Peace shirt lands N.Y. man in jail

I find this article disturbing. Was this man's ejection legal? Was it moral?

I thought it was kinda neat how the writer waited til the last paragraph to deliver the punch line.

I imagine the mall experienced a certain amount of disruption to business during a prior incident and were acting quickly to head off more of the same.

Private property.....asked to leave....refused....legal.....next case!

So you think a mall should be allowed to exclude people based on what they wear? Should they be allowed to exclude them based on the colour of their skin?

From what I can gather, It seems that the man and his son decided to buy peace shirts at a mall shop. The father's shirt did not seem offensive in my opinion, from what I heard, it just said give peace a chance on one side and world peace on the other. The son's shirt on the other hand said "No War With Iraq" on one side and "Let Inspections Work" on the other. Their presence caused a commotion when other patrons of the mall started hollering and arguing with the pair. When mall security was called, they asked what exactly was going on. The father proceeded to say that he and his son were demonstrating their right to free speech against the war. Because these shirts were causing a problem in the mall, the pair were asked to remove the shirts. When they refused, they were told to leave. When they refused this, they were told that they would be arrested if they did not comply. The son realized the seriousness of the situation and removed his shirt. When the father refused yet again, the police were called and the man was arrested.

I personally think that morality is not an issue here. It is a persons right to speak freely, and to demonstrate. But if the person is on private property and disrupting business as well as causing a scene, it is the owners right to have the person ejected from his establishment. This also goes for people demonstrating without a permit.

In the end, we now have a large protest brewing at the Crossgates Mall... outside
and I'm ok with that.

NyArtist26

NYA,

Thanks for clarifying the situation. I agree with your analysis of it as well.

The only minor exception I might take is what you said about the ability to protest with a permit. Permit's are given by the government...if you are protesting your government but have to ask their permission first it isn't really free speech. When reasonable requests for permits are denied it's actually a violation of your freedom of speech.

I feel if you are on public property you should be allowed to protest peacefully without a permit.

I believe the reporting in this article was probably a little lacking. Its not likely that a security guy told them to leave because of their shirts. There was almost certainly a confrontation of some sort (probably with other patrons) and they were asked to remove the shirts (the cause of the confrontation) or leave.

You are free to protest...but not on private property. A mall can ask you to leave if you disrupt business. This was perfectly legal.

Yeah, the article is pretty vague. And it sounds like the mall has had problems with peace protesters before.

A private business has the right to do what they like, and the right to "refuse service to anyone".

Legal? yep. Moral? Undecided.

--cheers

I think the man's arrest was legal because in the article it says he was trespassing. Also, i think it was right to arrest them because they refused to take off their "Give Peace a Chance" shirts because to me, i'd think a rally (if one was started) would create an incident in the mall & disrupt the businesses.

Ditto, it is private property. I can limit "free speech" in my home. My son, when he was an adolescent cursed his mother once, just once.

According to NYArtist26 it was the other patrons who started the commotion. Why were the people wearing the shirts ejected?

In California and New Hampshire Malls are not just "private property".

Here's what happened in California:

The Appellate Court noted that the California Supreme Court had considered this issue in the case of Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center.

In the Pruneyard case, a group of high school students were seeking support for a political cause at the Pruneyard shopping mall and the mall owner made them leave the premises. The mall was a privately owned 21©acre center that included 65 shops, 10 restaurants, and a cinema. It was visited by roughly 25,000 people a day.

The Supreme Court decided in that case that the California Constitution protected the students' actions, even though they took place on private property. The Court said that the owner of the mall had opened the property to the public and, therefore, the actions of the students didn't harm the owner's interests. Another significant consideration in that case was what the Supreme Court called the evolution of the shopping mall as a forum for public expression.

In our modern society, said the Court, shopping centers are replacing downtown business districts as places where the public likes to congregate. As such, they provide an important location for citizens to exercise their right of free speech.

The Court decided that the students' conduct in the Pruneyard case was protected by the Constitution (although the mall's owner could adopt reasonable rules regulating such ‘conduct, like designating certain reasonable times and locations).

However, the Supreme Court also stated that its decision would not necessarily apply to a "modest retail establishment." In that situation, the actions of a few people seeking signatures might have more of an effect on the operation of the business than they would in the context of a large shopping mall.

That California supreme court is up to no good. Another attack, by the courts, on private property rights. I guess I should be able to go to a mall in California and hawk my own goods.

Why weren't the people who initially caused the comotion by shouting at the father and son asked to leave instead?

I have no argument with the legal right of owners to have people removed from private property, but it seems to me that the wrong people were ejected.

Here is another link to the same story. This one adds an extra interesting detail about the guy who was arrested;

The mall did drop the charges: New York mall drops peace T-shirt charges

I respect private property rights, but since the men purchased the shirts at a store from the mall, I'm not sure how that holds up. Isn't there an implied contract there between the store owner and the mall regarding the merchandise, and if people aren't allowed to wear these items in the mall, doesn't it seem like the store shouldn't be allowed to sell them or does the store become the temporary private property of the leasee?

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't one of the men arrested a lawyer? Oh that would of been interesting if he was.

Indeed, he was:

Mall Want to Drop Peace T-Shirt Charges