Man arrested for wearing anti-war shirt?

[Steerpike]

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.

 

[Taomon]

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.

The same things have been happening in UpState NY too. The whole thing is Bullshit. Freedom of speech is dead.

 

[Steerpike]

The same things have been happening in UpState NY too. The whole thing is Bullshit. Freedom of speech is dead.

Freedom of Speech has never applied to private entities, so how is it dead exactly?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The same things have been happening in UpState NY too. The whole thing is Bullshit. Freedom of speech is dead.

Wrong, you do NOT have the right to violate the rules and bylaws of PRIVATE enterprise.

 

[Taomon]

Wrong, you do NOT have the right to violate the rules and bylaws of PRIVATE enterprise.

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.

 

[Steerpike]

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.

The free speech in the first amendment has never, since the beginning of the country, applied to private businesses.

Private businesses do not "supercede" the Constitution because the Constitution only applies to Government to begin with.

 

[Diuretic]

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.

 

[Taomon]

The free speech in the first amendment has never, since the beginning of the country, applied to private businesses.

Private businesses do not "supercede" the Constitution because the Constitution only applies to Government to begin with.

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.

 

[Taomon]

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.

Actually, it is. If I come to your house and I lecture you, you can ask me to leave and that does not violate my freedom of speech. If I come to your house and lecture you and you have me arrested for tresspassing...that is a violation of my rights as I have not broken a law...the law was used to intimidate me.

And now we are talking about free speech zones, i.e. private businesses are off limits and one must seek free speech areas. In case you did not realize, we are surrounded by private property.

 

[AllieBaba]

You only get to enjoy freedom of speech as long as you are not encroaching upon the rights of others while enjoying it.

So...we have the right to privately own property. You can enjoy freedom of speech while on your property, or public property...but not on my property, if I decide it is so.

Employers and land owners have rights, too. You can't force us to listen or look at garbage we don't want to...on our own land/in our own businesses.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, it is. If I come to your house and I lecture you, you can ask me to leave and that does not violate my freedom of speech. If I come to your house and lecture you and you have me arrested for tresspassing...that is a violation of my rights as I have not broken a law...the law was used to intimidate me.

And now we are talking about free speech zones, i.e. private businesses are off limits and one must seek free speech areas. In case you did not realize, we are surrounded by private property.

If you were asked to leave and refused, you DID break the law by TRESPASSING, you moron.

 

[Diuretic]

Actually, it is. If I come to your house and I lecture you, you can ask me to leave and that does not violate my freedom of speech. If I come to your house and lecture you and you have me arrested for tresspassing...that is a violation of my rights as I have not broken a law...the law was used to intimidate me.

And now we are talking about free speech zones, i.e. private businesses are off limits and one must seek free speech areas. In case you did not realize, we are surrounded by private property.

Let me try this again.

You have a common law right to come to my front door. You can knock on my front door, I'll answer it. You'll start to sell me religion. I'll tell you I'm not interested and go to close the door. If you're still there in five minutes I'll ask you again to leave. If you don't I'll probably grab you (not you but "you") by the scruff of the neck and throw you off my premises. That's not breaching anyone's rights, that me enforcing my right to eject a trespasser

If you stand outside my house and start preaching in a loud voice you're committing a criminal offence and you can be arrested.

You are allowed to enter a mall, which is a private premises, by the implied consent of the mall owner. Implied consent means something like building a car park and having doors that open and probably a sign that reads "Trading hours....". But the mall is still private. If you want to open a shop in the mall you'll have to contact the owners for a lease.

If the mall owners don't want you in their mall they can tell you to leave or if you refuse, they can eject you. Absent any legislative provision (eg prohibition of racial discrimination) they can boot out anyone they choose.

None of that infringes a right to free speech. And as I said before, a right doesn't imply a licence (I may have to thank Locke for that one, just can't remember right now).

 

[Diuretic]

If you were asked to leave and refused, you DID break the law by TRESPASSING, you moron.

Just a point there, "you moron". Remember you wrote that when you come after me for insulting you.

 

[Taomon]

You only get to enjoy freedom of speech as long as you are not encroaching upon the rights of others while enjoying it.

So...we have the right to privately own property. You can enjoy freedom of speech while on your property, or public property...but not on my property, if I decide it is so.

Employers and land owners have rights, too. You can't force us to listen or look at garbage we don't want to...on our own land/in our own businesses.

Wrong. Where in the Constitution does it state that we only have Freedom of speech on our own property, or only if it doesn't upset someone else?

Freedom of speech is all encompassing or it is not a freedom at all.

Are you saying that Speech is not free? I am willing to bet that there are many lawyers who would argue otherwise.

 

[Taomon]

If you were asked to leave and refused, you DID break the law by TRESPASSING, you moron.

But the man was not asked to leave. He was told to turn his shirt inside out to hide the message. That is just plain wrong.

Why do you feel that a private company has rights that super-cede ours? This is the beginning of Fascism. Totalitarianism will not come through our government system. It has controlled it through powerful lobbies. Totalitarianism is the private industries that infringe on our rights and have you convinced that we do not have rights on their property.

Private industry serves only itself and not the consumer. And that is where we have gone wrong. A corporation does not have the same rights as an individual.

 

[Diuretic]

But the man was not asked to leave. He was told to turn his shirt inside out to hide the message. That is just plain wrong.

Why do you feel that a private company has rights that super-cede ours? This is the beginning of Fascism. Totalitarianism will not come through our government system. It has controlled it through powerful lobbies. Totalitarianism is the private industries that infringe on our rights and have you convinced that we do not have rights on their property.

Private industry serves only itself and not the consumer. And that is where we have gone wrong. A corporation does not have the same rights as an individual.

I don't like the inside-out order either. It is wrong. But if it had been phrased in a certain way...

"If you want to continue to stay in the mall you will either have to put on another shirt without what we consider an offensive message, you can wear it inside out if you like or you can purchase one and wear it here, we will have to ask you to leave."

That might be acceptable. But if I was told "turn it inside out or you'll be arrested", I would have been waiting for my Miranda warning. I would have then been planning my world cruise from the money I received as a result of the law suit.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong. Where in the Constitution does it state that we only have Freedom of speech on our own property, or only if it doesn't upset someone else?

Freedom of speech is all encompassing or it is not a freedom at all.

Are you saying that Speech is not free? I am willing to bet that there are many lawyers who would argue otherwise.

As far as I can tell, freedom of speech means the government cannot shut you up. Private property is private property. So while I think the mall was stupid to harass an eighty year old with an opinion, they were within their rights.

He's lucky he wasn't smoking.

 

[Diuretic]

As far as I can tell, freedom of speech means the government cannot shut you up. Private property is private property. So while I think the mall was stupid to harass an eighty year old with an opinion, they were within their rights.

He's lucky he wasn't smoking.

He'd be on YouTube "Don't tase me bro!"

 

[Ravi]

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

 

[Steerpike]

Why do you feel that a private company has rights that super-cede ours?

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.