Return of the Banned T-Shirt - You're Never going to believe

[RedCeltic]

Well... The word is out now... a man here in Albany New York... and his Dad!!!! Where Both kicked out of a shoping mall for wearing an ani-war t-shirt that they had made right there in the very same shoping mall!!

Even a right wing TV Show on MSNBC today said that this is an extreme version of "Fashion Police"

What's your view? Hmmm?

[CheViveToday]

That's inexcusable. Whoever made the decision to kick them out should be punished. Next thing you know, we won't be able to wear t-shirts unless they have an American Flag on them. What exactly did these anit-war shirts say?

[Anonymous]

I agree. This is a definite infringement on civil liberties that cannot be tolerated.

[Old Friend]

It depends on the activities of those wearing the shirt. If their actions went any further than simply wearing a T-shirt in a shopping mall, the owners of the establishment may have been warranted in having them evacuated from the premises. For instance, if they were demonstrating, in addition to wearing the T-shirt, the owners have every right to ask them to leave.

I remember being asked to leave malls when I was a kid hanging around looking like a hood. Security cops (spork) were quite adamant about the fact that the mall exists as private property. Since it is private property, they can ask anyone they want to leave, for any reason. Being the recipient of such treatment, I can sympathize with the father/son duo. However, I never tried to initiate a conflict in the mall, at least not a political one. I can see how a political demonstration could be bad for business, and how the owners of the establishment would not want to be responsible for any violent outbursts that such a controversial statement could create.

The matter would be entirely different if they were in a public area, as police have a duty to ensure your safety while you are exercising your 1st amendment rights. Security guards have no such responsibility, as it is their job to facilitate an environment that is good for business. I would not say it was an infringment of their rights because they were on another person's property, and not in a public domain.

Is it ridiculous to remove someone from the mall because of their T-shirt? Yes. I know this first hand, because I am pretty sure I was actually asked to leave a mall once because of a T-shirt. Another time I was asked to leave, because I was hacky sacking. Did I have a case for a violation of my first amendment? No, because I could just as easily wear my T-shirt or hacky sack on the streets surrounding the privately owned mall.

[Felicia]

haha, funny. A girl here was sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt that said "barbie is a slut", but that was funny too.

[Spiteful]

The man was charged with trespassing. What the landowner's purpose for asking him to leave is not relevant to a trespass charge. The owner didn't want him making that speech in his mall. He asked him to leave. The guy refused. He should have been arrested.

The media wants you to believe that this man's civil rights including freedom of speech were violated. Owners of property, even those who open their property up to the public, have a right to exclude people from it for any reason other than race, creed, color, sex, or national origin etc.

[Xvall]

That's silly. Then again, I don't like shopping malls.

[synthesis]

Spiteful: Give us a source.

The media wants you to believe that this man's civil rights including freedom of speech were violated

Bullshit.

[Sol]

Yeah, Norman, god forbid that social activism should take precedence over business!

[Dhul Fiqar]

Who was saying they were demonstrating? The original post just says they were in the mall, presumably shopping, and were evicted because of a t-shirt.

Dunno, maybe you yanks are getting details in local news...

--- G.

[Old Friend]

Yeah, Norman, god forbid that social activism should take precedence over business!

That's not what I said. I inferred that it is not the responsibility of the business owner to cultivate social activism, as there are plenty of other venues. There are many public places where activism is allowed, and the shopping mall does not fit into that category. People go there to drown away their worries by compulsively shopping for material goods that uplift their spirits. By choosing to go to a mall, most people are exercising their right to ignore the world's problems, and a political activist is infringing on the rights of those people to engage in such shallow self gratification. Your rights end when you interfer with my appetite for a chic-fil-a.

[Guest1]

Actually, they were in the food court, eating, when the rent-a-cops approached them and asked that he take off his shirt or leave. The shirt said "Give Peace A Chance". Not very provocative if you ask me.

[mentalbunny]

CyM, where did you get that info from, out of interest?

if it's true, you can't deny that that's a bit harsh, Old Fiend!

[Pete]

"People go there to drown away their worries by compulsively shopping for material goods that uplift their spirits. "

Norman, I think that is why a mall would make a good place for social activism.

[Smoking Frog II]

Quote: from felicia on 2:09 pm on Mar. 6, 2003
haha, funny. A girl here was sent home from school for wearing a t-shirt that said "barbie is a slut", but that was funny too.


that is one well known shirt in England.

[CruelVerdad]

Everyone should start wearing those t-shirts!
Besides they can´t do that, everyone has the right of free expresion.......!

[Charlie]

What a disgusting display of neo-fascism. It's horrible how your most basic of rights are instantly robbed from you once you deviate for the opinion of the ruling party.

[Guest1]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04...reut/index.html (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04/iraq.usa.shirt.reut/index.html)

[j]

Unfortunately, a shopping mall is private property. They can do whatever the hell they want to.

I think it was Naomi Klien who wrote in "No Logo" about how the shopping mall is like our new main street but its on private property so its on the corporation's terms not the publics.

Shopping malls are not like main street. They are a crazy corporate fantasy. They make the mall look like public property, but its not.

The sad part is that as long as you are not discriminating based on race, religion, etc. its totally legal. Its like a dress code at a club. They can not let you in because of what you are wearing.

j

[Anonymous]

Ah! I keep thinking of malls as public property. However, since it's indeed private property, like SN and the others pointed out, then I fully support their rights to control the activities that take place there.

I have to say though, it is a bit extreme.

[Old Friend]

It is extreme, and bad for business. Consider the percentage of bleeding heart liberals in your town. Don't you think this could hurt them when wind gets out that the mall disagrees with bleeding heart liberalism? Opps, too late. Now the proto-Marxist are going to be calling for a boycott of the mall. Surely, if I held an opinion, and I found out that a local establishment had a severe aversion to my beliefs, I would make it a point to shop elsewhere. If I owned the mall, those security guards would be fired. This one was better left alone. However, mall officials state that they were causing a ruckous. If that is true, then they should have been removed. If they were only wearing a shirt, the security cops are to blaim, and the mall owes them an apology.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I saw a news item on this and they were just eating a friggin' sandwich for fuck's sakes. No demonstrations came untill the day after when anti-war activists converged on the location.

And they actually had just bought the t-shirts in that same mall. So now it's OK to sell people things and then throw them out for actually putting them on?