Man arrested for 'peace' T-shirt
-
NEW YORK PENAL LAW PART THREE--SPECIFIC OFFENSES TITLE I--OFFENSES INVOLVING DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY ARTICLE 140--BURGLARY AND RELATED OFFENSES http://www.rcdaoffice.org/nylaws/pl/plarticle140.htm[^] Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
The question is simple: If selling that T-shirt is not wrong, why is wearing it wrong? It is a very bad practice to allow sales and discourage use. - kind of same with cigarettes, guns etc.. I wonder why a T-shirt was objectionable to the mall. People are walking all around the US with anti-war stuff. Anyway, if he was asked to leave; and he did not - i guess he may be on the other side of the law. But, is it right? If that T-shirt was the only reason he was asked to leave, then it seems to be an infringement of basic rights. A mall can hardly be categorized as a private place, where entry is restricted. I wonder whether that argument will hold up against any jury. But, who knows what happened? We can wait for the other side of the story to appear in FOX news :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Lucky guy! Now he can sue the mall and make millions for harrasment and infringement on his right of free speech. He can get famous and sell the movie and book rights. As for the mall. Hmmm. How like the Iraqi regime to try to suppress unpopular opinions, or those against the opinion of the government itself. So who are they really at war with?
"How many more people have to die before no one ever dies again?" - Daniel Haley, The Onion
Kevnar wrote: Lucky guy! Now he can sue the mall and make millions for harrasment and infringement on his right of free speech. He can get famous and sell the movie and book rights. Only if he wants to waste money trying. It's not a free speech issue - it's a concern for public safety and private property issue. Since the mall is private property, they can refuse entrance to anyone they want. However, to prove equal and fair treatment, they should also kick out people wearing pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gay, pro republican, pro-democrat, and other similarly reactionary clothing. No matter how you twist it, it's NOT a free-speach issue. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
-
Tim Smith wrote: My big problem with the story is that we only hear one side. I really doubt he was thrown out just because he put on the t-shirt Why not just take the story at face value? According to the story, a guy bought a shirt, wore it, and was then thretened with arrest if he didn't remove it. Don't you see a problem with that? Suppose the shirt said "Jesus is Love?" This is just plain _wrong_.
Why assume the guy is telling the truth? After all, he is being charged with a crime that could land him in jail. Do you think he would actually admit to the gravity of what he might have done? Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
The question is simple: If selling that T-shirt is not wrong, why is wearing it wrong? It is a very bad practice to allow sales and discourage use. - kind of same with cigarettes, guns etc.. I wonder why a T-shirt was objectionable to the mall. People are walking all around the US with anti-war stuff. Anyway, if he was asked to leave; and he did not - i guess he may be on the other side of the law. But, is it right? If that T-shirt was the only reason he was asked to leave, then it seems to be an infringement of basic rights. A mall can hardly be categorized as a private place, where entry is restricted. I wonder whether that argument will hold up against any jury. But, who knows what happened? We can wait for the other side of the story to appear in FOX news :-D My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
The guy got arrested for trespassing, not for wearing a t-shirt. There are two different issues here. Him getting arrested is a no-brainer. He was asked to leave and he did not. The law in New York specifically talks about private property open for public use. If someone is asked to leave by management or a representative and they do not, then they are trespassing. As far as him being asked to leave just because he wore a t-shirt, I find that hard to believe that is all there is to the story. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
First off, i hate malls. Stop. Go back, and read the first sentence in this post again, this time while sniffing a rotten potato. Thank you. Sometimes i just can't adequately communicate disgust via text. Ok, now about this guy - as Tim mentioned, it was the right of the mall management to insist Mr. Downs leave. Shopping malls, much as they try to pretend they are when it suits them, are not public property. Read this (more detailed) story: http://www.rochesterdandc.com/news/0305story18_news.shtml[^] So, this mall apparently has a policy of discouraging the wearing of certain propaganda. Well, that sucks, but, it’s understandable. After all, their job is to keep lots and lots of people moving through each day, so they can keep lots of businesses paying them for access. And a part of doing that is to provide an environment shoppers want to be in. This means no scary reminders of what’s happening in the real world. Don’t want those impressionable young posers and geriatric walkers to become disturbed now! (did i mention i hate malls?) What to do then? If you stick to protesting and wearing peace shirts on strictly public property, then you miss a huge potentially receptive audience. Well, now that this guy is making an ass of himself, the mall is gonna get rather a lot of bad press. Whether they’ll soften their policy, or just try and ride it out remains to be seen, but either way it gets coverage. Imminent destruction of all malls nation wide is probably too much to hope for... but it helps to pass the time. ---
My whole life I've practiced the art of self-sabotage -- fearing success perhaps even more than fearing failure. I think I have got this flareup resolved, but I'm constantly waiting to see what new and exciting ways I can spoil my chances for a better life. - koreykruse, Compulsive Skin Picking
So, this mall apparently has a policy of discouraging the wearing of certain propaganda. Well, that sucks, but, it’s understandable. After all, their job is to keep lots and lots of people moving through each day, so they can keep lots of businesses paying them for access. And a part of doing that is to provide an environment shoppers want to be in. This means no scary reminders of what’s happening in the real world. Don’t want those impressionable young posers and geriatric walkers to become disturbed now! Now this is the REAL point to the story. I don't understand why others have problems seeing that there are two issues here. The first being the trespassing charge and the second being any stupid mall policy. I personally don't see how an "anti-war" t-shirt hurts anybody. After all, THEY WERE SELLING THE DAMN THING THERE. If people want to get all pissed off about this story, they have to be pissed off about the mall. These totally illogical rants about the arrest are just silly. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
of course the story isn't that simple, is it? i changed my mind. yes, the story is that simple. but, this story is really about the fact that rent-a-cops are assholes. -c
When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307.asp[^] "Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that 'wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited' at the mall. " Hmmm, I wonder why CNN neglected to mention this? Its a stupid rule, but its private property.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiYeah. That is my problem with the story. It is worded to sound like the "evil police came in and arrested the man" when the real story is "mall has stupid rule and is willing to enforce it to their fullest ability." Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
The guy got arrested for trespassing, not for wearing a t-shirt. There are two different issues here. Him getting arrested is a no-brainer. He was asked to leave and he did not. The law in New York specifically talks about private property open for public use. If someone is asked to leave by management or a representative and they do not, then they are trespassing. As far as him being asked to leave just because he wore a t-shirt, I find that hard to believe that is all there is to the story. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
Tim Smith wrote: As far as him being asked to leave just because he wore a t-shirt, I find that hard to believe that is all there is to the story. Me too. But, if indeed that was the case, the mall is in big trouble and may have to pay this guy some compensation. .. and this guy is a lawyer too. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Tim Smith wrote: As far as him being asked to leave just because he wore a t-shirt, I find that hard to believe that is all there is to the story. Me too. But, if indeed that was the case, the mall is in big trouble and may have to pay this guy some compensation. .. and this guy is a lawyer too. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307.asp[^] "Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that 'wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited' at the mall. " Hmmm, I wonder why CNN neglected to mention this? Its a stupid rule, but its private property.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiJason Henderson wrote: but its private property. Funny how this changes depending on the incident at hand. A few months back people here were discussing the police in VA arresting people in restaurants before who were sitting at the bar legally drunk. In that argument restaurants were considered public property and therefore the police had the right to arrest because of public drunkeness laws. They are both technically privately owned, but accessible to the public without special permission, so should be defined similarly. BW "We get general information and specific information, but none of the specific information talks about time, place or methods or means..." - Tom Ridge - US Secretary of Homeland Security
-
http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307.asp[^] "Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that 'wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited' at the mall. " Hmmm, I wonder why CNN neglected to mention this? Its a stupid rule, but its private property.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhiyes a shopping mall is private property but its not private property like someones house is in my opinion ... shopping malls are kind of public property or at least in principle to my mind based on seeing it like that i think its a bit bad to have such an in-offensive tshirt cause problems ... i mean he wasnt saying "down with the us" or "kill muslims" or something else provacative ... it just said "peace" and if that becomes a "bad thing" to say god help us i think theres more to it but still its a sad day that wishing to make it known u support peace is a bad thing
-
Lucky guy! Now he can sue the mall and make millions for harrasment and infringement on his right of free speech. He can get famous and sell the movie and book rights. As for the mall. Hmmm. How like the Iraqi regime to try to suppress unpopular opinions, or those against the opinion of the government itself. So who are they really at war with?
"How many more people have to die before no one ever dies again?" - Daniel Haley, The Onion
Free speech is not absolute and it never has been. He has every right to wear that t-shirt as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Please read Amendment IX of the U.S. Constitution. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.
-
http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307.asp[^] "Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that 'wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited' at the mall. " Hmmm, I wonder why CNN neglected to mention this? Its a stupid rule, but its private property.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiBut the Mall allowed the sale of the T-Shirt on it's property. Oh wait ... the mall gets revenue off that.
-
yes a shopping mall is private property but its not private property like someones house is in my opinion ... shopping malls are kind of public property or at least in principle to my mind based on seeing it like that i think its a bit bad to have such an in-offensive tshirt cause problems ... i mean he wasnt saying "down with the us" or "kill muslims" or something else provacative ... it just said "peace" and if that becomes a "bad thing" to say god help us i think theres more to it but still its a sad day that wishing to make it known u support peace is a bad thing
l a u r e n wrote: yes a shopping mall is private property but its not private property like someones house is in my opinion ... shopping malls are kind of public property or at least in principle to my mind Free speech becomes a sticky issue when you try to define what is and what isn't offensive. I agree that a mall is a find of public area, but it is still private property. This is an issue for the courts to decide, and I'm sure this lawyer will take it as far as he can.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
http://www.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M276307.asp[^] "Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that 'wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited' at the mall. " Hmmm, I wonder why CNN neglected to mention this? Its a stupid rule, but its private property.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - Gandhi -
Tim Smith wrote: As far as him being asked to leave just because he wore a t-shirt, I find that hard to believe that is all there is to the story. Me too. But, if indeed that was the case, the mall is in big trouble and may have to pay this guy some compensation. .. and this guy is a lawyer too. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
OH! Now i get it, you wear a shirt that say's "Peace" in an attempt to provoke a disturbance. Thanks Jason, It's so simple, i don't know why i couldn't understand.
"No matter where you go, there your are..." - Buckaoo Banzi
-pete
-
Kevnar wrote: Lucky guy! Now he can sue the mall and make millions for harrasment and infringement on his right of free speech. He can get famous and sell the movie and book rights. Only if he wants to waste money trying. It's not a free speech issue - it's a concern for public safety and private property issue. Since the mall is private property, they can refuse entrance to anyone they want. However, to prove equal and fair treatment, they should also kick out people wearing pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gay, pro republican, pro-democrat, and other similarly reactionary clothing. No matter how you twist it, it's NOT a free-speach issue. ------- signature starts "...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 Please review the Legal Disclaimer in my bio. ------- signature ends
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote: However, to prove equal and fair treatment, they should also kick out people wearing pro-life, pro-choice, pro-gay, anti-gay, pro republican, pro-democrat, and other similarly reactionary clothing. What if you are gay, republican or democrat? (Yes, there are only three choices ;)) and one of the guards overhear a conversation you have with your friend on the cell phone which may be something which the owner doesn't want you to say at their place. Can they kick you out because of that, or would that be invasion of privacy by the guard? If it is invasion of privacy, then there IS a free speech issue. You can say as much as you want on the phone, but you can't wear a sign saying it. Asymmetric freedom of speech. Is it also possible to refuse people entrance because of ethnicity? Could they kick me out if I decided to wear a jewish outfit? (Hat, black clothing, sideburns, etc) I think it's odd that your government allow the owners of these public places (they do have Welcome signs, hence they must be public, right??) to refuse entrance to certain people based on their own prejudices. I'm ok with the guards removing a person behaving badly, but I don't think wearing a tshirt qualifies as behaving badly unless it's got C4 attached to it. -- Shine, enlighten me - shine Shine, awaken me - shine Shine for all your suffering - shine
-
But the Mall allowed the sale of the T-Shirt on it's property. Oh wait ... the mall gets revenue off that.
-
l a u r e n wrote: yes a shopping mall is private property but its not private property like someones house is in my opinion ... shopping malls are kind of public property or at least in principle to my mind Free speech becomes a sticky issue when you try to define what is and what isn't offensive. I agree that a mall is a find of public area, but it is still private property. This is an issue for the courts to decide, and I'm sure this lawyer will take it as far as he can.
Jason Henderson
"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." - GandhiThe NY law I found on the web (with a quick reading) supports the mall's right have him arrested for trespassing after being asked to leave. Now the big question is if they had the right to ask him to leave. I really don't see reason why they can't ask him to leave. Tim Smith I'm going to patent thought. I have yet to see any prior art.