Man arrested for wearing anti-war shirt?

[Diuretic]

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?

I think you need to work on this.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Look carefully and read as I explain to you once again how OUR Government works.

Private property is not public property.

Your right to free speech does NOT extend to someone else's PRIVATE property. No matter how much you whine, bitch and moan about it, that is how it works. That is how it has always worked and I hope that is how it always WILL work.

The Mall security informed he violated the rules of conduct to remain in the mall. His options were turn the shirt inside out or leave. He chose to do neither. That is a VIOLATION of the rights of the owners of the private property he was on. He was arrested for refusing to obey the law.

No matter how much you want to terrorize us with your bullshit, you do not have the right to enter private property and refuse to abide by the requirements of the owners of that property ( as long as those requirements are legal themself).

Explain to us why a place of business can have arrested a person that refuses to wear a pair of shoes or a shirt and when ask to leave refuses?

Think about what your advocating. The Government, according to you, can force owners of Private Property to allow any speech or expression by anyone that enters their property because you claim that is what the 1st Amendment says.

 

[Diuretic]

I think it's probable he was arrested because he refused to leave.

 

[Gunny]

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?

Individuals or not, private corporations are made up of private individuals, not the US government. What you are basically arguing is that you are willing to deny one group of individuals their Constitutional Rights to ensure another group of people can practice theirs freely, even though the former are the legal owners of the property.

That argument is just as biased as you claim private industry is.

As far as what the shirt actually says, IMO it is irrelvant. I already agreed with you most allows just about any and everything. Naturally, picking out any single t-shirt that supports any agenda would be selective/biased.

 

[Diuretic]

The corporation is a con job though. I always think it ironic that corporations, collections of individuals recognised at law as being an individual "person" scream blue bloody murder when other collections of individuals (unions) want to take them on. Hypocritical bastards, as are the politicians who pander to them.

But I am drifting the thread.

 

[manifold]

The corporation is a con job though. I always think it ironic that corporations, collections of individuals recognised at law as being an individual "person" scream blue bloody murder when other collections of individuals (unions) want to take them on. Hypocritical bastards, as are the politicians who pander to them.

But I am drifting the thread.

Even more ironic that the collection of individuals can easily skirt personal liability for the actions of the corporation.

 

[Taomon]

Individuals or not, private corporations are made up of private individuals, not the US government. What you are basically arguing is that you are willing to deny one group of individuals their Constitutional Rights to ensure another group of people can practice theirs freely, even though the former are the legal owners of the property.

That argument is just as biased as you claim private industry is.

As far as what the shirt actually says, IMO it is irrelvant. I already agreed with you most allows just about any and everything. Naturally, picking out any single t-shirt that supports any agenda would be selective/biased.

And that is the quandry, do we allow individuals to express freedom of speech on private property or do we allow private industry to infringe on our freedom of speech.

I am willing to bet there is a compromise in there. But food for thought; if private industry owns more land than the there is public property (and America is for sale in a big way), then America will only be free part of the time or in small pockets of land. And once most of the land is sold to private industry, it will not be long before the gurantees of freedom on public trusts will be compromised by lobby firms. Just a thought.

 

[Diuretic]

Exactly and like here where they dissolve the company which then doesn't exist and can't be sued (and because of our corporation laws the directors may not be liable - that's not always the case though) and they can get together as another company and do it again.

 

[Taomon]

Exactly and like here where they dissolve the company which then doesn't exist and can't be sued (and because of our corporation laws the directors may not be liable - that's not always the case though) and they can get together as another company and do it again.

I say, bring back regulations and control capital flight.

 

[Diuretic]

I say, bring back regulations and control capital flight.

I don't know if capital flight can be controlled but I'd like to see it have nowhere to go but stay home

 

[Gunny]

The corporation is a con job though. I always think it ironic that corporations, collections of individuals recognised at law as being an individual "person" scream blue bloody murder when other collections of individuals (unions) want to take them on. Hypocritical bastards, as are the politicians who pander to them.

But I am drifting the thread.

I'm not really arguing for or against the legal ruling of what a "corporation" is. I have merely stated what the legal ruling is.

Either way, the fact remains, be it an individual or group of individuals, where do you draw the line? IMO, it's a complex issue that has to handled case-by-case because you are going to support someone's rights and regulate or deny someone's rights.

And let's be real. There is no absolute freedom of speech. There never has been. It has always been regulated. If there were no extremists continually trying to see how far they can push it, there would be no need for regulation.

 

[Diuretic]

The more I think about it the more I realise that a right is never absolute. Problems arise when a right is interpreted as licence.

 

[Gunny]

And that is the quandry, do we allow individuals to express freedom of speech on private property or do we allow private industry to infringe on our freedom of speech.

I am willing to bet there is a compromise in there. But food for thought; if private industry owns more land than the there is public property (and America is for sale in a big way), then America will only be free part of the time or in small pockets of land. And once most of the land is sold to private industry, it will not be long before the gurantees of freedom on public trusts will be compromised by lobby firms. Just a thought.

Were you under some misguided impression corporations DON'T own this country and our government? Thier lobbyists purchase votes in Congress every day from both sides of the aisle. COngress is notoriously bipartisan when it comes to their money.

Since Congress is allowed to hide pork in legislation and count on us being too busy busting our butts to pay their extortion rates, they take care of their corporate benefactors every time a Bill passes.

 

[Taomon]

Were you under some misguided impression corporations DON'T own this country and our government? Thier lobbyists purchase votes in Congress every day from both sides of the aisle. COngress is notoriously bipartisan when it comes to their money.

Since Congress is allowed to hide pork in legislation and count on us being too busy busting our butts to pay their extortion rates, they take care of their corporate benefactors every time a Bill passes.

I am fighting against that, and that is why some think I sound foolish. The reality is that America is bought and sold. We are not free. But the truth is that the Constitution can still be revived to defend against the tyranny of private enterprise.

 

[mattskramer]

I think that the war was unnecessary and poorly executed. I oppose the war. I understand the man’s sentiment. Yet, after I read the article, I side with the mall. Owners of private buildings (not public centers) have the right (or should have the right) to set rules about what people in such building may do or say. The issue may be different if it were a student wearing such an item in a public school.