, or hats in banks, or whatever. But I think that Crossgates management is going to have a tough time getting this one past strict scrutiny (if they're ever subject to review for violating Downs' civil rights under s. 1983 or whatever)...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 192. Re: Lloyd precedent | | | | by AugustIcon | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 2:00pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 189 | | | | | |
It's a good point, Madison. I skipped over some of the precedent leading up to the Lloyd decision.
The case that you cite, Marsh v. Alabama, represents the high water mark for free expression rights on private property. In that case, decided in 1948, the Court held that First and Fourteenth Amendment rights applied when the owners of a "company town" tried to prevent people from distributing religious material in the town. The Court reasoned that because the town had so many charateristics of a public space the "state action" requirement was satisfied, and constitutional protections applied. Put succinctly, the company town was the "functional equivalent" of a municipal meeting place. The Court also permitted union picketing in a shopping center in a case called, Logan Valley (1968).
However, by the 70s, the Court began moving away from these decisions, as represented by the opinion in Lloyd. As the Court later stated, "the rationale of Logan Valley did not survive the Court's decision in the Lloyd case." Hudgens v. NLRB (1976).
Thus, Lloyd survives as current law (as amended by the Pruneyard decision, both of which were discussed in my previous message).
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 85. Re: "My point was I'm not trying to convert | | | | by David Flores | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:27pm | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 33 | | | | | |
The guy handed fifty bucks to the Evil Forces Of Capitalism, receiving in return maybe a dollar's worth of fabric and a few cents' worth of ink, with the self-stated goal of accomplishing absolutely nothing.
What makes you think that this guy's got anything against Capitalism? You're against the war in Iraq and suddenly you're a Communist? That's the most ridiculous thing I've heard all day (though, granted, I haven't tuned into a Bush speech all day, either).
GAFB and GAFB2
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 169. Re: I thought he'd at least buy the shirt... | | | | by David Flores | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:51pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 125 | | | | | |
...someplace other than at the mall itself. Y'know, support your local downtown merchants instead of the bastard corporate weasel sellouts at the mall, that sort of thing.
Perhaps, but even if he were a anti-capitalist, neo-hippie as opposed to a guy who just doesn't think we should go to war, buying the shirt anywhere else would have robbed the arrest of much of its priceless irony.
GAFB and GAFB2
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 133. Once again, The Smoking Gun is on the case | | | | by Brian Jones | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:32pm | score of 1.5 informative | | in reply to comment 1 | | | | | |
And the situation is more complex than any of the media reports thus far.
From what I can make out of the written statements - and thank goodness for typed summaries; doesn't anybody teach penmanship in school any more? - the Downses were not only wearing the shirts but were also badgering shoppers, and that's the part that's definitely a no-no.
It also seems to contradict the elder Downs' statement to the Times-Union that he wasn't "trying to convert anybody".
Cheap crass attention-whoring plug goes here.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 164. Re: Once again, The Smoking Gun is on the case | | | | by shatov | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 6:58pm | score of 2 informative | | in reply to comment 133 | | | | | |
From the statements it does appear that the two men were stopping other shoppers to talk to them. The first statement is from a store security officer, who had an old woman approach her to express concerns about the two men. Apparently they were having heated exchanges with other shoppers, and the old woman worried that it would erupt into a fight.
The store security guard then called the mall security guard, who wrote the second statement. He went to the scene, and as he approached he reports seeing the two men walking along, and stopping other shoppers to say why they were wearing the peace t-shirts. The mall guard approached them, and asked them to: (a) stop harrassing the other shoppers; (b) remove or cover the t-shirts. While they agreed to do (a), the father refused to do (b). Furthermore he refused to leave the mall.
In fact, he was taken into custody, and then it appears that he was removed from the mall, but then tried to go back in. Or maybe he just said that if he was removed he would try to re-enter the store. Either way, having made the decision to eject him from the mall, the only way to enforce that was to have him arrested. And this appears to have been at his own insistence.
The problem that the mall owners will have is that the security guard shouldn't have asked them to remove the t-shirts. What they should have done was have one security guard follow the men to make sure that they didn't bother anybody else, or just eject they for the first disturbance. The decision to push for removing the t-shirts is what gives the father his law suit material.
So, maybe we shouldn't be so sympathetic to the Downs, although I have no problem with, and have done, similar actions in the past. They were 'caught', and asked to stop or leave. Reasonable enough. But the security guards fucked up with the t-shirt request. That was unjustified.
A forged document can also be a weapon of mass destruction.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 3. Free Speech on Private Property | | | | by Saige | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:20am | score of 1.5 helpful | | | | | | |
A couple links regarding free expression on private property.
The issue is far from being decided at this point. There have been some cases where charges against someone exercising their first amendment rights on private property such as a shopping mall have been upheld. Other cases have seen similar charges struck down.
It seems that the unusual public nature of privately owned shopping malls and the like makes the cases not very cut-and-dried. After all, they are owned by someone, which usually gives that person the ability to ask someone to leave if they don't like what they're doing - but these private spaces are pretty much opened to the public, with large crowds, and some courts have ruled that the public nature of the spaces brings along a need to allow some level of first amendment protection for the people in those spaces.
So far, it seems to be a state-by-state thing, an issue yet unresolved by the US Supreme Court. I was unable to find info on past New York State decisions to get a better idea of where this case might be going. Considering that these two were hardly protesting, and simply wearing shirts BOUGHT AT THE MALL, I'd think they're on the better legal ground in this case.
I think the publicity for the mall isn't going to be exactly what they wanted, either.
--'ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge' - Darwin
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 120. The New Republic | | | | by weiyuent | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:25pm | score of 1.5 novel | | in reply to comment 3 | | | | | |
From Merriam Webster:
feudalism - the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries having as its basis the relation of lord to vassal with all land held in fee and as chief characteristics homage, the service of tenants under arms and in court, wardship, and forfeiture.
How is that different from life today in America, with the "world's greatest democracy" effectively ruled by robber barons?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 4. Yet another reason why Albany should be bulldozed! | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:29am | score of 3 brilliant | | | | | | |
Look, it's nothing against the people of Albany to explain that the whole area should have been plowed into the ground in 1963 with each resident given 25 dollars and bus ticket to someplace decent. Like Rochester or Binghamton.
Sure, I'm sure they're nice people and all, but the psychic resonances of the place and the god-awful architecture of downtown Albany are just bleeding out into the world and these sorts of things are bound to happen under those influences. Hell, you could re-route I-90 through a "reclaimed" Albany and probably cut 30 minutes off of a trip to anyplace decent, like say Ithaca, making the cost to society of having to burn the whole freakish mess to the ground a whole lot more acceptable.
Sure, there's some nice things about it, but when are we going to learn that a few redeeming features do not outweigh the impact of such ugliness.
And people wonder why I claim that civilization ends at Rt 128!
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 16. Re: Yet another reason why Albany should be | | | | by mws | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:56am | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
someplace decent. Like Rochester or Binghamton
You've never been to Binghamton, then?
Hell, you could re-route I-90 through a "reclaimed" Albany and probably cut 30 minutes off of a trip to anyplace decent, like say Ithaca
I think you need to study a map of New York. Ithaca is quite far from I-90 and bulldozing Albany isn't going to make it any closer.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 25. Re: Yet another reason why Albany should be | | | | by Palindrome | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:29am | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
with each resident given 25 dollars and bus ticket to someplace decent. Like Rochester or Binghamton.
Have you been to Rochester lately? I think 1963 marked Rochester's golden age, and it wasn't that great even then.
Besides, if you razed Albany, where would Pataki live?
ha ha ha ha
"He is a lover of his country who rebukes and does not excuse its sins. -Frederick Douglass"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 44. Re: Are you nuts? Albany is that area's garden | | | | by Pengie | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:36am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 38 | | | | | |
Why would you want to sack Troy? Nobody in that shithole's got anything worth plundering.
Except maybe some of the dorms at RPI...but then you have to climb that big-ass hill, and who wants that? Better to just burn it all.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 48. Re: Are you nuts? Albany is that area's garden | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:55am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 44 | | | | | |
"Better to just burn it all."
OK! OK! I'll move Troy from the Sack list to the Burn list. Any other edits, while I'm updating the spreadsheets?
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 132. Re: Are you nuts? Albany is that area's garden | | | | by cpg | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 44 | | | | | |
Just leave the Houston Fieldhouse and the hockey players' dorms, so that we alums can keep watching RPI hockey. Feel free to execute Fridgen, though.
Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 144. Re: Are you nuts? Albany is that area's garden | | | | by Jedi Paramedic | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 4:05pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 132 | | | | | |
Oh, come on - you've got to leave the Lally School and the Pittsburgh building so the hockey team can major in Business and Management.
Buddy was OK before going back to Bowling Green, but I agree and think that Fridgen's time has come...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 145. Re: Are you nuts? Albany is that area's garden | | | | by cpg | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 4:09pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 144 | | | | | |
Okay, since that will also spare Sage, where the hockey players too challenged by Management can take H&SS majors.
Can you believe that Fridgen just got an extension in January? Un-fucking-believable.
BTW, RPI over Union this weekend, 2-1 - bet the ranch!
Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 47. Why malls are really "public" in Albany... | | | | by Jedi Paramedic | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:54am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 4 | | | | | |
Look, it's nothing against the people of Albany to explain that the whole area should have been plowed into the ground in 1963 with each resident given 25 dollars and bus ticket to someplace decent. Like Rochester or Binghamton. Well, in one sense, they tried (to bulldoze Albany, not to give everyone a bus ticket)... Scroll down for the "quick and dirty" of why malls should be considered public there, or read on for my drivel.
I grew up in Troy, and local lore (yet to be verified by more than anecdotal sources) goes something like this: In the '60s, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller was a big proponent of several things - one was big politics, and one was the Interstate Highway System. Originally, I-88 (which ends at NYS Thruway exit 25A) was supposed to blow through Albany, go across the river (did you ever wonder why the bridge under the Empire State Plaza looks like it's supposed to go straight, then stops suddenly?), blow through Rensselaer and East Greenbush, and follow what is currently NY Route 7. A later compromise would have made it follow I-787, and then Route 7 (as I-88) would have been elevated through Troy and then returned to ground level somewhere East of the city.
This style of "urban renewal" was much more successful in other Upstate NY cities, like Syracuse, were people were eminent domained in rapid fashion to build I-690.
As for Rockefeller's political fun, part of that had to do with then-mayor Erastus Corning. Both wanted the State Capitol to have a skyline worthy of the Empire State. Hence, the Empire State Plaza (complete with Egg) was born. Between the ESP and I-787, Albany managed to cut its downtown off from what was long its saving grace - its connection to the Hudson River and direct access to the waterfront. Some lip service was paid to the importance of the waterfront access through the Corning Preserve, a local park along the Hudson, which until recently was only accessible by car from downtown. A pedestrian bridge was recently erected.
In a further effort to put Albany on the map, Corning made it bigger, annexing parts of Menands, Slingerlands, and Guilderland to increase the plot size and create land for the new "uptown" campus of SUNY Albany. Various stories exist, but the word is that the architecture for the uptown campus was originally intended for a Kenyan water treatment plant (or an Arizonan campus, depending on whose story you believe).
The quick and dirty:
This is relevant to the current discussion, though - partially as a result of making everyone dependent on cars, and partially as a result of the three "major" local cities continually shooting themselves in the foot by continuing to be political and parochial instead of cooperating with and regionalizing many things, the malls have become the only true common place for people to meet, transact, and just be. (Especially considering that downtown life is nil in all but Albany, and winters are long and cold.)
When you consider the tax advantages that malls often receive, the laws they're allowed to bend (see also Karner Blue Butterfly), the fact that they purport to draw people to the area (DestiNY, Carousel Center, and Crossgates are all owned by Pyramid Cos.), the public benefits they receive (bus routes, public services like snow plowing on roads that lead to the mall, etc.), and the ability to exclusively draw the "big name" merchants and often movie theaters (in the Albany area, I can think of only one movie theater (in East Greenbush) that is not fused with a mall - Troy's "Cinema Art" doesn't count), is it fair to say that malls (at least in this scenario) have become so omnipresent that we can impose an expectation of free speech and expression on them?
I have to agree with an earlier poster that it's ironic that the mall considers "Peace"/"No War With Iraq" political or offensive, but not "Jerry Jennings for Mayor" or "Marilyn Manson/Antichrist Superstar".And people wonder why I claim that civilization ends at Rt 128! Since moving to the Boston area, I couldn't agree with you more!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 50. Re: Why malls are really "public" in Albany... | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:13am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 47 | | | | | |
"Well, in one sense, they tried (to bulldoze Albany, not to give everyone a bus ticket)..."
Yep, it's just that sort of half-assed attempt to do the right thing that always falls short of the mark. If they'd just been willing to spend the cash a little more freely then people wouldn't be stuck in Albany just because they were born there, have families and jobs there, or are too lazy to leave. They wouldn't have to live in those cold long winters and they wouldn't have to view the indoor spaces of malls as "public" spaces if they'd just taken the hint and moved elsewhere.
And it's not just Albany, NY. For crying out loud, can someone please help out the people of Calgary? Cincinatti? Pittsburg? Sure, there was a time when these were important places. That time was, unfortunately, a long time ago. Now these people are thinking City X is really important because... and they drift off like that thinking that maybe they had a reason and now they don't really.
And y'know, some cities have really adapted well. Some haven't. I can't understand why the hell Madison, Wisconsin hasn't been allowed to just fall back into the ground, aside from it being the capitol. I can't see what's so great about Warwick, Rhode Island (or much of Rhode Island at all) hasn't been slowly pushed into the Atlantic Ocean or used as a training range for the marine corps to practice amphibious assaults. But I can see the charms of a town like Hartford, CT. I can see where someone would get attached to Souix Falls, SD. I could see where Macon, GA would grow on you.
So, look around your town, does it have something that's really special? Something meaningful to people other than you? Does it have something that couldn't just as easily exist just about anywhere else? If not, why not leave? Just get out before people realize the towns about to vanish and sell to some rube who don't know better.
Of course, if you find something there you could never find anywhere else, I, personally, would love to hear about it. I'll add it to my eventual road-trip route. Shit, once they finish paving over all the Albanies of the world I'll make excellent time on my way there.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 67. Re: Why malls are really "public" in Albany... | | | | by Jedi Paramedic | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 11:06am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 50 | | | | | |
So, look around your town, does it have something that's really special? Something meaningful to people other than you? Does it have something that couldn't just as easily exist just about anywhere else? If not, why not leave? On the other hand, why not be a little more optimistic?
Does your town have something that makes it worth standing? Did it? Troy, for example, was a renowned 19th century industrial city, and the jewel of the Hudson for a while in its heyday. The Burden Iron Works produced the iron cladding for the Monitor, which fought against the also-famous Merrimack in the Civil War. It's the location of the Troy Federal Lock & Dam, the first dam on the Hudson as you travel North from NYC. North of Troy, the Mohawk joins the Hudson, and provided a means of travel Westward for a while until they built the Erie Canal (Which, I believe, began in Watervliet).
Among other things, Albany is the state capitol (they use "ol," not "al" on the signage, so I figured I'd conform). I'm less versed in Albany lore, so I won't defend it much.
But what it comes down to is this: should we just bulldoze anything that's not new and pretty? I'm well on my way to becoming a "128 snob" (and a North Shore one at that!) around Boston, but I don't think that Worcester is any less relevant to the people that live there because of where I live...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 68. Re: Why malls are really "public" in Albany... | | | | by OSULugan | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 11:10am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 50 | | | | | |
Cincinatti? ... Sure, there was a time when these were important places. That time was, unfortunately, a long time ago. Now these people are thinking City X is really important because... and they drift off like that thinking that maybe they had a reason and now they don't really.
You, sir, are wrong. Without a loser there can't be any winners.
And God says, "No, that's not right." Yeah. Well. Whatever. You can't teach God anything.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 5. I'm on his side | | | | by ddp42 | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:29am | score of 3 compelling | | | | | | |
Man, this almost makes me wish I lived in Albany so I could boycott the mall ('course I'm boycotting it now, but since I'm in New Hampshire, I doubt it makes quite the same statement).
If "Peace on Earth" and "Give Peace a Chance" are taboo at the mall, they're going to have a rough time come Christmas - hell, there's even a bunch of Christmas carols they're going to have to take out of the line-up.
Just for consistency's sake, why didn't they hustle the T-shirt's vendor out of the mall, too? Wait, I think I know the answer to that, something about the sanctity of commercial transactions ("we're happy to take your money, now leave.")
It would be interesting to have a bunch of people go to the mall and get the same T-shirts printed up and walk around with them. If enough people did it, maybe they'd have to rethink their policy. Though I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that the store that sold the T-shirt would be most reluctant to print more of the same.
I'm happy the father stood his ground in an, apparently, calm and dignified way. I hope his next T-shirt-at-the-mall adventure is where he tries to wear a "give freedom of expression a chance" T-shirt.
Not all flowers open in the morning.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 31. Re: I'm on his side | | | | by GodSpiral | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:01am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 5 | | | | | |
It is absolutely incredible, given the blandness of the T-shirts that they were asked to leave.
I mean, 'kill warmongering republicans before they kill you' might be on the controversial side, and offensive to some.
But this is about as bland as the slogan 'disarm Iraq'
All Calculating American Satanists are Evangelical Christians
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 140. Re: jackpot | | | | by catfood | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:50pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 71 | | | | | |
And, as others have noted, malls have become - and marketed themselves as - the de facto public spaces in many American towns and suburbs.
Indeed. How many malls have words like "commons" or "community" or "town square" in their names?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 7. Does Anyone Else | | | | by iarnuocon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:34am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
wonder whether the two would have subsequently been ejected from the mall for going shirtless?
What's really at stake here is whether a highly accessible space designed for public commerce can be considered "private property" in the same way that, say, your home could. It seems a bit strange that a mall could spend a large amount of time trying to be accessible, to draw in the public, could not require "membership" of any sort from anyone, and be designed expressly as a large "public" space, then subsequently single out individuals as "trespassers." In the face of a lack of an actual public disturbance, it seems disingenuous that the mall would require these two vacating the premises based on their "creating a disturbance." The disturbance was created by security, not by the shirts.
A related question is how can the mall eject someone for wearing a product sold by the mall? It's not as though they were parading around in Victoria Secret undergarments (a potential violation of public indecency laws.)
I say good for the Downses. I hope they take it all the way to the Supreme Court.
insanus omnis furere credit ceteros... ecce signum
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 12. Re: Does Anyone Else | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:44am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
"Does anyone else wonder whether the two would have subsequently been ejected from the mall for going shirtless?"
Not really, because they were wearing the tee shirts "atop other clothes".
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 19. Re: Does Anyone Else | | | | by gonzocanuck | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:08am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 7 | | | | | |
I wondered the same thing too.
Gosh! What a slippery slope we're on. Back in my day a Megadeth or Metallica t-shirt was enough to get you kicked out of school, never mind a mall :-D
I'm reminded of an ancient Tom Tomorrow cartoon that compares NEA and military spending - the government spent billions on weapons but not a dime on an art installment showing two men making love :-D
You've got to coax him slow, that's the only way that he'll confess.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 8. This Is Insane | | | | by montana rain | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:35am | score of 0.5 compelling | | | | | | |
Oh this is great. Now the government is trying to tell people WHAT THEY SHOULD WEAR?!?!?! Pardon my FRENCH, but FUCK THAT! A shirt with a PEACE SIGN is now offensive? You know what is REALLY offensive? The fact that these two men were harassed by the cops for wearing a shirt with a peace sign on it. I applaud Mr. Downs for refusing to leave the mall simply because of the shirt he wore. I wouldn't leave, either. These men still have the right to free expression (or so I thought) and so that means they have just as much of a right to be at the mall as the 14 year old kid with blue hair and a Marilyn Manson shirt that says ANTI-CHRIST SUPERSTAR (isn't that sac-religious?) Besides, with the financial problems mall stores are having, they should be happy ANYONE is even shopping at them. These men have inspired me. I'm going to have a shirt made today, and I'm going to go shopping, except I'm gonna have my shirt say "Fuck you if you think that peace is offensive". Wonder what the for hire mall cops will have to say about that.
someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 36. Re: This Is Insane | | | | by montana rain | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:21am | score of 1.5 succinct | | in reply to comment 11 | | | | | |
Um, no, I'm not 15. I just think that the mall cops should worry more about shoplifters then a person wearing a t-shirt with a peace sign on it. Thanks.
someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 49. Re: This Is Insane | | | | by montana rain | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:12am | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 13 | | | | | |
I DO BELIEVE THAT ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS A JUDGEMENT MADE BY THE GOVERNMENT, BECAUSE IT HAS TO DO WITH BEING POLITICALLY CORRECT, WHICH IS AN AMERICAN IDEAL INSTILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT. OBVIOUSLY, IN THE U.S. TODAY, BEING PRO-PEACE IS NOT PC, THEREFORE, MAKING SOMEONE WHO IS PRO-PEACE "UN-AMERICAN". THE MALL OWNER IS MAKING THIS T-SHIRT ISSUE A BIG DEAL BECAUSE IT WANTS TO BE PC, THEREFORE MAKING THE MALL "PRO-AMERICAN" . IF IT WASN'T FOR THE GOVERNMENT'S IDEALS, THE MALL OWNER COULD PROBABLY CARE LESS WHAT PEOPLE WORE AS LONG AS THEY BUY!BUY!BUY! SO, EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT OWN THE MALL, ITS IDEALS ARE RUNNING IT.
someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 34. Re: This Is Insane | | | | by ignoblus | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:14am | score of 1.5 nuanced | | in reply to comment 26 | | | | | |
I don't want to go overboard in defending an OT argument that someone who apparently didn't even read the write-up might or might not make, but:
It's not a secret cabal. It operates in plain sight. It isn't very well organized. They don't have secret meetings. Membership isn't even that exclusive. But there is a group of loosely affiliated rich people who do have disproportionate political power and do exercise it, by buying access to politicians and by manipulating the marketplace, to maintain their power.
Or, on the other hand, BushCo could well qualify as a more proper cabal.
It never was that simple, and it still isn't.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 39. Re: This Is Insane | | | | by cargoculture | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:28am | score of 1.5 funny | | in reply to comment 34 | | | | | |
yeah, but you know, I prefer it with the bits about drinking the blood of newborn babies and the Queen of England being a lizard beast in disguise left in. Sure, it's not strickly true in any normal sense of the word, but I feel it has an underlying metaphorical truth that shines through.
Also I'm pretty certain that Donald Rumsfeld masturbates over pictures of dead Iraqi babies.
Successful breeder
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 18. Re: This Is Insane | | | | by chatsubo | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:04am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
I find people WHO TYPE IN ALL CAPS very offensive, no matter what T-Shirt they are wearing.
Righetous anger is all well and good, but good grammar is the true tool of the revolutionary.
Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 54. Re: This Is Insane | | | | by montana rain | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:23am | score of 0.5 obnoxious | | in reply to comment 18 | | | | | |
I DIDN'T TYPE MY INITIAL WRITE-UP IN ALL CAPS. THIS IS WHAT ALL CAPS LOOKS LIKE. FURTHERMORE, I DIDN'T THINK MY GRAMMAR WAS ALL THAT BAD FOR BEING A PRODUCT OF THE FAILING PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IN AMERICA.
someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 183. Re: This is Insane | | | | by Coffeedemon | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 8:46am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 175 | | | | | |
Or you could just ignore the user for now rather than a blanket ban and a vague link that will just get him/her blocked by anyone with a little less awareness of where it goes. Its your perogative but I thought it suspect that the link altered MY blocking settings just for me being curious. An easy matter to fix nonetheless but still.
Even the worst trolls and AIs on here often come up with a pearl of wisdom now and then that eludes us if we choose to just tuck it away. Personally I've seen worse here...
... but I lied when I said that honesty was dead - NoMeansNo
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 57. Man, kids don't even read the writeups anymore. | | | | by sideshow | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:34am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 8 | | | | | |
Back in my day, we read the writeup. Un doing so we would have seen that it wasn't "The Man™" who was responsible but the owner of the mall who can keep 14 year punks like you out his mall if he damn well pleases.
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 61. Re: Man, kids don't even read the writeups | | | | by montana rain | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:48am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 57 | | | | | |
Yes, I did read the writeup, and I do believe this judgement made by the mall owner is a result of government ideals, even if the government doesn't own the mall. I believe I stated something about that fact in a earlier posting. And again, I am not 14, nor do I even shop at malls because I haven't been brainwashed into wasting money on overpriced crap.
someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 10. A Case of the Downs Syndrome. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:39am | score of 2 informative | | | | | | |
I understand that you and I have the absolute right to prevent whatever protesting or politicking somebody else might think is a dandy idea on private property, such as your home. But, as the links helpfully provided by Saige above indicate, the jury is still out when it comes to allowing people to engage in free speech in a quasi-public area, such as a mall. The mall is, after all, a place where the public is openly invited in to do a number of things (just as long as you shop till you drop).
The Downs purchased a set of tee shirts from a tee shirt seller at the mall. The operator of the store put the political messages on the tee shirts. So, my question is what gives the mall the right to refuse the wearing of such a tee in the mall? Crap, just click to the link that shows the tees. If anything, they are about as inoffensive as anything I've seen since I saw the one with "World's Greatest Mom Mom" on it.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 41. Re: Land Of The Free* | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:30am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 27 | | | | | |
Great. Thanks to you I have to explain to my boss what's so damn funny about our conference calls.
Fucking broken mute switch.
He's got a pretty good sense of humor, so I'll tell him it was the fault of a CABAL of scaly old MILLIONAIRE BASTARDS which SECRETLY CONTROLS my laughter.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 22. The amateurs. | | | | by n29_w95 |  | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:13am | score of 5 funny | | | | | | |
The trick to use when you get mall cops to ask you to remove your "Peace" shirt is to have another shirt on underneath it that says "Fuck This Mall" or "Fuck You, Rent-A-Pig".
---Pie is good!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 32. Mall Security... | | | | by Kilroy77 | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:03am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Having worked in a mall for awhile I have good information that all the mall security would be able to do(had the Downs become belligerent and hostile) is to walkie-talkie someone about it and possibly throw a ring of keys at them...
The cops on the other hand...
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 104. Re: Mall Security... | | | | by Killjoy | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:16pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 32 | | | | | |
"Having worked in a mall for awhile I have good information that all the mall security would be able to do(had the Downs become belligerent and hostile) is to walkie-talkie someone about it and possibly throw a ring of keys at them...
The cops on the other hand..."
That's just it. Private security is not bound by Constitutional law since they are "protecting" private property, not public. For all intents and purposes this means that you relinquish your Constitutional rights whenever you step into a mall. However, since they are private security they are not allowed guns and handcuffs and the power to arrest. This seems a fair trade-off - I have fewer rights in your mall, and you have less power over me.
Ahhh, I hear the more prescient of you saying, but they are allowed guns and handcuffs and arrest powers because they are allowed to use the police to enforce their decisions (and they frequently do). Thus the means for law enforcement may be slightly different than when I'm walking down the street, but the end is the same; in other words for all intents and purposes police officers, or public servants, are enforcing private law on private property.
More importantly, this means that in these locations police officers may violate your Constitutional rights since they are enforcing the request of a private security force that is not bound by the Constitution. To me that is simply abhorrent.
Even leaving that aside, there remains the question of relationship between public and private law - does enforcing private property laws and private decisions count as one of the duties of public servants? I understand that I as a homeowner am allowed to call upon the police to remove an individual who I accuse of trespassing from my private property. Am I allowed to call the police to remove from my property someone who I feel is not dressed properly?
A post further up the thread argued that "He was given the option to leave private property OR take off the t-shirt. He chose neither option. So, his physical presence then constituted trespassing. He was NOT arrested for what he wore." This however is false. You cannot end the act of trespassing by removing your shirt. You only stop trespassing when you leave. Thus if trespassing was really the issue then leaving the mall would have been the only option that avoided arrest.
The problem here is twofold. First we have mall security making an ethically bankrupt decision: "I don't like those two wearing that T-shirt in this mall. Since there's no law against it, if they don't remove the shirts I'm going to charge them with breaking a law they're not actually breaking." By the way, this is the answer to the question I posed earlier: Yes, I can have the police remove a "badly dressed" person from my own private property - as long as I have the conscience of a law enforcement officer, and choose to lie about the reason for removal. As anyone in or associated with law enforcement knows, abuse of power and misuse of laws creates hypocrisy, and when this hypocrisy is seen by the citizens, it reduces their willingness to obey laws that have been made arbitrary.
Secondly we have the police enforcing this bad decision, which raises the public vs. private law question I mentioned earlier.
I understand that this incident came to pass because of broad laws and little precedent. The current legal definitions of "trespassing" and "loitering" (trespassing in public, gotta love it) are very broad. They should not be. Malls are currently defined solely as private property. They should not be. Last but not least police are allowed to enforce decisions made by people not bound by Constitutional law, i.e. mall security. They should not be. I understand that making the mall a public place means that the cops would officially be the enforcers in malls, but they already are. Such a change would take mall security out of the picture, thus at least removing the ability to circumvent the Constitution. That, in my eyes, would be a change for the better.
Step 2. Smite enemies with burning pigs.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 37. "Normal Usage" | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:22am | score of 1.5 succinct | | | | | | |
The whole issue that one of the mall vendors sold the shirts seems a bit of a sideline, almost irrelevant really. Many things sold at malls would be denied 'normal usage' in their halls: power tools, spraypaint, televisions, etc.
Will this ever see the inside of a court? Probably not. If the mall owners had a written, even oral, policy concerning appropriate political messages on shirts, they'd be opening themselves up for a federal civil rights case. Heck, the Downs family could send a friend in with a "Free Mumia" shirt and see what happens-- if he (or she) wasn't hassled at all, then they could claim it was purely the content of the message, not its offensiveness or inflammability, that caused the arrest. I would NOT like to be the lawyer arguing the mall's side of that case . . .
Taking a step back though, all I ask is *WTF*? Perhaps I'm too much a West coast boy, but the notion that mall security would even care about these shirts strikes me as outrageous. Is the whole area such a tinderbox of confrontation that a simple spark like this could explode? No, I'm going to mark this down in my "security cops are occasionally idiots" file, and hope there's nothing more to it.
(And that file's pretty full of late. One security "gent" for the plaza of my bookstore was banned from entering for sexually harassing one of our employees. He came in a couple weeks later, and apparently did not understand that there was no expiration date on this ban. Yeesh.)
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | | 45. Wearing political slogans is now an offense? | | | | by paul_holloway | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:47am | score of 2 astute | | | | | | |
...where thoughts are illegal.
Welcome to the police state, people. Keep on thinking and acting in a manner that conforms and you will be okay. Step out of line, though... Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's troubles in Russia began in 1945, when he was arrested for making jokes about Stalin in letters to a friend. In the USA today joking about the president - say by making a quip about a "burning bush" in a bar - gets you three years in jail.
And the worst of it is that you are all so fucking letting it happen. 1984 was written about totalitarian regimes like Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. It seems to be alive in Bush's America right now though, particularly "NewSpeak" and "Doublethink": to get peace we must wage war; to be free we must have our freedoms curtailed; to defend the will United Nations we must ignore the will of the United Nations; to punish transgressions of the Chemical Weapons Convention we must break the Chemicals Weapons Convention (OK, the last two haven't happened yet, but give it three weeks).
"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 154. Calm down, Paul. | | | | by vurt | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:23pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 45 | | | | | |
First off: the gubmint had very little to do with this. It's a story about a mall security cop (an employee of a private entity) going after some miscreant. The cop only got into it afterwards, and even then tried to get Mr. Downs to just go home and forget about the whole thing. This is really more a story about capital run amok than statist oppression, is my point.
And the worst of it is that you are all so fucking letting it happen.--ok, Mr Koresh. Build us a compound and we'll come live with you and do whatever you say.
More seriously though: um, fuck you. I go to antiwar rallies, march in protests, vote, am a member of my campus antiwar group, and write my congressman. As do many other plasticians. Please spare us your bitchiness.
And could you pick something a bit more original to cite next time? This is hardly the first time someone's mentioned 1984 on plastic.
And if you're terminally bored / fall in behind the motorcade and lock the doors / money money!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 178. Re: Calm down, Paul. | | | | by paul_holloway | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 2:44am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 154 | | | | | |
This is really more a story about capital run amok than statist oppression, is my point.
How so? Did the slogans read "Give Communism a chance", or "Property is theft"?
The point I was trying to make is that at the moment there is a full on rush towards war in the US, and anybody who does not go along with that can be discriminated against, as these two people were.
As for the 1984 analogy - sometimes things are stereotypical because they happen to be true.
"Iraqis are sick of foreign people coming in their country and trying to destabilise their country" - guess who
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | | 51. Not new to Albany.. | | | | by n0her0es | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:15am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
In the early 90s (forgive my lack of a solid date), some young men were forceably removed from another Albany Mall (Clifton Country, for those of you keeping track) for wearing the classic Fishbone teeshirt with "FUCK RACISM" on the back.
Ah, the capital region, how I miss thee-
Tim
Who's got the real anti-parent culture sound?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 53. Re: Not new to Albany.. | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:20am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 51 | | | | | |
Was it because they were against racism, had bad taste in clothing, or because they had bad taste in music?
I can understand wanting to kick out people who listen to Phish, so I suppose I could go along if someone who had different tastes than mine would want to kick out all the Fishbone fans from the mall they owned.
I still think that bulldozing the place has great potential.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 55. Re: Not new to Albany.. | | | | by n0her0es | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:30am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
My guess is that the mall didn't want 6-inch-high-lettered "FUCK" walking around their mall.
It struck me that I'd seen people expelled from malls in Albany for the print on their teeshirts before.
I can understand wanting to kick out people who listen to Phish
Agreed.
I still think that bulldozing the place has great potential.
No way! Why bulldoze when you could just flood the mighty Hudson and wipe out Albany, Troy, Cohoes, 'Vliet, Menands AND Waterford, while leaving RPI? The Pittsburgh Building would look lovely on the new waterfront. I say let mother nature kick a little ass.
Forever rooting against 'Vliet-
Tim
Who's got the real anti-parent culture sound?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 59. Re: Not new to Albany.. | | | | by rEvolution inAction | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:39am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 53 | | | | | |
Was it because they were against racism, had bad taste in clothing, or because they had bad taste in music?
I can understand wanting to kick out people who listen to Phish, so I suppose I could go along if someone who had different tastes than mine would want to kick out all the Fishbone fans from the mall they owned.
How the fuck can you mention Phish and Fishbone in the same sentence?!??! Take drivel like 'Farmhouse' and compare it to 'Servitude'? I've always had fun pumping up 'Warmth of Your Breath' while passing cops.. if only they knew (and it's a lot funnier than 'Copkiller', that can get you hurt)
Tipping Sacred Cows
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 60. Re: Not new to Albany.. | | | | by tdahnsn | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:42am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 55 | | | | | |
"My guess is that the mall didn't want 6-inch-high-lettered "FUCK" walking around their mall."
Funny, that reason never occurred to me. *snicker*
As for the flooding thing, I could go for that, I guess. It's just that there's something satisfying about a bulldozer.
Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 63. Re: Not new to Albany.. | | | | by Jedi Paramedic | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:57am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 55 | | | | | |
The Pittsburgh Building would look lovely on the new waterfront. I say let mother nature kick a little ass. They'll have to tighten those cables inside Phys Fac that keep West Hall from sliding down the hill at the rate of 6 inches a year, though. *snicker*
It's an excellent idea, though, and the 8th Street frontage would look nice with the mighty Hudson lapping up to the curb. It would also take care of Troy's financial woes (they could get the insurance on city hall to pay for it's 2nd, or 3rd mortgage), wipe out Kennedy Towers (AKA the Senior Silo, AKA the Shining Alabaster Tower of Senility (thanks, Will)). We'd lose Manory's, though.
And remember - Watervliet used to be known (unofficially) as West Troy (just as the "East Side," though really South of the city proper, is the "East Side.") I think there's still graffiti on the D&H RR Bridge over 787 touting the superiority of some "West Troy" gang of hoodlums.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 121. Re: Not new to Albany.. | | | | by calamar1 | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:32pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 63 | | | | | |
If i remember correctly, our beloved 'Tute is building a shiny new performing arts facility (although i hear it will be named with a splendid acronym, which gives me hope!) at the corner of 8th & College Ave. They might want to keep the flood waters at the very base of the hill, in that case. Besides, you wouldn't want to wipe out one of the finest sledding hills known to man.
i'd miss Sutter's/The Ruck downtown, but Watervliet? Bah, who cares?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 143. Re: Not new to Albany.. | | | | by cpg | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 4:01pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 121 | | | | | |
You also wouldn't want to wipe out the Approach again, now that it has been restored. I'd miss Sutter's and H&W though...
Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 62. Hey Pops, I'm feeling a trip to JC Penny... | | | | by Rubberstamp | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:49am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Jesus, I don't even hug my father.
I suspect making politically controversial clothing and cock-walking around the mall is probably out too...
Treasure these moments of weirdness with your Dad, Roger.
"Why don't you come down here and chum some of this shit." -- M. Brody
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 64. Gyro-Eating Security Baboons | | | | by SacredGroundChuck | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 10:57am | score of 2.5 interesting | | | | | | |
Unless I missed it, no one has said that mall management issued a direct order to kick these two individuals out. The first complaint was from mall security, then the cops showed up and arrested the senior Downs. While the Boston article makes it sound that the mall management is not fond of anti-war demonstrations, I doubt that they would kick out everyone who doesn't support the war effort. This smacks of goonish, bullying mall security tactics, and that the cops involved probably wished they could 1)be somewhere else and 2) pistol-whip the mall security morons.
Also, question for anyone who has worked in a mall: when was the last time you tried to get management after 4pm? Those bozos leave as soon as they can escape, since mall traffic seems to get worse about 4pm in general.
And since the senior Downs is not just a lawyer, but director of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, who wants to bet that a judge who's friendly toward mall-building might just be investigated sometime soon? Or would that be petty?
"Did you know that the human brain is the only computer in the universe made of meat?"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 72. Reminds me of something else | | | | by vancegod | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:05pm | score of 1 obnoxious | | | | | | |
Okay. One more time folks. Going to your favorite bar is NOT a civil right. Going to your favorite bar and not breathing second hand smoke is NOT a civil right. Going to someones private property and behaving any way you wish is NOT a civil right. If you would like to wear your "peace" shirt at this particular mall; then feel free to purchase said mall. Oh, short on cash, then shut the fuck up and take the shirt off.
"Love is fleeting, power is eternal"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 91. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by vancegod | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:38pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 77 | | | | | |
But it is that straight forward. Malls have been a social fixture in youth culture for some time. I can completely understand viewing them as something similar to public property. But this doesn't cloud the issue in my mind. It introduces an irrelevant semantic. Furthermore expecting to have freedom of expression on private property opens the door to have freedom of expression on YOUR private property. It is a small step from telling a room full of share-holders what they can and can't do in their mall; and telling YOU what you can and can't do in your home. Think I am being too extreme. In Portland Oregon a police officer has the right to stop you on the street, detain and question you, all without probable cause. Why? Because the Portland Police successfully sued the County of Multnomah on grounds that not being able to do the afore mentioned things were a violation of their first amendment rights. A capitalist society already has a tremendously effective tool in place for combating the stupidity of policies such as the Mall in question has in place. BOYCOT the fools. A successful boycot of the mall would surely bring about any policy change one could wish for.
"Love is fleeting, power is eternal"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 137. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by Anywhere | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:42pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 91 | | | | | |
the Portland Police successfully sued the County of Multnomah on grounds that not being able to do the afore mentioned things were a violation of their first amendment rights.
Do you have a citation for that? I can see the connection between questioning and first amendment rights, but how the hell did they convince a judge that not being able to detain someone is a violation of their rights?
Gateway computers are pieces of shit, and their customer service is abysmal. Ask me why if you want to hear me vent.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 166. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by vancegod | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:17pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 137 | | | | | |
Pardon my over-zealousness 'Anywhere'. In Oregon it used to be illegal for police to question (or conversate, or wave or anything) an individual without probable cause. What the jury decision changed was an officer's ability to stop and question you. What they decide to do with you after this (arrest, citation, etc.)is where I 'ad-libed' a bit. For instance: If you just scored a pocket full of drugs and got away with it, that used to be that. Under this new policy police can patrol an area where activity of this nature is prolific. At this point if they just start stopping people in an area like this and ask the right questions... This policy was used in conjunction with "Drug-Free" zones and face recognition equipment. Both of which don't add up to much if you can't begin questioning people at will. So, now that I am blathering, talking to people was a court issue. What the police did after this was not. Sorry 'bout that.
"Love is fleeting, power is eternal"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 98. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by deetle1 | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:57pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 72 | | | | | |
Going to your favorite bar is NOT a civil right
Except that "civil rights" apply to places that are open to the public.
If you would like to wear your "peace" shirt at this particular mall; then feel free to purchase said mall.
Ironic then, isn't it, that Stephen Downs, 61, and his 31-year-old son, Roger Downs, had the peace T-shirts made Monday night at a Crossgates Mall store and in doing so in fact financially supported the mall.
Ah, rock on, George, one time for me.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 110. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by tylerh | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:30pm | score of 1.5 astute | | in reply to comment 72 | | | | | |
Vance Dear,
you do not seem to live in this world. Perhaps some libertarian utopia? Going to bar is a civil right. Trying not allowing any blacks or jews into your "private property" bar and see what happens.
To help you see the ridiculousness of your stance, let me turn this around: where does the mall owner's right to dictate end? Can they insist everyone where new clothes? Can they kick you out for being ugly? And why just clothes? Can they kick you out for saying "Stop the War?" I mean, it's their property, they can do anything they want, right?
As for buying the mall, I believe that particular mall gets massive tax subsidies, so to a degree the good citizens of Albany already have bought the place.
Courage
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 118. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by MacGregor | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:15pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 110 | | | | | |
As for buying the mall, I believe that particular mall gets massive tax subsidies, so to a degree the good citizens of Albany already have bought the place.
Actually, it's most likely the Guilderland Industrial Development Agency that owns the place. (I can't confirm this, because Albany County doesn't have online searching of land records.) IDA's usually operate by purchasing the land and leasing it to the developer for a nominal fee, usually something like $1.00 for 20 years. At the end of that time, the developer (if it is still around) is required to purchase the project for $1.00. During the time that the IDA owns the property, it is tax-exempt, since it is owned by a public benefit corporation organized by the town, county or state. Sometimes the IDA negotiates a Payment In Lieu Of Taxes Agreement with the developer to make up for some of the lost tax revenue.
"Though I look old, yet I am strong and lusty" --As you like it, Act 2, Scene 3
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 165. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by vancegod | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:05pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 110 | | | | | |
The point you made about tax subsidies was astute. I honestly did not think of that. However. If YOU can tell the Mall Owner what he/she may do on thier property; do they get to tell you what to do on your property?
"Love is fleeting, power is eternal"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 174. Real property and Dichotomies | | | | by tylerh | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 9:20pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | in reply to comment 165 | | | | | |
If YOU can tell the Mall Owner what he/she may do on thier property; do they get to tell you what to do on your property?
In short, YES. Welcome to the real world. As an example, the supreme court just heard a case where private citizens burned a cross on their own private land. The final ruling hasn't been released yet, but it looks pretty certain the supreme court is going to rule against the property owners.
You may be trapped in the false dichotomy that there are two types of "property,": Public and Private. The real world is much more shaded. Property owners rights are hemmed in by all sorts of restrictions: zoning regulations, Sign ordinances, public easements, and the responsibility to deal pro-actively with attractive nuisances to name just four.
As others have discusses elsewhere in this discussion, where malls fall on the Public/Private spectrum is a largely unresolved question. The Mall owners clearly have some right to kick out people, but where that right ends in a space so clearly intended to invite the public is murky.
"I own it, I control" is a seductive intellectual construct, but poor description of how the world actually works.
Courage
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 119. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by Subversive | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:18pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 72 | | | | | |
NOT a civil right. If you would like to wear your "peace" shirt at this particular mall; then feel free to purchase said mall.
So suppose these mall security goons approached a Black man with a big 'fro and said "we don't like your kind 'round here, Boy. You have two choices: either step over to yonder hair salon and get that natty hair shaved or straightened so you better conform to polite White society, or take your ass out of here before we have you arrested." Suppose in a hour of negotiations, the mall even offered to pay for the man to get a more White-looking haircut. And let's just suppose (suprise, suprise) that the man indignantly refused and was arrested.
Would you still insist that it was incorrect to suggest that the man was arrested for any other reason than simple trespass? Because personally I fail to see how mall goons offering such threatening fashion advice, in the absence of some legitimate reason, does not amount to a form of harassment. Things would be different if there was an established dress code or there was some element of obscenity or of distubing the peace.
And are you just arguing over some perceived technical semantics issues (while still thinking the actions of the mall security stupid if not inappropriate) or are you some kind of fascist sympathizer or something who would like to see more malls behave in this manner?
This signature has been infected with Anthrax. Take your medicine.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 167. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by vancegod | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:28pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 119 | | | | | |
The The Department of Treasury database provided me with an interesting statistic. African-Americans make up roughly 38% of the Mall market in the united states. (results of market research query, nationwide, done by a company required to obtain a federal licence to do so) And roughly 14% of its market is Caucasian. Racial discrimination analogies don't sit well with me.
"Love is fleeting, power is eternal"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 168. Re: Reminds me of something else | | | | by vancegod | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 7:34pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 119 | | | | | |
I thought that mall security stated that they were "just following directions" of the female boss. Regardless. I thought it would go without saying that whatever the policy, whomever was enforcing it; that it is just about the most asinine thing I've ever heard. Even if you disregard freedom of speech as a legality, what about the spirit of the idea?
"Love is fleeting, power is eternal"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 76. Something's missing here | | | | by swalve | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:12pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Why did the mallcops decide to kick this guy out? I can't think of any reason why a shirt with those words would provoke such a reaction. Or any reaction. I just wonder if these guys weren't yelling or touching people or something too.
"If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 79. innane stupidity | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 12:16pm | score of 1.5 funny | | | | | | |
Mall Cops: Hey, Look! That guy's trying to promote peace!
2nd Mall Cop: What the hell?!
1st Mall Cop: Let's go over there and kick his ass!
2nd Mall Cop: Yeah, that'll teach that peace lovin, tree hugging hippy!
Like something out of a Farrelly brother's movie. Is this for real?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 117. Re: innane stupidity | | | | by norcalwindows | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 2:06pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 79 | | | | | |
you forgot the next line..
1st Mall Cop: Ha, you know what they say..."first thing you know he's huggin' trees..."
2nd Mall Cop: "...next thing you know, he' chuggin cock!"
1st Mall Cop: Haha, that's so true! Let's go get him, that's just not natural...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 131. Re: innane stupidity | | | | by nmiguy | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:31pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 117 | | | | | |
I stole the idea for my post from the Simpsons episode where Homer saw an alien. The whole town turned out and when the alien (Mr Burns) offered peace, Moe yelled something like "He's bringing peace, let's kick his butt!" or something like that.
My comment wasn't that funny, and it wasn't intended for the extended social commentary. Thanks for the reply, but no thanks.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 99. Another perspective | | | | by CelebratedMrK | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:01pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Let's suppose a man walks into a mall wearing a "I Hate Arabs/Asians/Africans" message on his t-shirt. Would the mall management be required to ask the man to take his shirt off? Would they be required to do this regardless of whether someone complained or not?
This same mall was also the site of another peace protest a few months ago when a group of men walked in with "peace" t-shirts. Maybe the mall was just indulging in pre-emptive caution?
More than a blow against free speech, the mall management's decision smacks of stupidity. And yet, it makes me sad and scared about the future of this great nation.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 106. Doesn't take much. | | | | by Coffeedemon | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:18pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
That's what raised the ire of the Mall administration? I would have thought 'give peace a chance' would be a pretty innocuous sentiment - especially since you can find the song in any of the mall's fine record stores. I had thought that something more along these lines was what got them ejected.
... but I lied when I said that honesty was dead - NoMeansNo
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 108. so is this a public place or not? | | | | by snut_rucket | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:28pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
geez what a flurry of posts.
a lot of you guys have commented about how consumers in malls should be able to exercise their freedom of speech ('speech' here extended to cover the most degraded and simplistic and semi-literate form of speech, the t-shirt slogan, God forbid that Christopher Hitchens shows up with a bullhorn and starts listing the reasons why Turkey is a crappy war-partner)
... based on the proposition that malls feel like public places, and in many towns are the only viable option for any kind of public gathering. Lemmy Caution said it upthread as well as anybody else:
Things just aren't that straightforward. If malls act as public spaces, market themselves as public spaces, and most importantly supplant public spaces (as downtown, street-front businesses get closed) then perhaps they have at least some of the expectations of openness and constitutionality of public spaces. I don't think too many people would consider it legitimate for them to bar entry by minorities.
well, you guys have stumbled across a fight that's already been fought and lost. It's been proven over and over again that mall management companies have the right to prohibit free speech and toss out whoever they don't like, hippies or rapists or t-shirt-wearing troublemakers or demographic pariahs.
malls are private property. if you don't like it -- too bad. malls are huge tax revenue sources, and you're not.
the mall isn't only protecting itself from outright political disruption. you should understand that the mall is sort of a psychological mantrap, a machine meant to induce a certain frame of mind, music and lights and the shiny floors and your spatial choices are all there to DO something to you. (one source here, skip down to the 'casinos and malls' part)
When the atmosphere is disrupted by undesirables of whatever stripe, the Gruen transfer won't work and the merchants aren't going to sell as many DVD's and shoes.
the most extreme example was the Fremont Street Experience in Vegas. The city fathers hired Jon Jerde and developed (covered over) Fremont street downtown in 1995, deeded it over to an LLC, called it a private development although it was a public street, and started kicking out panhandlers and street drunks like nobody's business. The ACLU was oddly quiet in 1995, but over here's news of a more recent ruling. This was only the most outrageous case.
so -- yeah, there's an interplay between urban design and social justice. In thousands of American small towns, where do you go to protest? What public space is there left to protest in?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 126. Just To Be Clear | | | | by uncarved block | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:12pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 108 | | | | | |
and toss out whoever they don't like.
Does this include throwing out black folks? IANAL, but it seems that malls may have the freedom to throw you out, but you then have the burden of proof to demonstate a violation of your civil rights. Too simply followed, your argument suggests that malls have the freedom to ignore several federal laws.
Of course, this is all academic. As you noted, these places exist to make money, and for them 'bad publicity' is . . . bad business. IMO, the reason malls have such a high success record is that they've dropped or settled every case that wasn't a clear winner. But you seem to know the case law, and can doubtless tell me if I'm wrong.
Eschew Obfuscation Assiduously
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 111. "Everything not explicitly permitted is forbidden" | | | | by Victor Lazlo | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:36pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Regardless whether action of the mall security personnel or the police was legal (I spent a decade in law school one year before deciding I'd rather be a human being), can anyone offer a rational, intelligible reason for them doing what they did?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 114. hmmm, nobody ever harrassed me | | | | by FONADI | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 1:52pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Shirts i have worn in a mall.
Cradle of Filth's JESUS IS A CUNT shirt, with a nun pleasing herself on the front. DID NOT GET KICKED OUT. OR HARASSED.
unamerican.com's "Fuck with me and i will saw off your legs" shirt. DID NOT GET KICKED OUT. OR HARASSED.
Marduk's "FUCK ME JESUS" shirt. woman doing herself anally with crucifix on front. DID NOT GET KICKED OUT. OR HARASSED.
Nice to know that a John Lennon chorus is so much more offensive and a much larger problem. I mean, doesn't most of the world want peace, including and evil tyrant(saddam, just incase you are confused.)?
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 135. Re: hmmm, nobody ever harrassed me | | | | by luna bizarre | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 3:38pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 114 | | | | | |
T shirts I have worn to the mall:
- DIE YUPPIE SCUM
- Abortions: Don't want one? Don't Have one.
- Free Snot of Jesus, Boogers of Our Lord and Messiah...
- Tofino has crabs (picture of crab)
- I survived the beer strike of 1978 (as an minor)
- Eat Shit (done McStyle with an image of Rotten Ronnie making the a-ok sign with his hand.)
- Cannibal Corpse
It's amazing how some people are so far removed from the reality of the world through brainwashing. I agree with you 100%.
~The sleep of reason produces monsters~
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 146. Just Good Business | | | | by MrTripps | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 4:12pm | score of 1 | | | | | | |
There are a lot more flag wavers who agree with the mall's decision then peace activists. If you are a mall owner who are you going to side with? The SUV driving, super-size ordering, Bill O'Reily watching moron who would by a cow pie if it had an American flag on it or the anti-consumerist hippie? I wonder if we Plasticians would be giving them so much shit if they had been abortion protesters walking around with dead baby shirts.
"It feels like Independence Day and I can't break away from this parade." -The Wallflowers
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 158. Hard to believe... | | | | by Jadrano | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 5:38pm | score of 1.5 compelling | | | | | | |
I've read a number of reports that show the enormous difference between countries where political freedom is a reality and others, like the US, where it only exists on paper, but I still find it hard to believe that the contrast is so enormous. Imagine a shopkeeper here in "old Europe" trying to do the same... Probably, the police wouldn't arrive, at all, if they knew what it's about, and if they did, anyway, it would be to admonish that shopkeeper.
I wonder if American people know, at all, what it would be like to live in a free country where freedom of expression is a part of life and not something that applies under very specific and complex circumstances that have to be established by lawyers.
In any case, I'm very happy that I don't have to live in the US...
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 173. Re: Hard to believe... | | | | by cpg | | | | at Wed 5 Mar 8:48pm | score of 1 disingenuous | | in reply to comment 158 | | | | | |
...and we are happy for that as well.
What utopian paradise do you hail from, anyway?
The problem with freedom of expression being merely "part of life" instead of being written down in a legally binding document (like a constitution or statute), is that "life" can change. For example, a government without a constitutional or statutory provision guaranteeing freedom of expression could restrict speech pretty easily, since freedom of expression is not an enumerated right. Whereas restrictions on freedom of expression in the US are always subject to a test of constitutionality based upon a written clause that cannot easily be changed.
I am guessing, however, that you are from a country with a civil law system instead of the common law system found in the UK and US. Perhaps that explains why you are so uncomfortable with the concept of judicial interpretation of laws (which does in fact often involve lawyers )
Sic hoc adfixum in obice legere potes, et liberaliter educatus et nimis propinquus ades.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 186. Re: Hard to believe... | | | | by bitekman | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 9:32am | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 158 | | | | | |
This is ridiculous.
Just a couple of weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of people marched against the government's policies in cities across the US.
Now, two people are thrown out of a mall, and the conclusion is Americans have no freedom of expression?
I'm full of bees...who died at sea -- Sparklehorse
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | | 176. Question to the Lawyers! | | | | by empressrenee | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 12:17am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
Now I believe that a mall as a privately owned place does have the right to set a dress code. Many of the t-shirts that were mentioned in earlier posts would not be allowed at Carousel Mall in Syracuse. Along with the fact that bandanas worn on the head and "gang" colors are not allowed. But the question comes in when the mall is no longer private property. The above mentioned mall, is expanding to become a Super Mall! With the help of local tax payers. So how does that then cover there right to have a dress code and freedom of speech? I can look at Lexus but honestly I'm not quite sure what key words to put in.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 179. Mall management backpedaling | | | | by chiaroscuro | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 4:13am | score of 1.5 informative | | | | | | |
In today's news, the mall management is now asking that the charges be dropped.
From the story:
Police said managers from Crossgates Mall called and asked that the complaint against Stephen Downs be withdrawn. Police Chief James Murley said he would support the mall's decision.
Earlier Wednesday, about 100 anti-war demonstrators marched through the mall to protest the arrest. They told a mall manager they would stop only when charges against the shopper were dropped and when the mall outlined its policy.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | | 188. don't judge me | | | | by montana rain | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 10:32am | score of 1 | | | | | | |
I just have one more thing to say, and that's it, I'm done. Why am I the troll?!? All I did was type a write up that I hardly found so anger inducing, and EVERYONE in here jumped on me, personally attacking me, calling me a child, yet I'm the troll because I stuck up for myself? Someone tells me to fuck off, someone tells me they want to ban me, and I'm the troll? I thought this was a website where a person could freely express an opinion. Why is everyone in here allowed to personally attack me, yet I can't say a damn thing to defend myself? I guess it's ok for all of you to say what you want, but I'm just supposed to shut up and not have an opinion? I thought the people in here had a little more class then that. Before you go judging me unfairly, maybe you should look at yourself.
someone once told me that i was radical... i said, yeah, like, totally!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
| | | | | | 191. Just a thought. | | | | by MAYORBOB | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 1:46pm | score of 1.5 helpful | | in reply to comment 188 | | | | | |
My take on the heat you gathered topside had little to do with what you typed, but rather in the way you presented your case. To the point, typing in all caps is the internet equivalent of shouting. It is not necessary to do that to get your point across. Indeed, for a lot of people, your penchant for using the CAP LOCK key when you were posting likely distracted people away from what it was you had to say.
So, okay, you were annoying with your posts. When somebody insists on continuing to be annoying, they cross over into being a troll. For the record, I don't consider you a troll. One sure sign that you are not is that your all cap posts ended topside. A true troll will soldier way beyond where you went.
Did someone go over to your house and cut off your power supply or yank your modem out of the computer? That, in my mind, is the only way I know that you can be prevented from posting what you feel you want to share on Plastic. And yes, you are allowed to have an opinion and defend your position. Plastic is a place to post and share opinion. Sometimes the dialogue gets a bit overheated, but for the most part, the typical Plastician places a high value on reasoned, informed, and compelling information. It always helps to retain a sense of humor and proportion (not EVERYONE jumped on you). And whether you post at Plastic or just deal with people in the real world, you would be best advised to not be thin-skinned.
Tending to final details.
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 194. Re: Just a thought. | | | | by rEvolution inAction | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 3:07pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 191 | | | | | |
the typical Plastician places a high value on reasoned, informed, and compelling information. DAT BE CRAZY TALK! DIS IS WAR, WAR I SAY! FLAMEZ U!
And whether you post at Plastic or just deal with people in the real world, you would be best advised to not be thin-skinned. It is also advised that goosestep with the rest of the flag wavers otherwise you might be branded un-american, and trust me, you don't want that.
That, in my mind, is the only way I know that you can be prevented from posting what you feel you want to share on Plastic. I've been prevented many times from posting on plastic... these words come up on my screen saying that I've reached my posting limit and that I should go out and play, so I strap on the snowsuit and build a snowman, and then it tells me that 16 posts is a bit too much for four hours! It's not like I'm spamming everyone, I just have a lot to say, but my rights are being violated here! Suppression of free speech, damn King Carl and his totalitarian regime, we need a revolution. That said, I think you all should know that going two days without food (other than three beers and cigarettes) or sleep for two days is really bad for you. Not to mention really painful conditions to work under.
Tipping Sacred Cows
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| | | | | 196. I'm not sure you're being judged. | | | | by n29_w95 | | | | at Thu 6 Mar 3:50pm | score of 1 | | in reply to comment 188 | | | | | |
MAYORBOB has some excellent points, but I agree with you, that post 175 crossed the line of acceptable Plastic behavior by "sneaky-linking" a block on you.
(Although, you'll notice that the poster was reprimanded for it by another poster almost immediately.)
---Pie is good!
| | | | [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ] | | |
|
| |
| | Member Login | | | |
| Man, It's Hard To Even Bash Em
|
|
|
| (2 hrs, 9 mins ago) | -----=o---- |
Sarah Palin stumps for Tx gub'ner, Rick Perry. The intellectually elite come out to show their support. - n29_w95 |
| Hot Air Aloft
|
|
|
| (Sun 7 Feb 11:34am) | -----=o---- |
Submitted for your consideration, the most intriguing idea for political communication in many a moon: The Peace Blimp. - Petronius |
|
