Freedom of Speech ... Take III

[PornoDoggy]

A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04...reut/index.html

[sextoyking]

PD,

all I can say is Sad, very sad..

[Almighty Colin]

Sad, very sad. Stupid security guards!

[mojobill]

I dunno.. the lawyer may enjoy owning that mall....

[JR]

i suppose its too much to hope that you guys really dont believe that that was the whole and complete story?

i really dont believe it is very likely that security guards called police to arrest someone for trespassing without cause... and i dont believe that the police did either. most likely he was asked to leave and refused. he cant be charged with trespassing by simply walking into the mall.

as for the shirt... is it logical or reasonable to believe that a simple t-shirt saying nothing more than "give peace a chance" was reason for this incident and cause for a person to get arrested and go to jail? it seems plausible that there was probably something more offensive. it also seems to me that there must be a few facts missing from this story. since it is only the story (as with the last time) of one of the parties and not a statement of both parties involved, i would have to assume that there is an entirely different side of things.

how could you draw conclusions with less than half of the story?

"Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment. "



Last edited by JR at Mar 6 2003, 11:43 AM

[Edd]

PD,

All I can say is "LUCKY HIM!"

Looks like he just "won" a mall AND a security company! While I'd be the first to admit we've far too many frivilous cases before our courts, this guy should sue the bejesus out of them and the city PD that arrested him!

[kath]

Originally posted by JR@Mar 6 2003, 11:39 AM
i suppose its too much to hope that you guys really dont believe that that was the whole and complete story?

I hope that this isn't the whole story - if this truly is everything that happened, then it's a sad day in America for us all.

IF there is more to the story - then shame on the media (again *sigh*) for twisting things to such a one-sided point. I think I'm going to have to agree with JR - I really think that there HAS to be more to this story.

[sextoyking]

Hi,

there could be more to the story, but cnn, fox and nbc all reported it about the same way yesterday...

They said he was on private property, so.......


There will be a suit I am sure of.

Jesus, if you can't protest a war, goverment, etc. what is left...

big brother is getting stronger by the years

[kath]

Originally posted by sextoyking@Mar 6 2003, 12:09 PM
Hi,

there could be more to the story, but cnn, fox and nbc all reported it about the same way yesterday...

They said he was on private property, so.......


There will be a suit I am sure of.

Jesus, if you can't protest a war, goverment, etc. what is left...

big brother is getting stronger by the years

Very true - so sad to see everyone just laying down their rights without stopping to consider the end results. Every time something like this happens to people who are doing things we might not necessarily agree with - smoking cigarettes, selling pornography on the 'Net, protesting the possibility of war - I am reminded of this awesome quote.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

- Click here for info on the origin of this quote...

It's time to speak up - they are coming for YOU next!

[PornoDoggy]

Is there more to the story? Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't. One thing we can count on - we'll probably hear more about this than we want to.

I'm assuming that CNN did what they could to verify the story before they put it out there. I am not citing CNN as an irrefutable source - they can be fooled, they have been fooled before, and they very well may have been fooled in this particular case. I certainly hope more information develops that indicates the guy was acting like an ass - I hope we aren't polarizing to the point where we go back to this kind of chickenshit. I've lived through it before (as a kid). I can assure you I have personally observed and experienced scenarios as stupid as what the lawyer is suggesting happened.

JR, it will in fact be very interesting to see if more information develops - but aren't you accusing me of "leaping to conclusions" based on the story as told by leaping to the conclusion that the whole story is not being told? You take that one step further ... you assume that the security guards and local police wouldn't do this or that, which means you have to assume that the guy did that or this.

Who is leaping further?

[sextoyking]

Good points kath and pd..

I guess we will find out if this was just some mistaken arrest or not.


I always go back to this.

I think it is Un American not to question our goverment, protest, etc, etc.

[sarettah]

There is a bit more to the story and as usual the smoking gun is on top of it....

Arrest report, etc.. at:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.shtml

Apparently, the two wearing the shirts were also stopping customers and trying to get into discussions, etc.....

The original complaint from a customer apparently only mentioned the shirts as the way to recognize the guys. The complaint from the customer was that the 2 guys in the T shirts and a group of people were about to get into it physically... That is what sent the guards looking for the two guys....

The rest, you can read for yourself

[PornoDoggy]

Okay ... so they were behaving stupidly. I understant the "quit approaching customers or we'll ask you to leave" - I don't want to be bothered by anti-war, pro-war, anti-abortion, pro-abortion, anti-zoning, pro-zoning, ad naseum, when I'm at the mall.

But why "remove the shirts"? I don't get that part of it, particularly if they did in fact buy them there at the mall (and frankly, I'm wondering if they did now).

[JR]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 6 2003, 12:26 PM


JR, it will in fact be very interesting to see if more information develops - but aren't you accusing me of "leaping to conclusions" based on the story as told by leaping to the conclusion that the whole story is not being told? You take that one step further ... you assume that the security guards and local police wouldn't do this or that, which means you have to assume that the guy did that or this.

Who is leaping further?

thats kinda a "Torone-like" response isn't it PD? i am not making conclusions about anything. simply stating that it seems pretty clear that there is a big part of the story missing.

CNN did not have the burden to verify anything... it seems that you missed that they were simply running a blurb from Reuters.

the fact is that the whole story is not being told. not even all of one side is being told. that means that its not possible to draw a conclusion and assume guilt or innocence of any party.

It is being suggested that it is a freedom of speech issue. i would say that is definately a "conclusion" based on one or more "assumptions"so i would say that yes, you are jumping to conclusions because you dont have adequate information to come to any conclusion. By that, i mean that you can tell me nothing about the situation, his history, witness accounts and detail what happened exactly. a guy is just making a moronic claim that his "give peace a chance" shirt caused "the man" to put him down.

as i said... they cant have a guy arrested for trespassing just because he was there. he has to knowingly be on the premises illegally for it to be trespassing. that means that at some point either:

-he was previously banned from the premises
-someone had asked him to leave and he refused
-the police asked him to leave and he refused

Its very unlikely that the police would arrest someone "just because". i know that some people who live in constant fear the "Ashcroft Police State" its enough for the accused to state his innocence - but a court of law requires a little more.

As sarretah pointed out and as i said, there is clearly more to the story.

as the complaint says... there was an issue of them harrrassing the other shoppers... and he was asked to leave the property and refused

[PornoDoggy]

Not really interested in a semantical arguement over when a conclusion is reached. You and I looked at the same information and reached different conclusions. The conclusions we reached were based in part on what we read, and certain other assumptions that go into our thinking.

But "Torone-like"? I don't think so. I didn't question your loyalties, integrity, accuse you of being brainwashed, or insinuate that someone will be coming to get you.

If you will notice, in my response to you I didn't comment on the legal issues involved in the incident at the mall. I strongly believe that people who quote Niemoeller over a T-shirt incident in a mall perhaps should switch to decaf. I certainly didn't invoke fear of the "Ashcroft Police State" in describing this incident at this mall.

Now ... I think a reasonably successful arguement could be made for labelling as "Torone-like" the tactic of tossing around buzzwords like "Ashcroft Police State" every time someone mentions a concern with the the current administration's attitude toward privacy and civil rights issues, but that is another discussion entirely.

[Almighty Colin]

I've read this story in a few different places from a few different points of view. Also seen an interview with the two guys that wore the shirts.

For whatever reason, a mall security guard asked the two guys to take off their shirts. One of them refused. The security guard was upset and then asked him to leave the mall. The guy refused. The security guard told the guy he was trespassing. The guy said, basically, "have me arrested then". The security guard called the police and said that he was trespassing. He was arrested. The mall backed up the security guard.

I heard earlier today that the charges have been dropped by the mall.

Seems to me that the security guard probably overreacted to the situation. Maybe he was provoked. We don't know. Doesn't matter. An overreaction and that is it.

I don't see this as indicative of anything "going on in America". I remember hearing about many such similar cases all my life. Pretty normal. The US is a nation of laws and people sometimes interpret that differently, sometimes don't understand it and sometimes abuse it.

Two hippies, a six dollar an hour rent-a-cop and a police officer following the letter of the law combined to create a nationwide story about "free speech". Funny.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 6 2003, 06:12 PM

[Peaches]

Alex must not have internet access today

[Vick]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 6 2003, 05:55 PM
Two hippies, a six dollar an hour rent-a-cop and a police officer following the letter of the law combined to create a nationwide story about "free speech".

Once again Colin is the voice of reason and intellect

The biggest statement may be made about websites and/or news organizations .......

Once you read Colin's summation of the story it is pretty much
Move along people, nothing to see here

[Almighty Colin]

Laws that protect our civil freedoms do not prevent all people from mistakenly or intentionally abusing them. They never have. They do, however, give us recourse in the event of such abuses.

[Oh, and thanks Vick :-)]

[RawAlex]

Originally posted by Peaches@Mar 6 2003, 06:03 PM
Alex must not have internet access today

Nope... just don't want to get involved in a discussion that could be considered american bashing or political. No benefit. :-)

Alex

[cj]

wow the media is amazing isn't it?

its funny to watch the first few reactions to this ...

'oh my, this is an outrage'

followed by

'duh, its only half a story'

followed by

'oh look, the dudes were actually harassing other mall patrons'


i've got a really cool story for international news ....
there's a sign up the road 'no howard' (with the letters 'no war' in red)
somebody has thrown a bucket of paint over it!!!




I'm calling the media. this is an outrage.
Watch the 7 o clock news tonight, it will be the top story!

[kath]

Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Mar 6 2003, 02:20 PM
If you will notice, in my response to you I didn't comment on the legal issues involved in the incident at the mall. I strongly believe that people who quote Niemoeller over a T-shirt incident in a mall perhaps should switch to decaf. I certainly didn't invoke fear of the "Ashcroft Police State" in describing this incident at this mall.

You'll notice that I said IF that's all that happened then it's a sad day in America. I was in no way saying this was a "free speech" issue if these guys were out of line, harassing customers or whatever. That's a whole 'nother animal.

For the record - I DO drink decaf.

I quote Niemoeller because slowly but surely our freedoms ARE being chipped away...but people can choose to ignore it if they want, I just hope someone is left to speak up for them when our government comes after the freedoms that they hold most dear. They are breaking us down bit by bit...right by right...freedom by freedom... and it's just been worse since 9/11 - every incident is just another excuse to take a little more. And here we all sit - just giving it to them freely without question.

I take it back - it already IS a sad day in America.

[cj]

Kath, your right ... it is a sad day when our freedoms are taken away ...

but more importantly is the attitude we *can* have to accept the things we can't change. colin started a new political party the other day, the party who things that everything is 'not too bad' ;-) i'm joining up LOL

I don't think that 'all of a sudden' our freedoms are being taken away since 9/11, we are just hearing and talking about it more than we used to ... we are aware of things that before 9/11 would have drifted past without the media (or us) noticing ...

Issues related to our security and safety are certainly highest on everyone's agenda these days, whereas before that we complained about things like marijuana being illegal and healthcare being too expensive and how this restricted our freedoms as citizens of democracy.

No matter how good things get, there will always be something and someone who doesn't like it ...

I prefer to think about how I *AM* free .... to sleep in or get up early, to eat out in a restaurant and choose anything from the menu I wish, to go to the movies, to openly discuss anything with my friends, to go out on a date, to drive my car, to run a porn site, to have an opinion that differs from my government, to wear what I please, to visit other countries ... and so on and so on ...

[Torone]

He was committing criminal trespass the moment he refused to either remove the shirt or leave. I know you libs don't believe in private property; but the 1st Amendment protects the freedom of speech from Congress, not from individuals. In other words, he's screwed, unless he can get his case to the 9th Circuit court...

[PornoDoggy]

Liberals don't believe in private property? Do you really think we will allow the government to nationalize our Limousines? What planet are you from, anyway? h34r:

BTW, still wondering what "grapevines" you're tuned to that are talking about "pogroms". I sure would like to listen in on that one myself.

[kath]

Originally posted by cj@Mar 6 2003, 07:34 PM
Kath, your right ... it is a sad day when our freedoms are taken away ...

but more importantly is the attitude we *can* have to accept the things we can't change. colin started a new political party the other day, the party who things that everything is 'not too bad' ;-) i'm joining up LOL

I don't think that 'all of a sudden' our freedoms are being taken away since 9/11, we are just hearing and talking about it more than we used to ... we are aware of things that before 9/11 would have drifted past without the media (or us) noticing ...

Issues related to our security and safety are certainly highest on everyone's agenda these days, whereas before that we complained about things like marijuana being illegal and healthcare being too expensive and how this restricted our freedoms as citizens of democracy.

No matter how good things get, there will always be something and someone who doesn't like it ...

I prefer to think about how I *AM* free .... to sleep in or get up early, to eat out in a restaurant and choose anything from the menu I wish, to go to the movies, to openly discuss anything with my friends, to go out on a date, to drive my car, to run a porn site, to have an opinion that differs from my government, to wear what I please, to visit other countries ... and so on and so on ...

CJ -

I agree with you as well - things aren't "too bad" (sounds like a decent party) - I just know that if we aren't careful it could go bad in a hurry. True, it's not just since 9/11 that our freedoms have been taken away - it's been happening for a long time, but since that time we have collectively been scared into giving them away much more freely.

I too will celebrate that freedom that allows me to drive my car where I want, debate political issues freely, run a porn site, etc. Excellent point. I'm just going to keep one eye on the celebrations and try to live in that moment - and the other eye on those who would happily take those freedoms away if we let them.

h34r: h34r:

[Almighty Colin]

CJ, Kath, Cool. Let's get this international party platform going. We gotta find that guy that wrote "I'm ok. You're ok. We're ok" book. Great motto.

Anyway - in the 1950's, America proclaimed itself to be a free country while millions of blacks were being summarily exempted from the same restaurants, hotels, schools, neighborhoods and even the same drinking fountains as whites. Things have never been perfectly free anywhere and certainly not here in the US but they are much better now by the standards of equality and freedom than they were then. As long as there are laws, we are never free. Laws prevent people from doing things that some of us want to do. It's not like there are just 10 laws. There are millions of laws. All of them infringing on somone's freedom. [I am required by law to wear a seat=belt when I drive!].

I remember a little over a decade ago or so a Geraldo Rivera show on Satan worship in public schools. A local school decided to ban black concert t-shirts from heavy metal bands as a result. Often we hear of similar things. They are always going on. Sometimes we feel that things have gone awry but really they are the same, even better I am arguing. These things happen quite regularly. The system normally handles things ok. Never great. Just ok.

Civil liberties always clash with laws that protect ourselves form both our fellow citizens and external factors. One person wants to smoke in public [a civil liberty], another wants to be protected from second hand smoke. One person wants to speak out. Another doesn't want to be offended.

During times of national stress, there is usually a decrease in civil liberties as the law ebbs and flows and increases it's protective role and decreasing those civil liberties. In the US we had The Red Scare, Japanese internment camps and MacCarthyism. In my opinion, we have had far less change in our civil liberties as a result of the current period of national stress here compared to those situations.

Freedom. Something we aspire to. Something we can never quite attain. The only way to feel completely free is when there are no laws that prevent us from doing the things we wish. True freedom is anarchy. I imagine that in such a society someone would complain that their freedom to create laws was being abridged.



Last edited by Colin at Mar 7 2003, 07:33 AM

[Almighty Colin]

Torone,

So do you believe smoking should be permitted in malls? How can the government make smoking illegal in a "private" place?

[Torone]

Originally posted by Colin@Mar 7 2003, 05:46 AM
Torone,

So do you believe smoking should be permitted in malls? How can the government make smoking illegal in a "private" place?

In my opinion, this happened because certain elements of society were allowed to have their way with no regard for the Constitution. The funny thing is, it was supposed to be 'for the piblic good' (lung cancer, and all that stuff). However, the lung cancer rate has continued to rise. Asthma rates follow suit. Why? Perhaps the real problem is revealed by a quick revisit to some old (but true) statistics...a major component of diesel exhaust is benzene, one of the most potent carcinogens known to man.

[Almighty Colin]

Torone,

How is that a violation of the Constitution? Isn't that the right of a state to decide?

Amendment XXVIII? "Thou shall smoke wherever one pleases"?

[Torone]

Colin,
Dammit! You ask me a question, then screwed up on the answer. It has nothing to do with smoking. It has everything to do with private property. For instance, the 4th Amendment. For that matter, the way smokers are mistreated, it might be referred to the 14th Amendment. BTW, that is the one that many of these so-called 'free speech' cases should reference. "Equal protection under the law".

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by Torone@Mar 7 2003, 09:00 AM
Colin,
Dammit! You ask me a question, then screwed up on the answer. It has nothing to do with smoking. It has everything to do with private property. For instance, the 4th Amendment. For that matter, the way smokers are mistreated, it might be referred to the 14th Amendment. BTW, that is the one that many of these so-called 'free speech' cases should reference. "Equal protection under the law".

The 4th Amendment says ...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I can't find the part where it says you can't smoke in the mall.

[Torone]

Colin, Colin, Colin,
Either you just don't get it (unlikely) or you are being deliberately obtuse (very likely)...

I said it has nothing to do with smoking and everything to do with private property. If the people who own/control the mall (owners and/or shopkeepers) want to ban smoking, that is their right; but NOT the right of the gov't. Most people have allowed themselves to be LED to believe that the Constitution tells the people what they can do. Quite the inverse is true. It is meant and written to tell the Government what IT is not allowed to do. Read it, and note the way it is written. For instance the, 1st Amendment starts out: "Congress shall make no laws..." . There is little doubt what is meant there. It doesn't say, "No citizen shall...".

[Rox]

My uncle paid almost $2 million (cash) for the building from which he runs his company, where in addition to the administrative offices, lobby and shipping department, he has a nice corner office. He is a smoker. Yet according to California law, he can be fined and even jailed for smoking in his own office -- a fact that pissed him off in the extreme. He was willing to abide by the law for the most part, in that there's no smoking allowed inside the rest of the building.

Today, however, he CAN smoke in his office; but only because he spent thousands of dollars in legal maneuvers to have that one little corner of the building, his office, declared NOT a part of the state of California (I'm not quite sure exactly how, but it's been made a sovereign state or whatever).

How fucked up is it that even after paying $2 million for a building (and paying god knows how many hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes, not only on that one transaction, but just by doing business here, I might add), the State can still tell you what to do inside the walls of your own private property? It's not like he's making bombs in there or committing human rights violations for Christ's sake! The man simply wants to be free to light up a cigarette while making business calls, but in order to do so he was forced to pay for extreme legal measures to unshackle himself from the State.

Can any of you lawerly types explain to me how the State can justify their intrusion into this man's actions within his separate, private office inside a building that's his private property?