New York Lawyer Arrested-This is Ridiculous

what could i do to fight that rm95? why would i fight it? it's their property. i'm there as an invitee...as a guest...i can use that status to sue their pants off if i'm injured while i'm there...so i can't turn it around when that status doesn't suit me. i have no ownership interest in the mall...

by the way...minute maid park was built with public funds...try wearing an offensive shirt there...or posting a sign with a political message. see if they're not every bit as entitled there to take it down. the first amendment comes with a thousand time and place restrictions.

but that's off topic...the bottom line is it's private property. it's not my decision to make. if you want to own a mall and are fine with those shirts, great. if i owned this mall, i can't see me kicking this guy out for this shirt..

BUT IT'S NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE...NOT AT ALL.

 

Give peace a chance...
in the home.
in Idaho.
at school.
where?
This is absurd.

 

in order to be a constitutional issue, you have to have a state actor...where is the government involved? where in this scenario does "Congress shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech" enter the picture?

if you come here and hit me right now...which you might feel like doing! ...is that unconstitutional? absolutely not. you're not a state actor...you're just an individual. i can file a civil suit against you, but in no way is the first amendment or any other constitutional provision implicated.

 

so the astros are a state actor now? so is compaq computer? basically, every major company in the us is a state actor now? so anything these guys do wrong at all becomes a constitutional violation?

 

I could care less about the legality of this issue. I understand that a private owner pretty much has the right make whatever rules he/she wants.

I know that this is not a constitutional issue.

I still wonder where the rules of the mall are posted. I am also concerned about the potential double-standard that I mentioned before. Are pro-war shirts not allowed?

Are the minimum-wage making security guards given the power to make judgements on what is and what isn't appropriate? What qualifications do they have to make these judgements?

Let's examine the offending statement:
"Give Peace A Chance"

This is a very non-aggressive statement. In fact it's almost a question. It's a suggestion to consider giving peace a chance. It suggest an alternative to killing people.

I can see how that statement would insite violence.

This country has become way too PC for it's own good. I don't need security guards deciding what I should or should not see. They don't know me nor are they qualified to make judgements on my behalf.

So don't give me "the owner of the mall is just trying to protect it's customers" bull****. It's PC-ism run rampant. Plain and simple.

 

Three questions...


1) Does the constitution limit the Freedom of Speech to public grounds?

2) If so, does that mean that I can tell someone else what they can and can't say in my own home, legally?

3) If not, then isn't it the government's responsibility to uphold someone's Freedom of Speech, and therefore they should be involved in this?

 

you can sue right now..you just can't win

and of course you can't be arrested for wearing the shirt...you're arrested for trespass after they ask you to leave and you refuse.

you know that not even all public land is suitable for protest right? there are restrictions on that as well...remember the issue about the protests near wall street and the security concerns? it doesn't mean you can't protest at all...just means you can't do it right there...or you can't do it right there between the hours of X & Y.

 

Max it's a common sense issue. The Astros don't kick people out for wearing shirts sold at their concession stands. The Astros have a right to throw out whoever they want however when those standards don't comply with the standards of the community then that's a problem. What if the Astros kicked out men who wore earrings? What if they kicked out people wearing shorts? How about people wearing cowboy hats? How about fans wearing Cardinals shirts? When you're talking about a monopolistic entity that receives government money it's not just a private property issue. Where is the line?

 

what qualifications do you need to tell someone you don't want someone wearing something on your property? it doesn't matter if you can't see how the statement would incite violence...the owner thinks it might. and its his property...and since, as you say, you understand the legality of it...then it doesn't matter what you and i think about it, except for the fact that we might decide not to shop there at all anymore in protest.

pc-ism? no..it's a business. there are all sorts of restrictions on what you can do, say, wear or whatever in a business. they're not deciding what you should or should not see...they're saying they're a business with all sorts of risks of liability...and since they're in charge of their own private property, they're entitled to do that. it's a business decision, pure and simple.

 

i think you can make a strong argument for the astros in this instance along your viewpoint. i don't think you can make the same argument for compaq computer....

but ultimately, it's a business decision...the astros want fans in the seats, so you really have to upset the apple-cart for them to kick you out.

remember when the ladies were kissing at the dodger game and the dodgers kicked them out?? stupid business decision maybe...but not a constitutional issue in the slightest.

 

I understand Max's position on private property and all. I'm still uncomfortable with a security guard's absolute discretion as to who is allowed into a mall -- a mall that bases its existence on inviting the public in, and likely advertises to attract all shoppers. This man was a shopper.

I think there has got to be more to this issue. I would not be surprised to learn the lawyer was somehow involved in a more prominent protest then just wearing a T-shirt. I doubt the mall calls the cops for T-shirts that say "B!tch"," F**K"," Cowboys"," Jazz" or other offensive terms, so I'm somewhat surprised they would overreact to a tired John Lennon slogan. Then again, perhaps they're just that stupid.

If the mall systematically tossed out people it deemed looked poor on the basis it might make other customers uncomfortable, Max's business and private property arguments would support this. I expect civil liberty lawyers would disagree.

This looks like a case of overreaction. But I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the constitutional angle.

 

freedom of speech is a right you have which only the government can't abridge. go and rally with the klan all you want under the right circumstances...use the n word all you want. then go to your office and scream it out. see how long you keep your job...and see how well the first amendment protects you. your company owes you no duty under the first amendment.

absolutely...if someone upsets you in your home you have the right to ask them to leave...if they don't, they're trespassing...and you can ask a police officer to enforce your rights as a property owner and have the person removed. if they continue to refuse, they'll be arrested.

the government has no responsibility to uphold your freedom of speech...they have a responsibility to not make a law abridging it

 

PS -- good arguments Max. If you haven't already done so, I suggest you send the Mall a bill for your time. They may need your help.

 

thank you! very kind of you...

i'm working on it...i've got trial next week, so i'm trying to get all my arguments in right now here to make up for time i'll lose here next week! i think i'll send my bill directly...

 

1) Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the reason your work has the right to fire you for that contractual? Isn't it s.o.p. to have 'behaviour deemed harmful to the workplace' part of your standard contract as a reason for termination of same? Without said contractual agreement, your workplace would not have the right to do as you stated without compensation, or standard opt-out mechanisms.

2) The governement has no responsibility to uphold your freedom of speech when it is being infringed by another party?

 

1. no...in texas you don't even have a contract for employment for most jobs...it's a right-to-work state. you may have some office guidelines or rules for the workplace...those often conflict with your first amendment rights. again, you can't walk into your workplace screaming racial hate speech and expect to hide behind the first amendment. you can fire someone simply because you don't like them. you can hire someone simply because you do. it's your money...your business...your job offering.

2. no..the government has no such responsibility. and it's not a constitutional issue UNLESS it's the government that is doing the restricting.

 

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The New York Lawyer should raise h*ll in the press on a continuous basis to maximize the bad PR and hopefully force a public apology by the mall owner.

The New York Lawyer should also sue the store that sold him the shirt for not warning of his pending "pain and suffering" when wearing said shirt on egress from the store.