Amerika Watch

In this thread we can put things we find that show that things have really gone just too far.

For instance:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80292,00.html

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by sundog
In this thread we can put things we find that show that things have really gone just too far.

For instance:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80292,00.html

That is one strange story.. It's like there ought to be more to it, but I can't see what it is.


Not taking sides, but just pointing out, the mall does have the right to bar anyone from their property..

Found this story:
Peace Effort (http://nycap.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=4227&group=webcast)

I agree we probably had some Rent-A-Cops, acting like jerks, but it looks like they were enforcing " the policy of Crossgates Mall to disallow political protest on the property. "...

I believe the property owners have a right to enforce such a policy.

[headscratcher4]

Ah, the land of the free, home of the brave...and sometimes you have to burn the village to save it. God (figure of speech), this story makes me sad. :(

[corplinx]

Let me play Devil's Advocate.

The man and his son were in a private place. They made some tshirts (my opinion: more likely to annoy than to convince others that war is wrong, you know the type) that had messages on them dealing with current affairs. The mall people aked them to leave the private property. The father and son refused (starting to remind you of other brainless anti-war protestors yet?). They were arrested for trespassing since they refused to leave private property.

Now they are first amendment martyrs. Go figure. Sounds like they just need a good ass whipping.

[Segnosaur]

There's a thread about this in Banter.

Some additonal information is coming out, like the fact that these people were not just wearing T-shirts, but were handing out anti-war pamplets.

Originally posted by Segnosaur
There's a thread about this in Banter.



If you'd read it, you'd know this one was here first ;)

But as I said over there, we should discuss it there, the title is better.

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Some additonal information is coming out, like the fact that these people were not just wearing T-shirts, but were handing out anti-war pamplets.

The first group, or this latest guy?

If the latest guy was handing out pamphlets, that's an entirely different story. Of course the mall has the right to prevent that.

[corplinx]

I think the mall should kick you out for any reason they want. Even McDonalds discriminates: "no shoes, no shirt, no service"

Originally posted by corplinx
Let me play Devil's Advocate.

Sounds like they just need a good ass whipping.

Let me play devil's advocate.

Let's say the guy has on a "Nuke IRAQ" t-shirt, otherwise same scenario. There would be an even BIGGER stink. Rush Limbaugh would devote a week to it.

[headscratcher4]

I think the mall should kick you out for any reason they want

Like if you're black, or an Arab, or a Jew, or a single mother, or gay? Maybe because you are wearing a crucifix on a chain around your neck? Maybe your scarf is designed to look like the American Flag. What about your tatoo? Yeah, Malls should be able to do that that...:rolleyes:

[corplinx]

Originally posted by headscratcher4


Like if you're black, or an Arab, or a Jew, or a single mother, or gay? Maybe because you are wearing a crucifix on a chain around your neck? Maybe your scarf is designed to look like the American Flag. What about your tatoo? Yeah, Malls should be able to do that that...:rolleyes:

Yes I think so. Of course, in a free market you have something called a boycott to retaliate against truly ludicrous business behavior.

[Nova Land]

In the 1950s and 1960s protesters were mainly left-wing (civil rights, anti-war). Leafletting, picketting, small demonstrations, etc. were considered disreputable by the majority of people in the US, and numerous obstacles were placed in the way of legal protest.

Some police would tell leafletters they were not permitted to do that and to move along -- incorrect, of course, but there's a catch that disobeying a police officer was considered an offense, even if the police officer's order was wrong, which allowed police to arrest and remove leafletters who wouldn't stop.

Some cities tried to require protesters to get a permit in order to leaflet or assemble. Others tried to require a fee for groups that intended to leaflet (to cover "clean-up costs" for picking up any discarded leaflets). Etc.

Because protesters were willing to leaflet and to peacefully assemble even in the face of these attempts to suppress protest, these laws and practices were successfully challenged and became less common. You can call such protesters obnoxious if you like, but you should also thank them for their part in preserving the rights that we in the US enjoy.

By the late 1960s, protest had become popular, and even reasonably respectable. Leafletting and demonstrating on public streets was no longer a big deal.

However, malls were starting to be built, and were becoming the new social centers for many Americans. Therefore protesters started trying to leaflet in the parking lots or other areas of malls. Malls began putting up signs saying that they were private property and that leafletting, demonstrating, etc. were not permitted. Many of us were not pleased about that, but it's not an unreasonable idea that malls are private property, and those rules were not challenged by the left in the same way the restrictions to demonstrate on sidewalks and public squares had been.

In the late 1980s and 1990s, many right-wing people began to leaflet and protest. When they were told of restrictions on leafletting and demonstrating in malls, they howled about this blatant bias against conservatives / christians / pro-lifers / etc.. Several christian and conservative legal foundations were set up to assert their rights -- Pat Robertson's ACLJ, John Whitehead's Rutherford Institute, and several others.

I remember coverage of several cases where right-wing protesters were told they could not demonstrate in malls, challenged that restriction, and won. My impression is that they consistently won these challenges, with courts agreeing malls were the new "town squares" and thus public as well as private.

(My impression they won consistently may be mistaken and a result of conservative media bias, with the conservative media reporting cases where the protesters won and downplaying the ones they lost. But I am pretty sure right-wing protesters won a good number of cases about this issue, and were permitted to leaflet in malls in a way the left had been denied in previous decades.)

I can see the issue of forbidding leafletting at malls either way. However, I would like to see whatever rules there are be applied equally to all protesters. My suspicion is that many Reagan-appointed judges too often base their decisions about when to permit leafletting in malls on their agreement or disagreement with the leafletter's cause rather than on a genuine commitment to free speech.

Anti-war protesters should be given the same rights to leaflet as anti-abortion protesters are -- no more, no less.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Nova Land
Anti-war protesters should be given the same rights to leaflet as anti-abortion protesters are -- no more, no less.

You have no objections here.

[Soubrette]

Originally posted by corplinx
Even McDonalds discriminates: "no shoes, no shirt, no service"

I thought that was their slogan - just so people are aware of what they couldn't get at McDonalds? :p

As to this specific topic - does this Mall ban all political t-shirts - we have some well whacky ones here sometimes - or is it more the delicacy of the situation at the moment regarding possible war, or the policy of that Mall owners?

I'm with (I think Diogenes), it's hard to make any kind of judgement when I have this vague feeling we only know half the story.

Sou

[fishbob]

The article stated that they purchased the shirts there at the mall. The article does not say that they were engaged in a protest or other disruptive behavior.

The situation seems more like - Happy to accept your business, now get the hell out.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog
In this thread we can put things we find that show that things have really gone just too far.

For instance:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80292,00.html

Gee Sundog,...you're right...there should be a law against police arresting people who are disorderly and disruptive on private property. :rolleyes: oooooh! police state!:eek:

Originally posted by rikzilla


Gee Sundog,...you're right...there should be a law against police arresting people who are disorderly and disruptive on private property. :rolleyes: oooooh! police state!:eek:

Thanks Rik for your input. The original information said nothing about any disturbance, as you'd know if you were reading the thread instead of trolling.

Now back to the discussion.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=366849#post366849

Thanks Regnad for this post which shows that the mall's position, that these people were being disruptive in some way, is a flat-out lie to cover their butts.

The mall will have to produce video. They won't be able to. I hope they get their pants sued clean off.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by corplinx
Even McDonalds discriminates: "no shoes, no shirt, no service"

No Pants? No Problem.....

[Segnosaur]

You know, all of this reminds me of the pizza place in Europe (Was it Denmark?) that was in the news for publicly stating that it would not sell pizza to French or German customers because of their stance on the war.

If Germany changed and supported the war, he would sell to German customers, but he would never sell to the french.

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:You know, all of this reminds me of the pizza place in Europe (Was it Denmark?) that was in the news for publicly stating that it would not sell pizza to French or German customers because of their stance on the war.

If Germany changed and supported the war, he would sell to German customers, but he would never sell to the french. Your memory is accurate. Amazing how much free PR this little pizza place got.

[aerocontrols]

here (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html)

"Downs (the man arrested) 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. "


HAHAHAHA! Yeah, this guy's a real nutcase all right. Suuure, he was causing a disturbance.

Lying b*stards.

And trust Fox News to scramble to try to find some way to discredit the guy. Would they have been so quick to do so if the t-shirt had borne a pro-war message? Do you want to buy some swampland in Florida?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by sundog
In this thread we can put things we find that show that things have really gone just too far.

For instance:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80292,00.html

That's not the only thing that shows that things have gone too far, for instance:
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15139

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by sundog


Thanks Rik for your input. The original information said nothing about any disturbance, as you'd know if you were reading the thread instead of trolling.

Now back to the discussion.

I'm not the one in denial...as usual it's you Cleo. ;)

From the link provided by Sundog:
"Crossgates Mall security received a complaint regarding two individuals disrupting customers. The individuals were approached by security because of their actions and interference with other shoppers," the statement read.

"Their behavior, coupled with their clothing to express to others their personal views on world affairs, were disruptive of customers."



Disruptive behaviour is disruptive whether one is wearing a peace shirt, war shirt, or no shirt at all. Again, the left seeks out an innocent victim of aggression and finds one everywhere and anywhere they look. The culture of victimization means never having to say "I'm responsible for my own actions" I've washed my hands of that nonsensical crappola.

-z

[rikzilla]

Ok Sundog,

I read the banter thread and it seems there may be more to the story.

If indeed there was no disturbance being created by these people then I fully agree that the mall in question had no right to detain these guys. However, I find it very hard to believe that cops just walked up to them in a mall food court and asked them to remove shirts...which apparently were for sale in the self same mall! That's just ridiculous. I'm interested to see if there is any more to this story. It doesn't sound quite right to my skeptical mind so far.

-zilla

[Tony]

If you protest on private property, the owner has the right to kick you off. These people are lying to gain sympathy for their actions.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/crossgates1.html

[fishbob]

Tony: The statement of fact in the complaint does not match the statements in any of the news stories. Somebody is lying. And you are 1500 miles away from the scene.

[Tony]

Originally posted by fishbob
Tony: The statement of fact in the complaint does not match the statements in any of the news stories. Somebody is lying. And you are 1500 miles away from the scene.

I know, but im much more inclined to believe the police report than I am to believe the story of a bedwetting "peace" marcher.

[fishbob]

Check out Riks last post. Why don't we get some straight information before we decide what to believe?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by sundog
In this thread we can put things we find that show that things have really gone just too far.

For instance:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80292,00.html
This thread is not just about that one story.
How about Tom Delay and others willing to whore out the Constitution in the name of instituting religion:
Congress could remove federal courts' jurisdiction to rule on the Pledge of Allegiance if the Supreme Court doesn't overturn an appeals court decision that bars children from reciting the Pledge in school, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said yesterday.
....
Rep. Steve Chabot, Ohio Republican and chairman of the Constitution subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, said he thinks the Supreme Court will overturn the appeals court's decision and make congressional action unnecessary.

But he said if that doesn't happen, the two options open to Congress are a statutory change to limit jurisdiction, as Mr. DeLay laid out, or amend the Constitution to protect the Pledge.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030306-701839.htm

Amend the Constitution to protect the Pledge.:eek:
How about the other way around you idiots?

Originally posted by Tony


I know, but im much more inclined to believe the police report than I am to believe the story of a bedwetting "peace" marcher.

Hold it right there, pardner. :)

Did you not read who this guy is? He's on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In other words, he rules on the conduct of judges.

You don't even know the facts of the case. The report is not the word of policemen, but of mall rent-a-cops and mall officials.

Do I trust the word of someone who sits in judgement over judicial conduct, over that of a rent-a-cop? Yes.

Here's a really clear example of people being blinded by their political beliefs. To you, anyone who would wear a t-shirt advocating peace is a betwetter. You will probably not admit you're wrong even now.

Originally posted by rikzilla
Ok Sundog,

I read the banter thread and it seems there may be more to the story.

If indeed there was no disturbance being created by these people then I fully agree that the mall in question had no right to detain these guys. However, I find it very hard to believe that cops just walked up to them in a mall food court and asked them to remove shirts...which apparently were for sale in the self same mall! That's just ridiculous. I'm interested to see if there is any more to this story. It doesn't sound quite right to my skeptical mind so far.

-zilla

Rik,

Thank you. My faith in you is slightly restored. Yes, it is valuable to learn the facts of the case before you apply your political paintroller to it.

Read it through one more time: they were rent-a-cops, not policemen. I don't believe them for a second over someone of the stature of this gentleman. But the policemen acted entirely appropriately and indeed had no choice in the matter but to arrest the man, since a trespassing complaint had been lodged. The fault lies entirely with the mall.

Anyone who disbelieves this gentleman after learning who he is, is being dishonest; if he were a right-wing member of a judiciary review board, wearing a pro-war shirt, they'd believe him over a dozen policemen.

They better have some video of the guy stopping customers or they've had it.

[Tony]

Originally posted by sundog


Hold it right there, pardner. :)

Did you not read who this guy is? He's on the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. In other words, he rules on the conduct of judges.

You don't even know the facts of the case. The report is not the word of policemen, but of mall rent-a-cops and mall officials.

Do I trust the word of someone who sits in judgement over judicial conduct, over that of a rent-a-cop? Yes.

Here's a really clear example of people being blinded by their political beliefs. To you, anyone who would wear a t-shirt advocating peace is a betwetter. You will probably not admit you're wrong even now.

I can admit when I am wrong, after reading fishbob's post I decided that I overreacted. Like fishbob said, we should wait until we get better information before deciding what to believe.

Originally posted by Tony


I can admit when I am wrong, after reading fishbob's post I decided that I overreacted.

Then I have wronged you and I apologize. :)

[fishbob]

From Subs most recent post:But he said if that doesn't happen, the two options open to Congress are a statutory change to limit jurisdiction, as Mr. DeLay laid out, or amend the Constitution to protect the Pledge. Mr. DeLay proves once again that he is a flaming bedwetter. If the article is accurate.

[subgenius]

The Bush bullies have abused an 82 year old woman.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
A long-running Washington tradition apparently ended last night when, for the first time in memory, the doyenne of the White House press corps was not called on in a presidential press conference.
Syndicated columnist Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since John F. Kennedy, was relegated to the third row in last night's East Room event and — if the memory of press corps veterans is accurate — received her first presidential snub.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030307-85033093.htm

[corplinx]

Originally posted by subgenius

Syndicated columnist Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since John F. Kennedy, was relegated to the third row in last night's East Room event and — if the memory of press corps veterans is accurate — received her first presidential snub.


In the words of Nelson Mundtz, "Hah hah"