Come on, you know that's not the same thing. How does this owner know that a redneck won't see the shirt on sell and start a fight with the vendor?
This is a very similar question as to the girl playing basketball and turning from the flag. I don't think you can have a standard here. I think that in each instance a judge should use as much common sense as he can. If there is the potential for a riot then you have to rule for the private entity. If there's no potential to riot I think your first ammendment riots should take priority.
and it might! and there's the great equalizer. the guy has to live with his own business decisions...here, he's saying he's more concerned with the problems it might cause within the mall...potential liability if something gets out of hand,etc. but ultimately, that's nothing more than a business decision. he might get burned on it...he might not.
I'm sure there is more to this story, there always is in these situations. Shouldn't the mall owners remove the offending t-shirt from the store as well? Its the least they could do to promote the pro-war stance they obviously support. On the other hand maybe the guy just looked really bad in the shirt and they actually called the fashion police.
A couple things: 1. There are two sides to every story. THis sounds very wrong but I would like to hear the rest of the story (if there is one) 2. THere are too many attorneys anyways lock him up J/K
If that's how they do it (which I'm pretty sure it's not), then they'd have to side with the lawyer in this case. How can you argue that something might cause a riot when you sell the damn shirt in the same mall??
my point is this is a business decision....unless it's in the lease, i don't think he can tell any business inside the mall what they can or cannot market...i'm certain there are some restrictions in that lease for certain items..for instance, i bet there's a clause in there about adult products being inappropriate for the mall...but mall management has every right in the world to say you can't wear a particular shirt in their mall...they can refuse you entry for just about anything, beyond race, religion, etc. obviously they have a pecuniary interest in you actually being there...mall traffic is how mall owners make money...so clearly this guy felt that wearing this shirt might cause a problem...or the decision makers have strong feelings about the war...
my bet is they've already asked the store to remove the shirt from their stores...that's a fight right there, and it's all about the interpretation of their lease agreement....but there is no such agreement between the customers who walk in the mall and mall ownership.
Well, if that's the case, they're sorry hypocrites then. Uh sir, you've spent money in my place of business, and now that I have your money, get the hell out. It's disgusting.
Yeah, running a lawnmower through the mall and wearing a t-shirt in the mall are about the same thing. I recall that sign... no shirt, no shoes, no lawnmower, no service.
Two guys who make 6 bucks an hour make a stupid decision, and this becomes a politically polarizing subject? Fire the security guards and move on. This is nothing.
the mall owner didn't profit much from the sale of that t-shirt...his agreement is with the mall tenants to pay rent. mall owners are concerned with mall traffic...from that comes the basis of the terms of their lease...this guy is balancing a potential problem and potential liability against the sale of this t-shirt. attorneys and insurance premiums cost more than t-shirts. but, again...mall management didn't sell the t-shirt. the owner of the store didn't kick the man out....the store's decision to sell the t-shirt or the mall's request for the store to stop selling the t-shirt is an entirely separate matter
If the owner is worried about someone's clothing affecting business or starting a riot, then he should be worried about a vendor in his mall selling the same thing. Do you think if someone's idiotic enough to start trouble with someone wearing a "Give Peace a Chance" shirt, they're going to sit down and rationalize it out like that? If he feels that the shirt is inappropriate, I'm guessing there's something in the lease that says that any selling of inappropriate goods is prohibited. He can take it up with a court to get the vendor to stop selling the shirt. However, I'm guessing he never even asked the vendor to stop selling the shirt because it indirectly meant money for him. He may not make a direct profit off the selling of the shirt, but if the vendor doesn't make any money, then the business owner won't make any money off of them either.
Well, Madmax, looks like you effectively support at lesat the consitutionality of these "property" owners doing this. I guess we know where Max stands when free speech even political speech is in conflict with ordinary property rights. This is another reason why the mallification of America is dangerous. In many parts of the country this is the only thing that serves as a Main Street in town. BTW there is no reason why the courts have to support this other than some warped conservative idea of property rights.
they're obligated to the terms of the lease, whether they make a dime selling that shirt or not. again...mall managment isn't responsible for knowing every item their tenants are selling....and allowing someone to buy something to be put in a bag and worn in an appropriate place is not out of the question here. there are lots of things we buy at malls that aren't appropriate for the mall...like lawnmowers. according to mall management, this shirt isn't appropriate. and guess what...it's their place, so they make the rules. don't like it? go to the next mall. that's YOUR right.
glynch... warped idea? let me guess who's side you'd take when someone gets in a fight at the mall, gets punched and then sues the mall for not maintaining a safe environment. your fantasyland approach to the world is cute...but it is entirely impractical. property owners have free speech rights too...they have the same rights you and i have for our own property. come on to my property and stake a sign that says, "dukakis for president" and i'll take it out...come back and do it, and i call the cops. warped ideas? no...my ideas come from those of locke and jefferson....not from marx...i realize that makes them warped from your viewpoint. by the way...the first amendment says "the government shall make no law abridging free speech...." please tell me how that is applicable here, glynch.
