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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I was waiting for either Rob or Omega to come in and make that argument.
Rob is basicly right though Snay.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Then your point is... what? It's not fair? You don't like it?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
OTOH, maybe I'm just commenting on the stupidty of allowing anyone to violate my rights.
Those rights being?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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".
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
