http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1804822 <font size=4><b>U.S. lawyer arrested over `peace' T-shirt </font> New Yorker facing trespassing charges </B> Reuters News Service NEW YORK -- A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall. According to the criminal complaint filed Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, N.Y., near Albany. "I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," Downs said. When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read. <b>Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly." </B> "I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs said. Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct. Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona, and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment. Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17. <B>He could face up to a year in prison if convicted.</B>
Welcome to John Ashcroft's America, where the constitution is nothing more than parchment toilet paper. Absolutely ridiculous.
I fully expect these charges to be dropped, and for this to be swept under the carpet.... ...but this is pretty bad if it happened the way it was reported.
Wait until you hear the rest of the story.... What if some judge who had supreme court aspirations paid the mall police under the table to arrest Downs. And the judge did this because Downs had ruined the judges politcal career with an investigation of misconduct with a hot lawyer. The hot lawyer who was none other than Downs wife. This is how these thing usually go. Meanwhile, the peace T- shirt had nothing to do with anything.
Didn't need to. The "rules of engagement" are apparently already in place. "If yer not widdus, yer agin us"
Was the incident with teachers telling school children that anyone who fights in a war with Iraq is immoral a sign of John Ashcroft's America as well? Or could it possibly be that there have always been, are now, and will always be stupid people. Watch out for that knee jerk, Tex, it can be dangerous.
i'm sorry..constitution? what has this mall done to violate the constitutition? told a guy he can't wear a shirt on their private property? and that is a constitutional issue how again??
It's one of those "we reserve the right ot refuse service" on private property types of things. Ah yes, the Mall, where stop signs are optional.
i don't agree with it...but i don't see it as a constitutional issue at all...it's a business decision...they're concerned that it might cause some kind of flare up...are they being silly? perhaps....but they have a right to be silly.
Sounds like the police were just doing their job. Asked by a property owner to remove a person, and then doing that. Raises a bigger question. Can a mall -- which, although private property, is very much NOT like a personal living room -- refuse admittance at will?? Had there been discrimination base on gender, race etc then it raises discrimination issues -- but that doesn't appear to be the case. I expect street people and other "undesireables" are regularly removed from the mall. Is this different? I wouldn't shop at that mall.
I guess you're right. But where do you enter a gray area on what is a public or private place? What if this mall was able to be built due to help from public financing or various tax breaks? What about warnings? Should there be a sign telling you that perfectly reasonable clothing that offends a security guard can't be worn? I wonder why the guards said anything in the first place. Did someone complain or did the manager of the mall simply tell them that anti-war sentiments won't be allowed at all. If that's the case, maybe the manager should have the nads to put a sign up to that effect. With all the stuff that I see at malls, I highly doubt that people would freak out and start a riot due to a "Give Peace a Chance" shirt. And if they did, I contend that it's them that has the problem, not the shirt wearer. That, and if they don't want him to wear the shirt, why in the hell would they sell the shirt <B>in the mall</B>. They lost all credibility with me right there.
courts have consistently said they can do this sort of thing...if ownership finds something offensive, they can say no. i would argue that the policy reasons for allowing a mall the liberty to take these kinds of actions are even more important than the ones for allowing you to do the same thing in governing your own living room. what if some redneck approaches this guy and wants to fight about this?...gets up in his face..causes a problem...the mall is losing business and has a problem of liability when someone gets hurt. even if not found liable for doing anything wrong, they're paying money for defense in a lawsuit -- i've seen this kind of thing firsthand.
OK, then why would they sell the shirt? What's next? Is this mall owner going to have people at the entrances asking their stance on the war? The guy's an idiot, and I hope his business suffers due to this idiotic decision.
i bet you they wouldn't let him operate the lawnmower he bought at sears in the mall either... i'm not saying the mall did the right thing here...that's really not my decision...we just always so quickly run to the constitution when there is a private actor (like a mall) at work...that's not what the constitution is about.
