3/6 Mall t-shirt part II: http://csua.org/u/a48
Now the mall wants to drop the charges because they know they
screwed up bigtime.
\_ dropping charges doesn't mean anything. They want to
apprehend the person who is in their view politically incorrect.
By arrest him first, file charges later, then release him,
The mall has achieved this goal. Same tactics is oftened
used in mainland China. Most people gets the message and
become silent afterwards.
\_ Um, okay. Most people would consider this a victory for
the demonstrators and the guy who was arrested. He's probably
not planning on being silent since he's considering a lawsuit.
I think a reasonable person would say the mall failed
miserably and that this will send a message to malls
across the country that they shouldn't try the same thing.
\_ call me a greedy bastard. What I really want to see is
a civil lawsuit against the mall. As previous motd
stated, there is no law (hence protection) governing
this kind of issue in New York State. Consider that
New York is the 2nd largest State in the Union. Such
law is long overdue.
\_ What you don't seem to understand is businesses
don't want such a law, neither do a probable
majority of the public. So in the sense anything
is overdue, it would be annuling California's
law.
\_ California isn't the only state with limited
\_ California's law does not provides that you may
exercise your 1st amd. right to free speech in
a quasi-public forum (privately owned, but operated
with the intention that any member of the public
can attend) at any time you chose. What it provides
is that you may exercise your 1st amd. right at
a reasonable time and place within the forum
and that such a time and place may be determined
by the owners of the forum.
\_ the CA state supreme court said the following in
Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal.3d
899 (1979), aff''d, 447 U.S. 74 (1980):
The free-speech guarantees of the California Constitution
"protect speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping
centers even when the centers are privately owned." - danh
free speech protections in quasi-public forums.
Colorado, Oregon and New Jersey among others
protect free speech in quasi-public forums.
As far as what the majority of the public
want, that is irrelevant since the purpose
of the first amd. is to protect the freedoms
of the minority from the will of the majority.
\_ You are a greedy bastard.
\_ This doesn't work as well in the States because we're not
that subtle, we haven't internalized our protests to avoid
persecution, and we love to sue to make our voices heard.
In real terms, sure, the mall achieved its goal by expelling
the t-shirt protesters, but in perceived terms, they've
lost by having to make the retraction.
\_ Will all of you with anti-war desires please form a PAC,
stop being so cheap, and pay for your results like every
other special interest? I had to live through the hippie
movements in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, and I'd really like
to keep the new millennium hippie free. Thanks. -ax
\_ 1. anti-war not necessarily equal to hippie
\_ Would people mind dressing up a little for
protests then? They get international press
and everyone outside the US thinks we are slobs. -ax
\_ Most people outside the US agree with the
protestors.
\_ And you know this how? You've polled the
world and the world is qualified to make this
judgement and makes it from a neutral point
of view and not an anti-American or selfish
perspective? Uh huh.
2. this whole thread is not about war/anti-war.
it's about freedom of expression and consistutional right
in semi-public areas
\_ Malls are private areas.
\_ not true... in most of America (ie, suburbia) there
are no general shopping districts, per se, and few
public places for people to congregate. Malls
spring up to fill this gap, and therefore act as
de facto public places.
\_ You are wrong, except in California.
If you read the USSC opinion posted
here yesterday the mall was completely
legal in its behavoir - as it should be.
\_ You fail to understand why people move to suburbia.
They move there precisely to avoid having to deal
with the unwashed masses, crazies, and generally
anyone who deviates from their beliefs and values.
\_ it has nothing to do with anyone else's political
in a store at the mall. Sure, I care about freedom of speech and all
that good stuff, but aren't we missing the more important issue here?
The guy BUYS a shirt in a store within the mall, which I'm sure the mall
doesn't mind one bit. But then as soon as he WEARS it, they get pissy.
That's probably his best bet at winning a lawsuit (although it probably
wouldn't be as nice of a case for 1st amendment rights then).
beliefs. thats such an idiotic and silly smear.
it is entirely and 100% because it is cleaner,
safer, easier to live, more convenient and mostly
free from crazies and criminals. you're not as
clever as you feel. the only reason to live in
a crowded city such as SF is you're young and
\_ you think black people should still be
forced to attend different high schools?
besides, the point was to disprove that
protest "doesn't produce anything"
like the endless party, you're old and have near
zero rent due to draconian rent control laws. or
you're a criminal and there's a higher victim
density there. --happy in the burbs
\_ Hahaha thanks for making my point.
\_ I weep for you poor soulless bastards.
\_ Which is why the t-shirtters are getting support both
from the Right and the Left: they may disagree
vehemently, but they both want the right to do so loudly
and publicly.
\_ Protest, by its very nature, doesn't produce
anything. It only prevents things from happening.
\_ bzzt. sorry. wrong. cite: most progressive
change w/in the last 30 years
\_ 'progressive change'? is that a good thing?
If all those protestors would pick up trash, or
join the Peace Corp, or actually DO SOMETHING
USEFUL other than complain, that would make the
world a lot better place than chanting
"No War For Oil". -ax
\_ gee, ax, are you joining the Peace Corps? Or
are you for the war and joining the Army? -tom
\_ I'm just tired of seeing the same unhappy
faces protesting every issue that comes up:
compaining doesn't accomplish anything. How
many bodybuilders or athletes do you see
running around protesting? There are do'ers
and complainers. Those who can't do,
complain. -ax
\_ While our elected officials (and one
appointed one) don't seem to realize
this, we are living in a democractic
society, and protest is vital to its
workings. "Never doubt that a
small group of thoughtful, committed
people can change the world; indeed, it's
the only thing that ever has. [Margaret
Mead]" As for bodybuilders and athletes,
I don't think being more concerned with
your shoe contract than with world
politics really qualifies as "doing". -tom
\_ Republicans are that small group,
and they are changing the world.
Protest by voting or PAC's, don't
clog the streets with sloppily dressed
people followed by a celebratory riot.
-ax
\_ I used to give you more credit
than this. -tom
\_ I didn't say they were
changing it for the better!
-ax
\_ that's not what I mean.
voting is important, but
it's not the primary agent
of social change. Look
at the civil rights
reforms of the 60's--do
you think they were
driven by the election
of Ronald Reagan as
governor and Richard
Nixon as president? No,
they were driven by
protests and the work of
activists. As for PAC's,
government-for-hire is
the *problem*, not the
solution. -tom
<-
\_ I think the protestors would be more effective saying that they
have mobilized >51% of the voters and Bush won't get re-elected
if he goes to war with Iraq. Protests, as they stand now, are
a very vocal minority trying to bully more than their fair share
of representation out of the government. It's one vote per person,
not more votes for those who yell the loudest. Which is why I
too hate PAC's, although at least lobbiests are well dressed
and don't turn over newspaper stands and throw rocks. -ax
\_ More to the point, the protesters need to protest _and_
mobilize the vote. Protest gets the message out there; votes
are what gets the politicos to listen to your protests.
\_ not really. its still about money.
\_ The funny part about this argument is, ax is complaining about
how protestors aren't "doing" anything, in a case where the
protestors actually *did* something. Do you think the mall
would have dropped the charges without the protests? -tom
\_ Wearing T shirts and putting on bumper stickers isn't doing
anything. How do you get peace? You crush all your
enemies. Peace is just the lack of war. Sitting on
your ass in a tied died shirt smoking a doob isn't peace.
Your peace is provided by the men and women who wear the
US flag on their shoulder and actually go out and do
something to prevent terrorists from dropping anthrax
in your bong. -ax
\_ How about the strategy of, "Don't make enemies?"
\_ counterexample: al qaeda would not be attacking the US
if we were not an ever-present aggressive military
presence in the middle east. -tom
\_ The same people who run Al Qaeda also plan to turn
the entire world into a Taliban-ish muslim state.
That includes your pampered ass.
\_ Al qaeda says that they wouldn't be attacking
the US if we weren't in Saudi Arabia, but how
can you believe the words of a bunch of
criminals?
\_ What do Gordon Liddy and Pat Robertson have
to do with this conversation?
\_ what possible *reason* would they have to
attack the US if we weren't in the middle
east? Bush has already warned us that a
war in Iraq is likely to *increase* terrorist
attacks in the US. -tom
\_ Duh, read a history book. We're the infidels
and they believe it is the word of God that
they should convert the entire world, at the
edge of a sword if necessary. Wake up. Read
their own websites if you're feeling nerdy.
\_ rhetoric for minions and motivating factors
for the leaders are two entirely separate
things. the former just needs something to
believe in. the latter needs something
to show for it (money, power, increased
followings). You need the history book,
not to mention philosophy, civics, etc.
\_ If you knew anything about how islamic
politics works, then you would be aware
of the fact that most of the leaders
are in it for the simple purpose of
eliminating the unbelievers from the
face of this world.
\_ This is a convenient reading of
history. Who has fought more wars
in the last 100 years, the Arabs
or the Europeans? How about the
last 1000?
\_ OK, so Bernard Lewis is
wrong and you are right.
\_ Actually this is fairly normal. The mall got the person off of
their property with a minimum of costs and doesn't wish to alienate
anyone, so they drop tresspassing charges. Besides, a trial would
cost the mall money and bad publicity.
\_ What makes this interesting for me is that the guy bought the shirt
in a store at the mall. Sure, I care about freedom of speech and
all that good stuff, but aren't we missing the more important issue
here? The guy BUYS a shirt in a store within the mall, which I'm
sure the mall doesn't mind one bit. But then as soon as he WEARS
it, they get pissy. That's probably his best bet at winning a
lawsuit (although it probably wouldn't be as nice of a case for
1st amendment rights then).
\_ I think it was a "Make your own T-shirt" booth, not a stock one
at Anchor Blue. It's sorta like that Nike guy wanting
"Sweatshop" on his sneakers. (I think both are fine, btw).
\_ Just because you bought something at the mall doesn't mean you
can use it at the mall. Think cigarettes, music CDs, "massagers,"
nude photography, etc. It's still private property.
\_People who keep insisting that "the mall is private property
so they can do whatever they want" need to learn about the
legal concept called "public accommodation."
\_ Didn't you read the legal opinions presented here
yesterday? The mall was perfectly legal in
its behavoir - as it should be. The only reason
they are backing down is because its politically
incorrect and they are a business, ie. they
want to make money.
\_ Public accomodation doesn't imply public forum. They can
still say no to the tshirt if they felt it was disruptive.
\_ Can they say no to blacks if they feel that they too
are disruptive?
\_ if they wear shirts saying 'kill whitey'
\_ hi red herring troll boy! missed you, you race
baiter, you! on the count of 3, lets all hate all
white people in the name of advancing equality!
\_ I wasn't bringing up a race issue. I was using
race to point out how the flaws in the
"they can still say no" argument. But you missed
that point entirely.
\_ You failed to deliver it. Your failure is not
my fault. So you're not only a race baiter and
a poor debated but you can't take responsibility
for your own failings. Typical race baiter
drivel.
\_ Ah, good example. If the mall can prove that somebody
is being disruptive, they can refuse them service or
access. If they can't, then it's a question of
discrimination, unless they are a private club. So
excluding blacks to a publically accessible area (the
mall) for no reason is discrimination, UNLESS they
can prove that their presence will present a danger
to public safety. Very tough to do. |
http://csua.com/feed/