Guest $iLk Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 If the mall had a clearer policy on inflammatory material, the charges should have stood. It isn't freedom of speech when you are on private property. The man had no right to stay once asked to leave. The only reason he's getting off is because of media attn the mall wishes to avoid, and the one sided handling of the story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 The private property argument loses some strength when you consider that by design malls are public places. As a place of business and/or housing for multiple businesses there is an implicit invitation to come there. quote:The man had no right to stay once asked to leave.That I will agree with. quote:The only reason he's getting off is because of media attn the mall wishes to avoid,Possibly. quote:and the one sided handling of the story. I tried to be fair as possible. Who was one sided? Can anyone say frivolous lawsuit? Not that free speech is frivolous but the for the dad (a lawyer) to set himself up for this smacks of lawsuit to me. I wonder what would happen if malls did publicly outline policy towards political statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest $iLk Posted March 6, 2003 Report Share Posted March 6, 2003 I'm not saying you were one sided, I'm talking about the media. The malls are by definition private property, but public establishments. The malls are owned by companies, for instance there is one company who owns both malls in Pensacola Florida. Those malls are considered their private property, and if they don't like the color of your shoes they can ask you to leave and they aren't open for lawsuit. I'm going off the assumption that the mall in the story is the same, because it states that it was private property in the story on MSNBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 Well a bunch of people wearing anti-war shirts descended on the mall the following day and they weren't arrested. Utter hypocrisy. As we see our public spaces squeezed further from what is reasonable I think we will start to see some very reasonable backlash. A mall, while private property, is still a gathering place of citizens and as such should be open to anyone wanting to express an opinion in a reasonable and non-threatening way. The private sector dominates too many aspects of our public lives and we need to take them back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 Except Lotharr, that in New York a mall is considered private property and has been considered that way since Shad Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall in 1985 if not for longer. So they can curtail free speech, and change their minds on restricting speech if they desire. In any case this isn't a new thing, and if this same event were to occur in about half the states the mall would be in the wrong, and in the other half the mall would be in the right. For New York there are some other questions to ask before we can be truly sure that the mall is in the right(legally), ie how much entanglement does the state have with the mall? If the Guilderland mall is sufficiently entangled with the state(ie a large enough a spectrum of municipal authority excersized there), then in New York it constitutes a public forum. Anyway, I don't think the law has changed in New York, but I could have missed something. So please ask and point out clarifications, corrections, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lotharr Posted March 7, 2003 Report Share Posted March 7, 2003 quote: Except Lotharr, that in New York a mall is considered private property and has been considered that way since Shad Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall in 1985 if not for longer. So they can curtail free speech, and change their minds on restricting speech if they desire. What is legal and what is right are two different things. So if I want to get around free speech I buy something and outlaw the first amendment? No way....private property of a private citizen is one thing. Corporate ownership is something else entirely. To institutionalize the right of wealth to control public spaces at the expense of civil liberties, community or individual expression is tyrannical and destructive. quote: If the Guilderland mall is sufficiently entangled with the state(ie a large enough a spectrum of municipal authority excersized there), then in New York it constitutes a public forum. Unfortunately I do not agree with this. Just because a corporate entity buys a physical space, it is not relieved of accountability to the local community and the greater society where it operates. Property rights are allegedly a corner stone of liberty, however when this single principle overruns the rest of the ideals of a society it becomes a problem.as it is now. Examine any social problem and you will find evidence of corporate interference and influence. Corporations are not people they are not entitled to bill of rights protection and they most definitely should not be free to redefine societal norms arbitrarily. I will not sacrifice my rights and liberties to an ultimately small group of non elected personal who feel they know what's best for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Lindsey Posted March 8, 2003 Report Share Posted March 8, 2003 quote:I'm not saying you were one sided, I'm talking about the media.Oh, ok. Gotcha. I think we all have this correct now. Of course malls are private property. But as everyone seems to agree they are also public places. To deny one entrance based upon the color of shoes is a slippery slope to tread. Of course if they cause a disturbance all bets are off. To wrap this up this has finally appeared at thesmokinggun.com. http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.htmlEveryone can read the guards side of the story/reports there. Best I can tell it goes like this. Dudes buy the shirts and put them on. Someone probably told them how clueless they were and a lively discussion ensued. A woman reported them to store security. Store security gets mall security. Here is the tricky part. In talking to Mall security dudes probably admitted the argument/discussion was over the shirts. At this point Mall security generously offers them the choice of removing the shirts to avoid any more confrontation or leaving entirely. This is all conjecture on my part. Dad refused either option and Mall security called the police. Dad was arrrested for trespass. Which was certainly the Mall's right after Dad refused to leave. If they had simply been asked to leave for causing a disturbance this story would have never surfaced. But because the shirts and thus freedom of speech were included it is now the big stink it is. Remo, bored yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now