Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (5123)	3/5/2003 10:19:31 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 7720

That is incredible. Since when did the message "Peace on Earth" become provocative? Since when it is against the law to either write the words, wear the words, or say the words?? What is happening down there? Whew...

To: Lane3 who wrote (5123)	3/5/2003 10:51:30 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

To SELL those T-shirts on your private property, and then have someone arrested for wearing what you've sold them from your property, seems the height of hypocrisy. "We'll take your money, but don't let me see you wearing our product." What an amazingly bad PR move. I must admit, I'm amazed any business could be that stupid.

To: Lane3 who wrote (5123)	3/5/2003 11:11:40 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

That will be an interesting court case. Since they were on private property, and the First Amendment doesn't (few people understand this, but it's the law) apply to private property or persons, just to government actions, Crossgates may well have been within their rights to have him arrested for trespassing when he refused to leave. On the other hand, in some states malls have been accorded the status of quasi-public gathering places, where a higher standard of rights is provided for. That will be a significant issue in the legal case, if it gets to trial. Crossgates did have a public notice that they prohibited clothing which was likely to provoke disturbances. The mall was perhaps in a "Catch-22" situation; if they had failed to act, and a disturbance had arisen, and some innocent bystander had gotten hurt, would that person hold the Mall liable for not enforcing their stated policy? You can bet your bottom dollar that their lawyer would make that argument, that their client relied on the written policy to keep them safe from disturbances caused by inappropriate apparel, and that the Mall was negligent in not enforcing its policy and protecting its patrons. I have been as staunchly supportive of free speech rights as anybody here, and have several times recommended (and will again) Nat Hentoff's excellent book "Free Speech for Me but Not for Thee." But we also have to understand that there are right and wrong places and times for free speech. I hope that nobody here wants to argue that if a person I have invited into my home changes into clothing that I find objectionable, I am not entitled to ask them to leave? Is there any argument about that? Does anybody believe that we should be forced to listen in our own homes to messages we don't want to hear? The question, therefore, becomes, in terms of free speech rights, is the Crossgates Mall more like a home, or more like the front lawn of the Courthouse? Is wearing such T-shirts in public for the express purpose of making a provocative public statement an innocent expression of free speech, or is it the equivalent of shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater? Thanks, Karen, for bringing this to our attention. It's an interesting issue, with good points on both sides.

To: Lane3 who wrote (5123)	3/5/2003 7:52:40 PM
From: Tom Clarke	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

The real crime is they paid $23 for those t-shirts! Talk about a couple of suckers... There was a case involving a mall and free speech a few years ago. I'm a little hazy on the substance, I think maybe some people were passing out leaflets and were told to stop by mall management. It went to court and the judge ruled that malls have taken the place of the public square and ruled against the mall. Smoking Gun already has the reports! Message 18661495

To: Lane3 who wrote (5123)	3/5/2003 11:54:36 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Now that we have the full story, or at least more of it, we can judge the accuracy of the news reports. Any protest that the press aren't really liberal will stumble on these stories. Neither news source mentioned at all that the guys were confronting and provoking other patrons. If the media were truly conservative, the report would have been more along the lines of "Anti-war zealots arrested for disturbing the peace," and the lead would have read something like: "A father-son team of anti-war zealots were arrested today for trespass and disturbing the peace. The pair, who purchased and donned custom-made T-shirts with anti-American slogans were accosting shoppers and disbubing mall patrons. When asked to stop harassing customers or leave the premises, the father refused, and was arrested." They would not have quoted the ACLU, but would more likely have quoted an "expert" who would say something like "the right to peaceful protest must be protected, but the anti-war minorities must understand that they are not permitted to break the law to try to get their point across." That would be more conservative approach to the story. But the news outlets that you quoted didn't so much as mention the accosting and disturbances the two were actually committing, but made it seem as though they were arrested for merely strolling around the mall wearing their T-shirts. So much for claiming a non-liberal media, at least in this case.