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: The Philosopher who wrote (5131)	3/5/2003 11:38:27 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

"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?" You're leaving the trail, here. Public buildings reflect public values. Public issues are determined by the Courts with regard to public sentiments. In a democracy, this basically means that public access and private access address different issues and values. NOBODY has private rights to using your home. But where a public business gives carte blanche approach to others...the access must be exercised under statutes of equality.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (5131)	3/5/2003 3:53:56 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Seems to me that we are missing important information. I think it matters how the two were behaving. If they were just shopping the mall and happened to be wearing the t-shirts, then I think that action to remove them would be outrageous. OTOH, if they were strutting their message around the mall looking for a reaction, I can see how they might be perceived as provoking a disturbance. I imagine that the latter was the case. If they bought the shirts there are were asked to remove them, then they were probably wearing them over whatever clothes they came in, which means they were wearing them looking for a reaction. If they, in the interests of getting a reaction, pumped their chests and stuck their messages in people's faces, then they were being intentionally provocative. Nonetheless, it's interesting that the messages should be perceived as offensive, even if accompanied by provocative behavior. Would a message that, say, Michael Jackson is the greatest or Michael Jackson is wacko, accompanied by equivalent behavior on the part of the wearers, have produced the same result?