I don't know enough about the law, but I would suggest that
the fact that a mall is private property won't help the mall
in this case. They can't kick you out for any reason
at all--e.g. for being black or for wearing suspenders
or for talking to your wife about politics.
They will have to make a case that this fellow
was leafleating, soliciting, or some other activity
that is routinely prohibited in malls.
I hope this fellow collects
a couple of million. Probably the police made a dumb
decision, as they often do. Almost certainly the
charges willl be dropped quickly. Nothing new,
not alarming. Civil liberties are always
under attack and police are often
silly--it isn't a matter of 'what's the
world coming to''--it's been there for millenia.
The cry 'Oh my, this is a dictatorship!'
empowers the silllies, disempowers us.
Did anybody really think you would
never have to defend your civil rights? Best
A question I'd like to ask is this: Is the US heading towards pre-WW2 fascism, or merely towards post-WW2 McCarthy'ism? Opinions invited.
Jens
Since your question only gives a choice of two negative outcomes, my opinion is you're a jerk trying to stir up anti-American sentiment.
After taking a peek at that Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 bill, as a born-n-bred American, I don't think either of those options are too far-fetched. Scary times we live in....
It sounds very strange to me, that is seems to be alright if someone who buys a T-shirt with a John Lennon song quote "Give peace a chance" gets asked in the same mall he bought it to take it either off or gets thrown out? And as the Reuter reports say, it happened not only to one buyer. Pretty double moral, first taking the profit in the sales (even it is from a rent paying shop in a big center) but wearing it is NOT permitted?
And NO, Jens is not a jerk in putting out such a question, it may not be in the right context in this thread to ask it. But he and many others inside and outside the US are worried about the many more serious changes happening regarding freedom of speech and freedom of personal rights by the US legislative. There are certainly many rights cut down in the last year or so and you possibly know more about the effect in personal life than I could as I am not living in your country.
edited because I left out the NOT which is essential and for typos
Last edited by Brigitte on Thu Mar 06, 2003 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Shall we cool this thread? It's framed in a provocative way,
it's hard ot know what really happened, it's unclear
what this event has to do with the government....
Too murky to do much more than bash around.
We're much better when we know what we're
talking about. Yes, of course we should take
a good look at anti-terrorism legislation.
Best to all
Bloomfield wrote:I sometimes wish there were a greater awareness for what Europe (Germany, England, France, Greece, Austria) were like right before World War I. To read the statements, the views, comments that were considered acceptable then or unacceptable is interesting, sad, and terrifying because we know what happened right after.
Yeah, I've often wondered how people in those countries were feeling and thinking during those last few years before the first World War. I empathize with them a great deal.
I think a large problem is that the generality of the populace does not understand that freedom of speech, like other basic freedoms, come with responsibilities. That freedom of speech means that the other guy, who disagrees with you, also has the right to free speech. Free speech also doesn't mean that you can say anything you like wherever and whenever you like. It could be argued, therefore, that the man with the t-shirt is not being restricted as to wearing the shirt but only as to where he can wear it. I am no expert on constitutional law but I do know that this is not a simple subject and that newspapers rarely present a complete and unbiased report of events. Don't believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Mike
A mall is private property, so they can kick out (almost) anyone for (almost) any reason. There have been a few restrictions cut out of this absolute freedom, but this sort of "hey look at me and get it on camera so I can file a lawsuit and get my picture on TV" stuff has not been the subject of these exceptions.
Another point, people like to shout "You're violating my First Amendment rights!", but it shold be remembered that the Constitution (and the accompanying amendments to it) only apply to the federal government. Of course these can be read on other entities (such as states and corporations, etc.) if these entities are representing the federal government or are in some way associated with the federal government. It is of course more complicated than this, but the above is generally true.
I still think that the US is an amazingly free country. It would be interesting (and no, I am not trying to stir things up) to see how the freedoms in the US compare to other western countries, like Germany, France, England etc. Are there restrictions in any of these countries that do not exist in others? Has there really been that many restrictions imposed in the US? If so, how does the US now compare with these other countries. (If anyone decides to respond, I think factual responses [such as "In country xxx, it is illegal to yyy"] as opposed to "I think Germany sucks" etc. would be best). I wish I were more knowledgeable on these subjects, but am not (yet).
It goes against some people's inclinations on either side of the political spectrum but it just makes the case for moderation to me. I get exasperated by histrionic responses to such things but we are so over-stimulated these days by electronic and print stuff, that the producers of such things become more desparate to elicit such responses. You just have to hold your feet on the ground and ask, what am I really being told here? Whose agenda is being served? THIS INCLUDES the current Administration, of course, for those who think I am only flying with one right wing.
Just remember the Tawana Bradley hoax for example. Or the PR firm that the Kuwaitis hired to juice up their occupation stories. So many people are massaging and working angles for whatever is current.
We have been in a state of war with Iraq pretty much for the last 10 years. Clinton fired over 400 cruise missiles in 1998. But along with the stories above, everyone seems to forget everything!! And go nuts about what they read in today's paper!!!
One of my favorite chronic headline grabbers has been the Center for Science in the Public Interest. For a while there, they were coming out with monthly dire pronouncements about food. One month was how bad Chinese Food is for ya, for example, while another month was the evils of pizza. After a while, the chorus becomes so predictable and frequent that you tune it out. Then they shout even louder. Crank up the commercials, include new phones ringing to get your attention, jiggle the camera angle sideways, anything to get your attention.
The worst part is, that if you do tune out, in some way, they have won. You will be less likely to go out and vote, volunteer or otherwise feel that you are a PART of our system, rather than a passive observer. I think that "road rage" is a symptom of what I call "passive-aggressive social disorder". In other words, the Patriot Act may really mess up our lives, but people sit on the couch and eat their chips while its reported yet get really worked up about getting cut off on the freeway. Pick yer battles!!!!
I did a lot of neighborhood council work and people hiding behind their mini-blinds were the hardest nuts to crack, even when spray-can vandals, car thieves and rapacious public agencies were screwing up our neighborhood. We were not rabid leftists or abortion-clinic bombers either. We were actually pretty moderate and did not fit in the mold of extremists which actually confused the newspapers, victim groups and other local poverty pimps agendas. It was hard to initiate change for us, but we prevailed. I wish the same moderation for all.
To the distress of trial lawyers, Bush is pushing for a limit on pain and suffering awards in tort laws. This is a tangible, debatable real story and might include that guy with his dang t-shirt. Jim Stone wants him to get a few million for pulling his little act. I don't.
If I put it in the most idealistic terms, I can ascribe t-shirt man's actions to coming up with yet another 'diverse' way to protest the war effort. Could be, or maybe he just wants a few million. The whole thing was certainly staged that way, OR so it seems.
It's depressing because of course, everyone has an agenda. The myth of objective journalism is just that. Look at the earliest newspapers in colonial days and you realize that our journalistic tradition in the US began with sensationalism and continues to be that way. I worked as a newspaper reporter after receiving a scholarship and I was trained to aspire to objectivity. But the uniformity of message these days in our open and 'free" market has been proven over and over again. One memo from the Demo party campaign headquarters asked operatives to question Bush's "gravitas" for example. Next thing you know, all the talking heads were using that word. Limbaugh has a hilarious set of recorded soundbites of everybody from Cokie Roberts to Paul Begala, all questioning Bush's gravitas. Another maddening example, is the "Elite Republican Guard" or "Somali Warlords." Who dreamed that up? How Elite were they anyway?
I see a lot of very lazy reporting these days complete with showbiz zingers, like Dan Rather getting the Saddam interpreter to use a fake Arab accent to dramatize Saddam's words. You can launch into a discourse on the evils of corporate press ownership, but the alternative, trusting the government to give you correct information has its problems too.
In cruder terms, keep your B.S. filter on. that's what I said before and say again.
This was pretty stupid on the part of mall management, but it's hard for me to understand how this inspired a poll about whether the US government is crazy or not. The US government was not involved in this stupidity in any way.
The owners/managers of a privately-owned mall made the decision that the wearing of that shirt on the premises might be disruptive to their business. They have the right to do that.
They asked the guy to remove the shirt or leave. They have the right to do that. It's a privately owned business, not public property.
He refused to comply with the property owner's conditions for the use of the property so he was arrested (by a local police department, not an agency of the US government, BTW). That's perfectly proper.
So, where again did the US government have anything to do with this?
I think all you squishy-headed liberals need to go back to school, let's see, I think they taught all this stuff in about eighth or ninth grade when I was a youngster... :roll:
Oh, and lest I forget. The article mentions the caption on the shirt, which I think we'd all agree is pretty innocuous. However, there is no mention of what graphics were on the shirt, and I notice that there quite oddly is no picture of the shirt on picture-happy but liberal CNN.com. Gosh, maybe there is more to this story than we're being told, eh? I've seen a few anti-war shirts with very offensive graphics that I wouldn't want worn in my food court either!
TelegramSam wrote:The arrest was made for trespassing, not for the shirt itself, as the man didn't leave when asked.
A mall is technically private property, and thus the 1st amendment is no protection, the management can kick someone out for any or no reason at all, even stupid reasons like wearing a bloody t-shirt that doesn't fit their politics.
Technically he's right....
There has to be more to this story - no quotes from the police, DA or mall management.[/quote]
I agree.
---The opinions and views expressed in this post are not necessarily the author's opinions. If you agree with them, they are mine. If you disagree, they are someone else's.---
"If Saddam Hussein fails to comply and we fail to act or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop his program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of sanctions and ignore the commitments he's made; Well, he will conclude that the international community's lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on doing more to build an arsenal of devastating destruction. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. The stakes could not be higher. Some way, someday, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."
"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." President Bill Clinton in 1998
"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so?' That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." Tom Daschel:1998
Two things have changed since 1998:
1. Saddam has had four years without inspectors to expand his WMD programs.
ChrisLaughlin wrote:Soineanta, that's very sad.
Speaking up for what we believe IS patriotic.
It's constitutionally mandated that we do so.
There's nothing more patriotic than protesting when you disagree with the policies your government is enacting in your name.
It's a sad, sad time we live in that speaking one's mind in the USA, the land of the free, has become a crime and an offense against the country.
Chris
It will be a sadder time when a property owner does not have the right to have someone arrested for trespassing. That's what the arrest was about, you know.
Oh, wait, I get it, the mall owner doesn't have a right to his opinion but he's forced to provide a venue for everyone else to express theirs on his private property.
jim stone wrote:I don't know enough about the law, but I would suggest that
the fact that a mall is private property won't help the mall
in this case. They can't kick you out for any reason
at all--e.g. for being black or for wearing suspenders
or for talking to your wife about politics.
They will have to make a case that this fellow
was leafleating, soliciting, or some other activity
that is routinely prohibited in malls.
Can they kick you out for hanging around the food court wearing a shirt with a picture of an aborted fetus? It's happened before and strangely there was not any uproar about it in the press.
So, maybe, just maybe, Reuters and CNN aren't showing us a picture of this shirt because it had similarly offensive graphics accompanying the innocuous slogan.
