Culture of Fascism

by Albo Thu Mar 06, 2003 15:34

The police were legally right to arrest them - if they were not allowed in the mall and went in anyway, they were indeed trespassing.

However, the security guards were wrong to ask them to leave. They weren't inciting hatred or disturbing the peace, or committing any offense within the mall (damage/theft/danger to other patrons/etc.), and as such the security guards had no reason to have them thrown out. They are guilty of discrimination and restriction of the right to free speech (a big thing in America).

e.g. If they asked someone to leave because they were black or gay, that person would technically be trespassing too.

by Ordinary Joe Thu Mar 06, 2003 16:44

A shopping mall in America, although privately owned is, in effect, the public market-place. And those frequenting it have constitutionally-protected freedom of speech.

by Ray Thu Mar 06, 2003 17:17

AFAIK, if you're on private property you have no automatic right to freedom of speech. While its true that privately-owned malls are replacing public spaces, that doesn't mean the rights you have in the street transfer to the mall. It might be desirable, but there's no legal reason why it should. (Hence, the articles about the "colonisation of public space" by people like Naomi Klein)

by Mike Thu Mar 06, 2003 17:24 stepbystepfarm at shaysnet dot com

Maybe the insides of shopping malls SHOULD be declared "public space". But so far in America they are classified "private" --- I haven't heard of any jurisdiction in which that isn't the case.

Essentially the mall owners (through their agents) can ask anyone to leave for any reason with few exceptions. In other words, they ARE allowed to do so on a "discriminatory" basis provided those being discriminated against are not a legally protected class in that jurisdiction.

Some of these protections are at the federal level but others state or local. Thus nowhere in the US could the mall throw people out because "we don't want people of your color in here" or "we don't want old folks in here" or "it disturbs our other customers to have to look at you cripples". But in many states they could throw out a gay couple holding hands but not here in Massachusetts.

They (the owners) CAN be discriminitory about whom they will allow to solicit or demonstrate inside. In other words, just because they allow one group or side does not mean they have given up the right to refuse that to others.

Again, I'm simply stating what the rules are here and not indicating approval.

by Phuq Hedd Thu Mar 06, 2003 20:13

Apparently the Mall had instituted a policy of "no statements about the war" after there had been an "activist shopping day" at Christmas in which a large number of people went shopping with banners and t-shirts.

The mall is also apparently facing a huge economic backlash as a result of this and is reported to be under pressure from some of the retail chains to reverse its policy because they're afraid of being targetted for boycotts if they don't make it clear that they're against the mall's policy.

An interview with the son of the detained man will be available shortly here: http://www.democracynow.org/

by karlof1 Thu Mar 06, 2003 22:24

In the USA, there is a longstanding "right" enabling businesses to refuse to provide goods or services to anyone within the bounds of anti-discrimination laws. Since the two men involved were allowed to enter the private establisnment, conduct business and were in the process of conducting further business when they were told they could no longer do so because they weren't conforming to some unposted behavioral "norm," they certainly have the grounds for a lawsuit based on discrimination.

by Ray - (as editor) Fri Mar 07, 2003 09:32

(moved to existing article - Ray) Arrested for wearing a T-Shirt
by Dannie McQ Thu, Mar 6 2003, 10:21pm
phone: 0879884158 Onefukedupkid@hotmail.com
Give Peace A Chance
A New Yorker was arrested today for trespassing after refusing to take off his T-Shirt

A New Yorker was arrested today for trespassing after refusing to take off his T-Shirt. After purchasing two T-shirts in a mall Stephen Downes and his son put on the tops one of which siad "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back. they were confronted by security gaurds and told to remove the clothing or leave. His son took the shirt off but the father refused and was arrestested for tresspassing. last month a similer incident occured when 20 peace activists were given the same choice however that time nobody was arrested.

Full Story @ http://www.msnbc.com/local/wnyt/m276307.asp?0ct=-302&cp1=1

edit this story | hide this story | delete this story

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS
Thanks a million!
by Eternal idiot watcher Fri, Mar 7 2003, 3:26am

More than likely,it would have been the fashion police who made the arrests..

edit this comment | delete this comment

Private
by Seanin Fri, Mar 7 2003, 4:43am

Private property again I suppose. They don'r want fights breaking out in the malls caused by people wearing provocative slogans.

by Ali la Pointe Fri Mar 07, 2003 19:10

so i'll not add any quips about certain peace activists i know who have never been arrested for their poor fashion sense but ought to have been

by jeff Sun Mar 09, 2003 18:18

Peace on Earth is a Provocative slogan?

Provocative slogans? "Peace" is a provocative slogan? What is wrong with you man? What is wrong with people? Why do people enjoy being stupid? Seanin will probably guffaw when he sees civilian casualties on the news next month, and dream of the return of the Celtic Tiger. I just wish SOMETHING happens that will WAKE him out of his slumber, something that will make him feel PAIN and GUILT...

by jeff Sun Mar 09, 2003 18:46

Seanin, misread your piece, I have been reading other pieces thrown in by people with a Bush fetish today. Wsa angry, misread your piece, sorry bout dat :0) Take care