I understand MadMax's legal arguments and think they are correct. Probably Madmax is correct about the abysmal state of the law as determined in recent decisions from the last few years from conservatives on the Supreme Court. It doesn't have to be that way. Valid arguments could be made that if any of the financing is backed with government loans etc. that they are subject to common sense and otherwise thorougly American beliefs about the sanctity of free speech. A statute could give people the right to free speech in malls. After all, you can put up a notice on the bulletin board of the mall inviting all employees to come to a meeting to meet a union organizer to bargain for better wages etc. You can be sure that in years past the property rights argument was used to prevent unions from organizing. You can wear a t-shirt that says join the Mall Workers Union of America if you want and the owners can't forbid it. It doesn't matter if he or his security guards wants to punch you or not. When the people want the right to have free speech in malls they will get it --and it will be constitutional.
there is free speech, glynch. you have the freedom to protest, to wear your shirts, to do whatever. you just don't have the freedom to come on to my private property and do that. govt loan financing doesn't make a mall anything less than a private enterprise. and i'm betting most malls in houston didn't have govt. loan financing. free speech is absolutely vital to the health of a republic. but how far would you go with it glynch? would you protect the rights of someone to wear offensive language on a t-shirt in a mall? would you say that the business owner has no right to keep someone out with a shirt on like that, even if its offending the rest of his customers and hurting the atmosphere of his business? where would you draw the line...or is there such sanctity to free speech that you see no limits? just curious. man, we see the world in different ways.
i can't believe i missed this...as determined in recent decisions? friend, these decisions go back decades. restrictions on the first amendment go back decades. has nothing to do with recent decisions. good try, though. take the political jab even if you don't know its truthfulness, right?
With this age of media supersaturation, that mall tenant will probably make up the customers he lost. The only difference is that in your case, many people agree with the policy and in this case, this issue is polarized so that only half or so of the people agree with the policy. I don't think many people want to see bums sitting on the mall benches as much as other people want to see some grisly pro-life T-Shirt of a fetus that was in its third trimester. This case is typical with the usual flaunting of controversial topics that break the social norms imposed by our current political atmosphere. Other past topics such as abortion, animal rights, and gay rights usually dance the line of sensationalism and the encroachment of our civil liberties, and the media companies do what they do to sell papers. I'm all for preserving our civil liberties, but this reeks of 15 minute roundtable discussion (though Max did have great arguments), and I won't lose too much sleep over this. Unless I begin to imagine how predictable our society really is and how short our attention spans have become.
Ok, you got me on that one! I probably would not have been so reactive if it were the other way around. I would still be concerned about it, though. Either way, I don't need security guards deciding what is and what isn't offensive to me. (I assume that the security guards make that decision because there are no posted rules outlining what is and what isn't allowed.) This is really no different than the Confederate Flag issue. Some see it as racist, some see it at southern pride. I'm only offended when racists associate the flag with their own misguided cause. It's also similar to something that happened to me back in High School. I was told to not wear a headband (I was in to Duran Duran, and it was the 80s after all.) outside during lunch. It was ok to wear a cowboy hat or baseball cap but i couldn't wear a headband because it caused all the country boys to make fun of me. That was a double-standard. I guess the bottom line is that I don't like being told what is and what isn't offensive.
let's try another example, SC...wear a marilyn manson shirt with maybe a curse word and some dark imagery into a chuck e cheese. a place that caters to families and small children. the manager there says, "hey, buddy...you need to change shirts or leave. it's gonna freak out the little kids." that guy doesn't know for sure the shirt is gonna freak out the kids...but it might. and he's the manager. and his job is to take care of the business...which is predicated on kids and families frequenting the place.
I'm changing sides on this one. If there was a history of a group of people congregating with those particular shirts, then I can see where the Mall would try to prevent that. The Mall does not want a demonstration inside its premises -- regardless of the issue -- for safety reasons. They do not have enough security to control a large group of people acting in unison. Maybe that's why Max's line-dance was asked to move on. (or maybe it was the "achy breaky heart" they were singing?) I really have trouble believing they found that shirt more offensive then any number of other fashion catastrophes that prowl the malls on a daily basis. I can fully support their trying to prevent a group of people gathering in support of/ or against a cause, when they really should be out buying consumer products they don't need. It's much easier to break up this potential group as it is forming, rather then wait to see what happens.
I agree that shirts with foul language and gore can and are offensive to many. I also agree that it would be inappropriate to wear such items in a place that caters to kids. It would be a problem, though, if someone wore a Marilyn Manson t-shirt that did not have offensive language or images on it and was asked to leave. To me this issue is similar to those who try to say that listening to Ozzy Osbourne will cause you to commit suicide, or listening to Marilyn Manson will cause you to shoot many of your classmates at school. It's not exactly the same, but to me it is similar.
why is it a problem? i mean, you've already acknowledged the legal reality. so you take off the shirt, leave or you're trespassing. where's the problem? it's all pretty clear. wear the shirt wherever else you want. wear it to your heart's content. but don't wear it in my establishment. if the owner says take it off, you take it off. it doesn't matter if he's being biased because he personally doesn't like marilyn manson. it's his place.
i can't even remember what we were there for...and it really sounds a lot dorkier now talking about it then it did then. at the time it seemed funny...of course, i was 15 or 16 years old at the time! and i remember being mad that they told us to leave...i remember one of us saying, "what are we doing wrong? what are we doing wrong?" bottom line...it doesn't matter what we were doing that was wrong...the security guards wanted to stop a problem before it happened. and since their agents of a private owner, they had every right to do it. somehow i've managed to muddle on in life ever since...
I think I'm going to give up arguing about personal liberty versus private property rights for Lent. I've seen so many offensive t-shirts, jackets, tattoos, clothing (just because I found it ugly) and, most of all, heard language that was totally offensive in the presense of my kids that the idea that this gentleman should have this happen to him for this reason is outrageous. In my opinion. It may be legal, although considering the prevalence of shopping malls versus stores on a street with a sidewalk in front make the idea that they aren't a public place disingenuous. Again, in my opinion. At least it's still legal for me to express it. At least here. At least for the time being.
so you would make it illegal for a store to say, "no..you can't wear that shirt in here?" would you make them pay some sort of monetary penalty for doing that? does anyone have any clue at all about the law of trespass? didn't we go over this a ton during the K-Mart situation? if i tell you to leave my private property, and you don't, you're trespassing. now if you want to characterize a mall as public land in some way, well...are you gonna require the mall owners to still pay income tax? are you gonna promise them government subsidies? are you gonna have the goverment defend them if they get sued? what's the upside to the mall relinquishing their own private property rights? otherwise, it's like a taking of property under the constitution.
"Congress shall make no law..abridging the freedom of speech" Nowhere does it say that individual X can't stop your freedom of speech. Only the government. If you take a literal look at the amendment, you'll see that the gov't doesn't have to help you with freedom of speech, it just can't hurt your freedom of speech.
I uderstand all about the legality of trespassing, private property, and all that. I'm not arguing that. I understand that the owner had every right to allow what heppened to happen. I just don't agree with it. It just doesn't seem right at all. And if I lived near that mall you bet i would don my peace shirt and go shopping! And if I was told to leave or get arrested then I probably leave in a pissed off mood because I know I couldn't afford dealing with the legalities that would follow. The best thing that could happen has already happened. It got covered by the National media and many people who feel like I do went there with their peace shirts on. I'm hoping that the owner of the mall regrets the decision made by his minimum wage security folks. Next time maybe the owner will give further explanation to his employess on what is and what isn't offensive.
t may be legal, although considering the prevalence of shopping malls versus stores on a street with a sidewalk in front make the idea that they aren't a public place disingenuous. Again, in my opinion. At least it's still legal for me to express it. At least here. At least for the time being. Deckard. Not one reason whatsoever why a new Supreme Court could not buy this argument.
I have seen the Freedom of Speech limitations applied to private property first hand. I remember one time in Willowbrook Mall, during Christmas shopping season, (long before anybody thought about terrorists in America) this guy stood up on a chair in a PACKED food court and said really loud "I want to share with you the true meaning of Christmas" as he held up a Bible. Mall security was on that guy like white on rice and he was quickly escorted out.
MadMax, Even it is private property, it is a public place since the owners of the mall invited the public to shop there. This is not a private club like Augusta where people have to have a membership to go there or even Sam's club. Since this is a public place, he has the right to say what he wants as long as he is not endangering someone. Lets use the discrimination laws as a comparison. The mall wouldn't be able to remove someone just because they were black or a women even if it was so called private property. I imagine the case will boil down to if he really was causing a disturbance. If not, I think the mall is screwed. This guy is a successful lawyer so I imagine he knew what he was legally doing unlike the rent-a-cop that asked him to leave.
1. wrong...it's still private..they're called invitees at that point. but it's still a private, for-profit establishment. 2. you're absolutely right...discrimination based on race, religion, gender, etc. can't be carried out by certain private establishments. there is case law directly saying that. but this is not that kind of case at all. those are strict scrutiny cases. there are competing interests here that outweigh the interests of some individual wearing a shirt...or so says case law, anyway. 3. the guy is wrong...he may be morally right as glynch is arguing. but the state of the law today says that mall owners can tell people they can't protest, wear clothes that they think might cause a disturbance, etc. that private property right trumps any free speech right...but again, a private individual owes you no duty to safeguard your free speech rights. that's between you and the government. again..this is a trespass issue ultimately. they told him to leave..he wouldn't. the law is pretty solid on that account. Police Chief James Murley said: "We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property."
Let's have a little legal research/opinion on this matter form the ACLU. Looks like it is not quite as settled as Max would have you believe. It wouldn't surprise me if being in NY the guy has the right to do so. ************************* ************************* By Deborah Jacobs Executive Director, ACLU-EM During the first 175 years of the United States of America’s existence, while it was not always safe to communicate unpopular views, the exercise of the First Amendment’s right to freedom of speech was relatively easy and cheap. Any individual or group of citizens could simply print up a flyer and directly communicate their views to others by distributing leaflets or holding up a poster or a banner on the town square or on a sidewalk in the city center. But beginning in the 1950’s private shopping centers began to replace town squares, downtowns and other public areas where citizens gathered. The number of shopping centers in the United States grew from under 100 in 1950 to 30,641 in 1987, and that number has only increased. In most American communities, shopping centers have virtually all of the functions of a public gathering place; they host numerous public and private services, including banks, movies, restaurants, discotheques, parking facilities, post offices, reference libraries and even churches. Moreover, mall owners often encourage the public to congregate for events unrelated to shopping or commerce, such as art exhibits, amusement park rides and walking clubs, thus assuming an expanded role as the new downtown, where the public shops, socializes and participates in community debate. Nonetheless, shopping center owners have generally been resistant to allowing groups and individuals to engage in peaceful free speech activities on their premises. Leafletters and protestors have been harassed, ejected and even arrested for conduct that would have been constitutionally protected had it occurred on a public sidewalk, park or street. And, to make matters worse, activists cannot access people going into malls from city sidewalks because malls are insulated by their own parking lots. To date, the highest courts in seven states have held that citizens retain their free speech rights in shopping centers.[/B While some mall owners claim that activists already have access to traditional public forums, the courts have recognized that one’s ability to reach the public is very limited if one is confined to public property on which the public rarely gathers in significant numbers. In some states, support is growing for legislation guaranteeing with reasonable time, place and manner restrictions free speech rights in common areas of shopping malls. The need for access to shopping malls to conduct First Amendment activities most frequently arises for people gathering signatures for initiative petitions. The right to petition the government is a cornerstone of the American democratic system. In Blue Ridge Shopping Center v. Schleininger, the Missouri Supreme Court held that peaceful picketing carried on in a location generally open to the public is, absent other factors involving the purpose or manner of the picketing, protected by the First Amendment. In Blue Ridge, which involved Teamsters picketing in front of a Montgomery Ward store, the court ruled that "Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." Despite such court rulings, most shopping centers discourage or prohibit people from conducting peaceful First Amendment activities on mall property. Over the summer, the ACLU received numerous requests for help from initiative signature gatherers who were not allowed to use the mall common areas to talk to voters. In response to these complaints, the ACLU contacted 25 regional malls to provide information about the issue and inquire about their policies. Only one - Westfield Shoppingtown in Cape Girardeau - reported having adopted policies that protect First Amendment activities on mall property. This year, the St. Louis Coalition for Human Rights enlisted a number of community organizations to write a report card on human rights in recognition of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. In considering the state of our freedom to assemble, the report is mixed. On one hand, the right to peacefully assemble and conduct First Amendment activities on public property seems safer now than in almost any other period of American history. On the other hand, activists can no longer access large numbers of people by going downtown or to the town square. Therefore, in order to keep citizen political action alive, we must demand the right to conduct First Amendment activities in the malls and shopping centers that have replaced government forums as places for the public to gather and meet. Petitioning the government through the initiative process remains one of the most viable avenues for citizen action and influence in the interest of molding our democracy. Malls and shopping centers should honor the spirit of the United States Constitution and welcome the opportunity to contribute to society by allowing peaceful political activities on their premises. ] free speech in malls
