Freedom Of Speech In The Us?

[Gwendolyn]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/03/04...usa.shirt.reut/ NEW YORK (Reuters) -- 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. According to the criminal complaint filed Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany. "I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs. When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read. Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly. "I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs told Reuters in a telephone interview. Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct. Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment. Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17. He could face up to a year in prison if convicted. [/b] This really bothers me. What is becoming of everything?

[Merlock]

I don't understand... He had a shirt saying "Give Peace A Chance"...what's wrong with that phrase? Even remotely?

[Gwendolyn]

I don't understand... He had a shirt saying "Give Peace A Chance"...what's wrong with that phrase? Even remotely? [/b] I know!!! What IS wrong with that?

[Merlock]

I know!!! What IS wrong with that? [/b] Oh, so you don't know either? I'd think it would be something obvious to everyone but me if it got police to kick someone out of a mall and arrest, let alone got on the news, etc. So...all in all...it's just a story about some fellow that was bullied by mall guards for absolutely no logical reason? That's not a problem with freedom of speech, it's a problem of police force sanity. o.o

[Gwendolyn]

Oh, so you don't know either? I'd think it would be something obvious to everyone but me if it got police to kick someone out of a mall and arrest, let alone got on the news, etc. So...all in all...it's just a story about some fellow that was bullied by mall guards for absolutely no logical reason? That's not a problem with freedom of speech, it's a problem of police force sanity. o.o [/b] If this man actually gets convicted, it is a freedom of speech issue. Either way you look at it, it's pretty fucking disturbing.

[Indecent Exposure]

i find this sickening, and rather dsiturbing, Whats wrong wit that t shirt? If it said fuck bush, or sumthing Id think it was wrong to arrest him but I could duenrstand why I dont even get it =S Imran

[ExoByte]

That is insane... Knock Knock Gestapo, anyone?

[Universal Mind]

It is definitely absurd. It is absolutely ridiculous. But it is not a constitutional problem. He was on private property, and a private business has a right to make its own rules, no matter how ridiculous they may be. Whoever owns that mall is like a home owner. If somebody is in your house wearing a shirt that says, "Give Bush's Policies A Chance," you have a right to make that person either change shirts or leave. The fact that your shirt is not a law violation by itself is beside the point. The owner or manager or whoever of the mall probably thinks "Give Peace A Chance" is meant to be obnoxious hippy stuff that refers to the John Lennon song as a form of flipping the bird at supporters of current U.S. foreign policy. He/she has a right to make rules about his property. If it were a public library or a sidewalk or something, things would be totally different. But yes, the situation is still ridiculous.

[ExoByte]

What makes it even worse is that the mall was selling the shirt, but wouldn't let him wear it?!

[Moonbeam]

He was on private property, and a private business has a right to make its own rules, no matter how ridiculous they may be. [/b] This is not true. Different laws apply to private residences and places open for public business. You personally may think that they should have that right, but that does not mean they actually do under the law. For example, you can tell anyone you want not to come in your house. But a business can't post a sign saying "No (insert ethnic group) allowed" or whatever. They guy who put the shirt on should do the suing. Which being a lawyer, surely he'll think of.

[Universal Mind]

This is not true. Different laws apply to private residences and places open for public business. You personally may think that they should have that right, but that does not mean they actually do under the law. For example, you can tell anyone you want not to come in your house. But a business can't post a sign saying "No (insert ethnic group) allowed" or whatever. [/b] There are exceptions, but dress code is not one of them. A business can tell people what they can't wear on their property. It is strange that the shirt was banned at the mall but sold at it. The tight ass owner/manager probably didn't know that shirt was being sold there. I'll say something else. What a dumbass business person! He did not help his business by having that policy. Such an ordeal makes people not want to go to that mall. Maybe the security guards were confused on what the rules are.

[Gwendolyn]

Unless it is clearly posted that you cannot wear a certain thing, how can you enforce such a rule? It's like randomly making up things. Like, when you go into a store, there is usually a sign that says, 'No shirt, no shoes, no service". I doubt that there was one that said, "No shirts saying "Give peace a chance". You can't just say contriversial shirts either, because everyone has their own interpretation. So how can there be a valid rule like this?

[Universal Mind]

Unless it is clearly posted that you cannot wear a certain thing, how can you enforce such a rule? It's like randomly making up things. Like, when you go into a store, there is usually a sign that says, 'No shirt, no shoes, no service". I doubt that there was one that said, "No shirts saying "Give peace a chance". You can't just say contriversial shirts either, because everyone has their own interpretation. So how can there be a valid rule like this? [/b] Not all public places have signs saying what their dress code is. They just expect the word to get out and enforce it as they go. I think whoever was behind what happened at the mall is a schmuck. I'm just saying it's legal and not a constitutional violation.

[Gwendolyn]

I don't care what it is. It's just very shocking, and I wanted to share it.

[Universal Mind]

I don't care what it is. It's just very shocking, and I wanted to share it. [/b] I know I won't ever go to that mall.

[Gwendolyn]

Me either.

[Moonbeam]

Actually it would be funny if everybody swarmed the place wearing peace-related messages. I still think he could sue.

[Merlin38]

This is not true. Different laws apply to private residences and places open for public business. You personally may think that they should have that right, but that does not mean they actually do under the law. For example, you can tell anyone you want not to come in your house. But a business can't post a sign saying "No (insert ethnic group) allowed" or whatever. [/b] However, any business does have the right to refuse service to any individual. If the officers of an establishment request an individual to leave the premisis, and that individual refuses, then that individual could be arrested for trespassing on private property. On the other hand, if the guards didn't give a valid reason for the lawyer to leave, then they overstep their bounds. I read the full text, and it didn't specify what the 'inappropriate behavior' was. I agree that the guards' request to have the lawyer remove the shirt was rediculous, but if the lawyer was acting 'inappropriately', then that would be a reason for ejecting him from the premisis.

[Gwendolyn]

However, any business does have the right to refuse service to any individual. If the officers of an establishment request an individual to leave the premisis, and that individual refuses, then that individual could be arrested for trespassing on private property. On the other hand, if the guards didn't give a valid reason for the lawyer to leave, then they overstep their bounds. I read the full text, and it didn't specify what the 'inappropriate behavior' was. I agree that the guards' request to have the lawyer remove the shirt was rediculous, but if the lawyer was acting 'inappropriately', then that would be a reason for ejecting him from the premisis. [/b] I was thinking that the 'inappropriate behavior' was the refusal to take off the shirt in the first place.

[Kamikaze]

I don't think I understand this fully.. A guy bought a shirt at the mall with the saying "Give Peace a Chance" on it and he put it on in the mall. He was then told to remove it and he refused so they hauled him off to jail? If that is the case, then there are a few things wrong with it. I mean he bought it at the very same mall so why would they want him to take it off? Also I mean, it isn't offensive so why would anyone care anyways. Also I think he has the right to wear the shirt if he wants to, hell, he could have a pair of pants that say the same thing across the ass, it is his right to do so.

[Universal Mind]

I don't think I understand this fully.. A guy bought a shirt at the mall with the saying "Give Peace a Chance" on it and he put it on in the mall. He was then told to remove it and he refused so they hauled him off to jail? If that is the case, then there are a few things wrong with it. I mean he bought it at the very same mall so why would they want him to take it off? Also I mean, it isn't offensive so why would anyone care anyways. Also I think he has the right to wear the shirt if he wants to, hell, he could have a pair of pants that say the same thing across the ass, it is his right to do so.[/b] You should read the other posts.

[Moonbeam]

However, any business does have the right to refuse service to any individual.[/b] I don't really think they do. A business owner can't say "We don't serve your kind in here" arbitrarily. If they have a "no shirt, no shoes, no service" sign posted that's one thing, but they can't just tell somebody they're too ugly or something.

[Chaos]

The whole thing is just rediculous! I really hope the guy sues , I'll be watching the news to see if that happens. Anyway, the gov't is always trying to lessen our constitutional rights. They created the Patriot Act, so that they could tap your phone lines (and I think it also gives them access to everything you have run searches on in Google). You can't say anything w/o running the risk of being arrested for some random crime the gov't just made up.

[Universal Mind]

The whole thing is just rediculous! I really hope the guy sues , I'll be watching the news to see if that happens. Anyway, the gov't is always trying to lessen our constitutional rights. They created the Patriot Act, so that they could tap your phone lines (and I think it also gives them access to everything you have run searches on in Google). You can't say anything w/o running the risk of being arrested for some random crime the gov't just made up. [/b] He was arrested for refusing to leave private property, not for wearing a shirt the mall owner didn't like.

[ShYne123]

Ummmm this was in 2003 LOL, everyone knows that right?? Anyone know what happened in the end? Court jail?