"A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall."
Full story at Reuters.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
There's going to be openings for two securiy guards down at the mall. ....seems like a good position for facists and those rejected from military service. Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct.
Bet he wins in court!
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
[ March 05, 2003, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: TSN ]
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
War is good for business.
Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Peace is good for business. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Shit Topher! You posted at the same time as me with the same comment!!! What if they had shirts saying: "Give War a Chance"?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: There's going to be openings for two securiy guards down at the mall. ....seems like a good position for facists and those rejected from military service.
It doesn't look like it's going to happen. Judging by the fact that he has been arraigned and there will be a trial, it looks like this incident is going to be "overlooked" in the name of "civil liberties". Mall management seems to be unrepentant in this matter.
[ March 05, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
Gee... Why am I not surprized?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
As the Patriot Act comes to a mall near you!
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Good to see how disagreement is handled in the land of the free.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'm disappointed. Even Reuters aren't reliable anymore. According to the complaint and police reports, it wasn't the shirts, but rather a report that Downs and his son were bothering customers, which prompted the guards to act. Now, granted, I still have a problem w/ the fact that the shirts were brought into it at all. The guards should have told the men to stop bugging customers, not to remove their shirts. However, I'm also bothered by the fact that the media couldn't be bothered to report this rather important bit of the story.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Read the part about "Alligations of Fact". THe complaint is in essense the Plaintif's side of a case and can say any outlandishthing it wants. I'd like to see affidavits from the customers that were supposedly "bothered". This could just be the mall's way of covering it's ass.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
"received complaints that they were stopping other shoppers"
Well, the shirt itself, if it was in big bold letters, could be a shopper stopper by itself.
"Officer, that shirt the man is wearing is just plain disgusting. I want that shirt gone NOW!!!"
But yes, it is a one-sided complaint so far.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Jason: I was referring more to the police reports than the complaint.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I believe that the legal precedent is that the owners of private property can pretty much make any rules they want, no matter how unfair or stupid, as long as those rules don't violate laws.
Freedom of speech does not apply on private property, so no rights were violated by the mall owners. If the man was asked to leave, and refused, he became a trespasser, and thusly subject to punishment under the law.
Probably the mall owners did the politically and financially expedient thing in asking that charges be dropped, but they do not seem to have acted outside their rights.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:as long as those rules don't violate laws.
Is the Constitution of the United States no longer the law of the land, Robert?
Or are you saying that laws cannot be violated, but the rights which the laws are supposed to define and support, can be?
Please clarify.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You know as well as I do that the Constitution prevents the FEDERAL government from enacting certain laws. You won't find rules for private property owners in there.
For instance, the Federal Government cannot make laws prohibiting the Mormons from making their door-to-door visits, because of Freedom of Religious expression.
However, I can kick their scrawny butts out of my house and chase them off my property if I so choose. Just as a mall can prohibit solicitation and handouts and street preaching.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
So what you're essentially saying, is that despite the fact that all our laws stem from the Constitution, it's okay to say "nay!" to the constitution, but not okay to say "nay!" to the law?
That's interesting, don't you think? Especially as our nation becomes more and more corporate owned.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
What I'm saying is that The Constitution does not, never has, and likely never will prevent individuals from making whatever rules they choose for their own property.
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
I was waiting for either Rob or Omega to come in and make that argument.
Rob is basicly right though Snay.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I don't recall saying he wasn't.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Then your point is... what? It's not fair? You don't like it?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
No Rob, I think the Constitution is very fair.
OTOH, maybe I'm just commenting on the stupidty of allowing anyone to violate my rights.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
A private business cannot refuse service to someone based on that person's beliefs. The Lawyer at lesat has a discrimination case based on that. ...when you add in the fact that the shirts were made at the mall, I think it'll be readily settled out of court for an undisclosed sum that comes with a gag order (so the lawyer won't continue to bring bad press to the mall). I wonder how much money the private storeowners that make up the mall have lost due to the mall's stupidity and inflexability? There could be a lawsuit from the storeowners if this bad press continues too long...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
This is true, unless the "allegations of fact" are also true, in which case he has no case. What we need is the 'bothered' witnesses.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
With all the media hype? I doubt anyone will come forward to be in the limelight of an uncomfortable position. ...assuming there ever were "bothered customers" in the first place and it was'nt just the guards having a bug up their butts. Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
OTOH, maybe I'm just commenting on the stupidty of allowing anyone to violate my rights.
Those rights being?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Then your point is... what? It's not fair? You don't like it?"
That was, indeed, my point when I posted the thread. I never claimed the mall did anything illegal. They have every right to kick out whomever they care to kick out. I was simply saying that their reason for kicking this guy out run contrary to some of the most basic tenets on which this society is founded. Therefore, the guards' actions were, while legal, profoundly offensive and, though I hate to say it, perhaps even "unAmerican".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Ah. You'd be at least partly wrong, then.
Although it's an unwritten tenet mostly, (although somewhat backed up by Amendments III and IV) one of our most important societal values is that a person's property is theirs to do with as they see fit.
These "property rights" extend to anything owned by an individual, which is not a public institution. They include the belief that "a man's home is his castle," among other things, and were fundamental in the creation of laws against home violation, quartering of soldiers in homes, and search and seizure. It is this tenet which allows one to set up "no trespassing" areas on one's property, as well as to do such things as ban undesirable activities and people (Those signs which say "no salesmen or solicitors," for example.
Without this fundamental right, all sorts of negative things could happen.
For instance... what if the KKK decided that your backyard was the perfect setting for a rally? If not for this basic tenet, you could do nothing to prevent their assembly and speechifying, or your likely identification with and presumed support of said group by others.
Not a pleasant thought, is it?
That's one of the reasons why this right of property is so important to folks.
Another example: Charles has the right to ban people from this site if he doesn't like what they say. He may not USE the right much, (although who here remembers the antisocial.com invasions?) but it is his, because this is HIS website. His property.
Can you think of sites where no one possesses this power? Or where everyone does? Do you think you could stay there for long?
(and if it's true that they were accosting people, then what they were wearing becomes even more moot.)
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:Those rights being?
You don't what rights are yours as an American citizen? What the fuck are you doing in college?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: For instance... what if the KKK decided that your backyard was the perfect setting for a rally? If not for this basic tenet, you could do nothing to prevent their assembly and speechifying, or your likely identification with and presumed support of said group by others.
I'm probably missing some subtle point here, but surely there's an ever-so-slight difference between My House (where I live my own private life) and A Shopping Mall (designed to allow large groups of strangers to wander around looking at items to purchase in a nice environment with coffee shops and stuff).
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Physical difference, yes. Legal difference, no.
People can run businesses out of their homes. At times, these businesses can have many customers. From a legal and ethical standpoint, the owned home, the owned building/business, are inseparable.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
You don't what rights are yours as an American citizen?
I wanted your opinion, Jeff. I do that.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
I have to agree. The mall consents people to shop within their confines, the same way a man invites guests in to their homes. And that same man can kick out unruly guests, no?
But yes, the reason itself was stupid. I'm trying to determine if Stephen Downs has grounds for a lawsuit. Ideas?
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
quote:I wanted your opinion, Jeff.
You wanted my opinions as to what rights I have? The rights that I have, the rights that you have, and the rights of all American citizens are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of Constitutional law.
Again, shouldn't you fucking know this to be in college?
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
quote:Originally posted by Malnurtured Snay:
quote:I wanted your opinion, Jeff.
You wanted my opinions as to what rights I have? The rights that I have, the rights that you have, and the rights of all American citizens are not a matter of opinion, they are a matter of Constitutional law.
Again, shouldn't you fucking know this to be in college?
I think I know what Omega is saying. Suppose you are a person who promotes say, death against Chinese people. And you go into a mall wearing a shirt that says as such. And mall security kicks you out. Sure, you have the right of free speech, but then, in a private setting, you're basically at the mercy of their rules.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
A mall may be privately owned, but it's not really "private", is it? It's about as much of a public-place as you can get.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Bingo, Eric-san. You don't have a right to say whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want. That can't be found anywhere in the Constitution.
(Where "you" is defined as one under the protection of the Constitution of the United States. Obviously, this would not include our resident anagram.)
And whether it's a public place is irrelevant. It's still private property.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
Well woohoo to facist security guards who can now abuse their authority to promote their political agenda! Surely, that's not what the Constitution is to guard against.
And of course, with our current Big-Corporation loving President in office, it's only a matter of time before everything is privately owned. Then his facist administration doesn't have to worry about protests at all. Yay.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Well woohoo to facist security guards who can now abuse their authority to promote their political agenda! Surely, that's not what the Constitution is to guard against.
Now that I think about it, it may not necessarily a constitutional issue. Technically, the guards may "constitutionally" be correct, but morally, they were way off the mark. Especially when they were abusing their authority to promote their own political agenda. They can hide behind "property rights" all they want, but it does not hide the fact that what they did was just plain wrong.
There is something called discrimination, which is basically defamation of the rights conferred as a citizen, such as freedom of speech, and what to wear. The determination of discrimination in Ontario is made by the Human Rights Commission. Of course, you cannot allege discrimination in a private home, but it is possible in a setting such like a restaurant, or a mall.
A woman alleges discrimination in a restaurant because she breastfeeds her baby. Her allegation is upheld.
A Neo-Nazi group allege discrimination in a mall or community center because of their dissemination of hate literature. Their allegation is dismissed.
If anything, Mr. Downs has the right to sue the mall on the basis of discrimination of political views. That's what it should be, unless, as First points out, they were being a nuisance. But then, they should have simply kicked them out, and not merely ask them to remove their shirts.
[ March 06, 2003, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Saltah'na ]
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Well, certainly, what they did was wrong. But just as certainly, no legal rights were violated. And I had something really good to post here before my browser crashed.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"For instance... what if the KKK decided that your backyard was the perfect setting for a rally?"
If I were in the habit of regularly offering my back yard as a freely open public gathering place in the spirit of, say, a shopping mall, then I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
And you'd still have the right to chase them off, either way.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
That wouldn't make it right.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
quote:Without this fundamental right, all sorts of negative things could happen.
Like defending one right while stomping on another? May be legal, but doesn't sit well with me AT ALL.
Why are malls treated as private property, anyway?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because... someone... owns them?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
ownage!!!1! pwnage!1!!!
BTW, if the people who own the malls are fascist pricks, don't shop at their mall and tell your friends. if they want the business bad enough, theyll change their ways. or close down from the loss of business.
as it is, people are afraid to shop there now for fear of how they'll 'offend' their hosts.. im sure that a boycott would make the individual stores put pressure on the owners to stop being pricks, once they started to see $$ fall off.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartmaniac:
quote:Without this fundamental right, all sorts of negative things could happen.
Like defending one right while stomping on another? May be legal, but doesn't sit well with me AT ALL.
Doltage.
ALL rights impose on other rights.
All rights end where they impose on others' rights.
Take "Freedom of Speech."
My right to free speech ends at your doorstep.
My right to free speech is superceded by your right to privacy and personal space, otherwise it would be legal for me to follow you into the shower and shout slogans at you. (Talk about a negative outcome!)
My right to free speech is superceded by your right to comfort, which is why we have things like noise ordinances, and your nextdoor neighbor cannot legally blast Rush Limbaugh's greatest hits album at you at 3:00 AM every morning.
You cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theatre.
You cannot wear a shirt that says "Kill all (insert hated group here)" to school. In fact, schools are pretty much able to ban whatever speech they choose. Despite the fact that schools are "public." Other students' right to an Education (among other rights) makes this necessary.
I can't back this next one up, but you'll probably find that churches, while ostensibly public and open to anyone who may come in, are not required to tolerate speech on every viewpoint either.
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
"ALL rights impose on other rights.
All rights end where they impose on others' rights."
It's the fixed boundaries between them that I have issues with. No case-by-case leeway.
Also, I wasn't aware entire urban shopping *areas* could be privately owned. In European states they remain federal property.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Practically everything in the US is privately owned. Especially anything having to do w/ corporations.
I'd also think that churches would be considered private. As far as I know, the land they occupy is still owned by someone.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Anybody know who, BTW? I've never been quite clear on our legal status.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)