Man arrested for wearing anti-war shirt?

[Diuretic]

The mind boggles. What if he'd been yelling no me tase hermano?

I hate to think! Dumped in Tijuana in ten minutes?

 

[jreeves]

That is the problem. Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution, and yet private businesses create policies that supercede the Constitution and facilitate trumped up charges.

This is not the only way that private enterprise has violated our rights. This all stems back to lawyers arguing that a corporation has individual rights. Now those rights are more important than the rights of humans.

It is sickening.

Lmao, nonsense....
How is his protesting of the war a right to disrupt every business in the mall?

 

[Gunny]

Actually, that's how it was phrased to me. The truth is a bit different:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-lizirk0331,0,5226608.story

The guy was on private property, and the private entity isn't subject to the 1st amendment.

LMFAO!!! Now we know what DeadCanDance looks like!

 

[jreeves]

LMFAO!!! Now we know what DeadCanDance looks like!

Lmao.....Damn it, why are you arresting me for a three trillion dollar war....

Bush,Bush.....Cheney.....Damn it

 

[Gunny]

Actually, that's how it was phrased to me. The truth is a bit different:

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-lizirk0331,0,5226608.story

The guy was on private property, and the private entity isn't subject to the 1st amendment.

Interesting argument. I agree that being on private property, one is subject to the owner's rules, like them or not.

My question would be is a public shopping mall considered the same legally as hanging out on my back patio? While "whoever" may own it, it is treated as a public place.

 

[Gunny]

The right to freedom of speech is a right, not licence. Any right is circumscribed or it is simply licence.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The stricture is on Congress, not individuals.

In this example the man was on private premises and the landowner exercised their right to eject anyone they don't want on the premises. You won't be able to come into my house to try and give me a lecture on religion or right wing politics, I'll ask you to leave.

This isn't about freedom of speech.

I'll be over with a 12-pack to square you away later.

 

[Gunny]

We are not talking about a Country Club or even a restaurant. We are talking about a mall; a series of stores within a single building. Malls have such a lax dress code that one can say it is non-existant. I can wear a shirt that says anything except for slogans that are derogatory towards Bush, 9/11 & the Wars in Iraq & Afghanistan.

Seriously, one can wear a shirt that depicts scenes of sacrilegious activities, but not anti-war slogans.

This is wrong. These malls are groups of stores. The shoppers are consumers. Where do we draw the line? After private businesses have privatized everything and it is too late?

Soon there will be a tier system for Internet connectivity. This will open the door to serious infringements of speech. Elections have been privatized. It will not be long before political expression will be banned at election booths too.

Freedom of speech should super-cede private industry. Not the other way around.

The mall itself is a privately-owned operation. While I tend to agree with you that there is a gray area since it is a common, public facility, the fact remains it is legally and technically a privately owned structure/property.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Interesting argument. I agree that being on private property, one is subject to the owner's rules, like them or not.

My question would be is a public shopping mall considered the same legally as hanging out on my back patio? While "whoever" may own it, it is treated as a public place.

Yes malls can and do have rules bylaws and regulations which they CAN enforce, as evidenced by the cops arresting this man. He was given an opportunity to leave or meet the standard and he REFUSED.

I do not need 15 additional paragraphs describing his refusal to know how it basically went down. Some one complained and mall security showed up, assessed the situation, got guidance and proceded. They approached the guy informed him of the offense and gave him options, HE REFUSED those options. Where upon the cops were called. He could have left anytime prior to the arrival of law enforcement and not been arrested. HE made a conscious choice to NOT leave. To ignore the legal commands of the Mall security. He was arrested for it.

As for our "rights" We have a right to own property and to determine who can and can not be on said property. We further can demand people leave our property if they do or say anything we do NOT like. We can ask them to leave if we think a small pink elephant told us they should leave. It is OUR property and we control who can and can not be on it. Businesses have a few restrictions on that but this is NOT one of them.

Remember in the future when Taoman complains the Government is forcing us to do something he doesn't like that he thinks they can force us to do things HE DOES like..

 

[Gunny]

Yes malls can and do have rules bylaws and regulations which they CAN enforce, as evidenced by the cops arresting this man. He was given an opportunity to leave or meet the standard and he REFUSED.

I do not need 15 additional paragraphs describing his refusal to know how it basically went down. Some one complained and mall security showed up, assessed the situation, got guidance and proceded. They approached the guy informed him of the offense and gave him options, HE REFUSED those options. Where upon the cops were called. He could have left anytime prior to the arrival of law enforcement and not been arrested. HE made a conscious choice to NOT leave. To ignore the legal commands of the Mall security. He was arrested for it.

As for our "rights" We have a right to own property and to determine who can and can not be on said property. We further can demand people leave our property if they do or say anything we do NOT like. We can ask them to leave if we think a small pink elephant told us they should leave. It is OUR property and we control who can and can not be on it. Businesses have a few restrictions on that but this is NOT one of them.

Remember in the future when Taoman complains the Government is forcing us to do something he doesn't like that he thinks they can force us to do things HE DOES like..

Right. I understand that it is private property, technically and legally, and I'm sure it pretty-much went down as you describe.

I'm just not sure I agree it is the right thing to do. You KNOW I most certainly disagree with the man's sentiments.

However, Taomon DOES have a point. You can wear just about anything you please in a mall so long as you have on shoes and a shirt.

I guess I'm just questioning the fairness; regardless the legalities.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Right. I understand that it is private property, technically and legally, and I'm sure it pretty-much went down as you describe.

I'm just not sure I agree it is the right thing to do. You KNOW I most certainly disagree with the man's sentiments.

However, Taomon DOES have a point. You can wear just about anything you please in a mall so long as you have on shoes and a shirt.

I guess I'm just questioning the fairness; regardless the legalities.

Fair? Did someone ever tell you life is FAIR? The Mall will reap the results of their action. People that agree with it will continue to shop there and people that disagree with it will either shop else where or work to cause the mall to change it's policy. Thats how it works.

 

[Diuretic]

I'll be over with a 12-pack to square you away later.

Good, we can drink them when the keg runs out

 

[Diuretic]

Interesting argument. I agree that being on private property, one is subject to the owner's rules, like them or not.

My question would be is a public shopping mall considered the same legally as hanging out on my back patio? While "whoever" may own it, it is treated as a public place.

This only applies where I am but it's an interesting question. Your private property is inviolate. The common law (here) allows that, unless expressly withdrawn, a householder has implicitly given permission to someone to enter the property and come to the front (not back) door. You can actually withdraw that by notice and it has to be observed (save for a few instances).

Again here, a mall is always private property but for the purpose of certain legislation, it's also a public place but only as long as it's open for business.

So, while the mall owner, during business hours, can chuck out anyone it wishes, the police can make an arrest in the mall for an offence of, say, behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

This only applies where I am but it's an interesting question. Your private property is inviolate. The common law (here) allows that, unless expressly withdrawn, a householder has implicitly given permission to someone to enter the property and come to the front (not back) door. You can actually withdraw that by notice and it has to be observed (save for a few instances).

Again here, a mall is always private property but for the purpose of certain legislation, it's also a public place but only as long as it's open for business.

So, while the mall owner, during business hours, can chuck out anyone it wishes, the police can make an arrest in the mall for an offence of, say, behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place.

Sounds about right. Businesses while open can not prevent police in most cases from enforcing civil law. I am sure you can think of exceptions to free entry by police but an open mall isn't one of them.

 

[Diuretic]

Exactly. Malls here have private security but some of the bigger ones also encourage local police to have shopfront cop shops which are handy for people to come in while shopping and make reports and inquiries but also allow the cops to do foot patrols as well to augment the security people and that's a good thing.

But if things went bad between the mall owner and the police (not likely) the mall owner could in fact (here I mean, can't speak for anywhere else) put a sign up telling the police they are not permitted to answer.

That would make it interesting because police can only enter private premises by invitation (express or implied), to arrest someone, to prevent a breach of the peace or with a warrant (or in certain other situations where specific laws are being enforced).

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Exactly. Malls here have private security but some of the bigger ones also encourage local police to have shopfront cop shops which are handy for people to come in while shopping and make reports and inquiries but also allow the cops to do foot patrols as well to augment the security people and that's a good thing.

But if things went bad between the mall owner and the police (not likely) the mall owner could in fact (here I mean, can't speak for anywhere else) put a sign up telling the police they are not permitted to answer.

That would make it interesting because police can only enter private premises by invitation (express or implied), to arrest someone, to prevent a breach of the peace or with a warrant (or in certain other situations where specific laws are being enforced).

"private" also applies here. However as soon as a Mall or business makes it acceptable for the general public to freely enter ( even with some caveats) they lose some of the rights of "private" and must assume the "implied" invitation of allowing police and local Government to enter freely those areas open to the public.

Now if the Mall restricts entrance to " members" only it retains the rights of " private" and can require police to show justification for entry. "Private" membership requires some kind of limit and control. A Bouncer at the door ensuring only " invited" guests gain entry would be an acceptable control, even if the only requirement the bouncer had was that you ask politely and he agree to let you enter. Again though this would require your stipulation that the premise or property be marked in some manner as " private" and invitation only entrance.

 

[Diuretic]

Thank you for that information. I think your situation re malls is better than ours. In practice it seems to work here but I know that (here) that relations can quickly change between big property owners and the local cops (usually it involves cranky people who can't get on a personal level).

Back in the days of the anti-Vietnam War demos here (they really cranked up between about 1968 and about 1972 or thereabouts) the police were frustrated when they were told by the vice chancellors of our (then) two universities that they couldn't come on the university premises to question (not arrest) anti-Vietnam War demonstrators. It caused a hell of a stink but here under law even a publicly funded university has the right to refuse entry to anyone except where a particular legal provision allows entry without permission.

 

[Taomon]

You don't seem to understand the Constitution, Taomon. As for your comments about lawyers, you won't find one who thinks the mall violated the man's Constitutional rights very easily. Anyone who has been to law school is going to know better.

Wrong. Corporations are treated as individuals and that is a legal trick. The Constitution guarantees rights for citizens, which corporations are not. It is time to stop treating private industry as an individual. They do not have the same rights as we do. It is a lie.

 

[Taomon]

Lmao, nonsense....
How is his protesting of the war a right to disrupt every business in the mall?

He did not disrupt businesses in the mall.

 

[Diuretic]

Wrong. Corporations are treated as individuals and that is a legal trick. The Constitution guarantees rights for citizens, which corporations are not. It is time to stop treating private industry as an individual. They do not have the same rights as we do. It is a lie.

It's not a lie but it's a bloody good con job. Adam Smith would be horrified. He didn't talk about butchers inc, bakers inc. in his famous "Wealth of Nations" (1776, interesting publication date).

http://www.thecorporation.com/

 

[Taomon]

The mall itself is a privately-owned operation. While I tend to agree with you that there is a gray area since it is a common, public facility, the fact remains it is legally and technically a privately owned structure/property.

And my point is that lawyers argued that corporations are individuals and should enjoy the same rights as you and I. That is false and manipulative. This was argued decades ago.

Today's mindset (noted by many posts here) is that private industry has rights that are violated by individual civil liberties. The rights of private industry are biased...they cannot turn people away because of the color of their skin, and yet they can based on political views?

What if the shirt said "Jesus is Lord" and the mall kicked him out and had him arrested? Would that be any more or less wrong?