A lawyer was arrested in a mall in Albany, NY yesterday for wearing a t-shirt that said "give peace a chance". The lawyer was approached by 2 security guards who told the man he had to remove the t-shirt or leave the mall. The man refused to remove his t-shirt and was whisked off to jail.

He had just purchased that t-shirt from a vendor in the same mall. If convicted, he faces up to 1 year in prison.

What is this country coming to? Apparently we've lost our right to freedom of speech? So much for the Constitution as protection.

Actually he was arrested for not leaving the mall. It's private property and he was asked to leave (when he would not take off the shirt) and refused. I agree that freedom of speech should be preserved, but the owner of a property has the right to set the rules too.

> Actually he was arrested for not leaving the mall. It's private property
> and he was asked to leave (when he would not take off the shirt) and
> refused. I agree that freedom of speech should be preserved, but the owner
> of a property has the right to set the rules too.

well the guy can definitely fight this. i mean, if the shirt is sold in the mall, the mall doesn't really have much of a case. furthermore, most places like malls have some sort of overarching policy on this sort of thing (i.e. no clothing with profanity on them, etc.). if the mall is not consistent with other people who wear things that might be deemed offensive or if its policy does not even cover such things, then they probably don't have a case at all. i hope this guy sues the son's of bitches. and i hope people start boycotting that mall.

I am sure that he does have a case. In America, if you have a good enough lawyer, then you can get away with murder. That doesn't mean that the murderer was right. Again freedom of speech should be protected, but so should all rights. If the owner of the mall asks this person off of his property then that request should be respected. Just like a restaurant or bar refusing service to someone. If it is not public property, then they have that right.

> I am sure that he does have a case. In America, if you have a good enough
> lawyer, then you can get away with murder. That doesn't mean that the
> murderer was right. Again freedom of speech should be protected, but so
> should all rights. If the owner of the mall asks this person off of his
> property then that request should be respected. Just like a restaurant or
> bar refusing service to someone. If it is not public property, then they
> have that right.

it's absolutely ridiculous though. the store should not be allowed to sell things if you aren't allowed to use them (reasonably) within the mall. it's not like he bought a thong and was sporting that! it's not like he bought a t-shirt that said "fuck bush" or something that is obviously going to be offensive. anyway, the people from the mall are the ones who are going to look like warmongering cunts.

i've seen jerks at disneyland with shirts about a gazillion times more offensive than "give peace a chance" and they didn't even get kicked out. and we all know disney is like the epitome of conservative. the owners of that mall have got a screw loose.

I am not saying I agree with what he did, but he has the right to. Your example of not selling the shirt (that they don't want displayed) would be the same if they allowed x-rated rap lyrics to be blasted around the mall. The owner of the mall probably would not like that, but they still sell the cds. I don't agree that everything that is sold at a mall needs to be used there to give it justification. There are numerous types of example that I could site that jive with what I am saying (vibrators...). Maybe the owner of the mall looks like a facist, but it is still his right and that is the same right that the man (who was arrested) has in protesting the war. Disneyland has the right to allow who they want to come into their parks and who stays in their parks. That doesn't mean that every business owner needs to follow thier example.

> I am not saying I agree with what he did, but he has the right to. Your
> example of not selling the shirt (that they don't want displayed) would be
> the same if they allowed x-rated rap lyrics to be blasted around the mall.
> The owner of the mall probably would not like that, but they still sell
> the cds. I don't agree that everything that is sold at a mall needs to be
> used there to give it justification. There are numerous types of example
> that I could site that jive with what I am saying (vibrators...). Maybe
> the owner of the mall looks like a facist, but it is still his right and
> that is the same right that the man (who was arrested) has in protesting
> the war. Disneyland has the right to allow who they want to come into
> their parks and who stays in their parks. That doesn't mean that every
> business owner needs to follow thier example.

obviously, but i said that what is sold in a mall should be allowed to be used within reason. i mentioned that someone probably shouldn't run around in a mall wearing nothing but a thong they got at victoria's secret or a shirt that says "fuck bush." and i've never been to a mall that sells vibrators. if that mall has a shop that sells vibrators, it's a very peculiar mall and should be laughed at for trying to kick a guy out for wearing a peace shirt. i wasn't saying every business should follow disney's example anyway.

here's a pretty interesting article on a related subject: http://shoppingcenterworld.com/ar/retail_freedom_speech_mall/

Have you ever heard of the store Spencers, where they sale many sexual aids including "massage" toys? Anyway, they have them here in Kansas. Back to the topic, I agree that it is somewhat crazy to kick the man out. I personally would not have kicked him out, but the owner still has the right. If you wanted to kick someout out of your establishment then you have the right to. Even if it seems crazy to someone else. You also have the right to boycott the mall and say that you disagree with the owner.

> Have you ever heard of the store Spencers, where they sale many sexual
> aids including "massage" toys? Anyway, they have them here in
> Kansas. Back to the topic, I agree that it is somewhat crazy to kick the
> man out. I personally would not have kicked him out, but the owner still
> has the right. If you wanted to kick someout out of your establishment
> then you have the right to. Even if it seems crazy to someone else. You
> also have the right to boycott the mall and say that you disagree with the
> owner.

i've been in a spencers, but the one at the mall i've been too didn't have vibrators. in any case, i already pointed out that i meant that items should be allowed to be used within reason. i mean, i doubt anybody in that mall -- even the biggest bush supporter and apart from the weirdly fascist owner -- would have found that shirt offensive.

You were saying that Mike Joyce shouldn't be discussed on this board as it's a board to discuss Morrissey, yet here you are contributing to a thread about offensive t shirts!

Relevance to Morrissey please?

I wouldn't have cared if he wore a shirt that said "I want to kill Bush". Personally I think people should have the right to their opinions. But if someone else who does not like that shirt, and does not want it on his property, then he has the right to suggest that it or the person wearing it be removed. I guess we can just agree to disagree. I haven't been able to read your article yet, but I will I promise.

> I wouldn't have cared if he wore a shirt that said "I want to kill
> Bush". Personally I think people should have the right to their
> opinions. But if someone else who does not like that shirt, and does not
> want it on his property, then he has the right to suggest that it or the
> person wearing it be removed. I guess we can just agree to disagree. I
> haven't been able to read your article yet, but I will I promise.

the article basically concerns whether or not people have the right to blatantly spread their ideas in privately owned places (i.e. handing out political literature in a mall). i can understand why THAT would be a problem, since most malls probably wouldn't want to be associated with any one political organization (or any other type from vegetarian to religious) for fear of alienating customers. however, wearing a shirt hardly counts as trying to rally people to your cause. it's just expressing your beliefs and seems fairly harmless to me. i'd just be interested to know what this mall's policies are because if they don't follow a protocal of consistency, they could be in for a big lawsuit.

WHAT?????????????
This is not true, is it? What on EARTH could he conceivably be charged with????
Seems odd that your constitution can so comprehensively fail to defend free speech, and yet be called on to knock back even the mildest gun-control measures.
I hope, for everyone's sake this gets tons of media.

But, wait a minute, I don't know much about US common law, but SURELY the mall must have some clearly stated policy as to what constitutes profanity. How could anyone stand up in a court of law and argue "give peace a chance" is in any way profane - is "peace" now a dirty word in America?

I suppose the fuckers would have arrested Christ himself if he'd walked into that mall preaching all his pissant, liberal "turn the other cheek" crap!

> I am sure that he does have a case. In America, if you have a good enough
> lawyer, then you can get away with murder. That doesn't mean that the
> murderer was right. Again freedom of speech should be protected, but so
> should all rights. If the owner of the mall asks this person off of his
> property then that request should be respected. Just like a restaurant or
> bar refusing service to someone. If it is not public property, then they
> have that right.

No fuckin' way!!!!
If they asked him to leave the mall because he was, say black for example - that would be illegal because it would be discriminatory. In the same way asking someone to leave the mall for expressing their free speech rights in a clearly non-profane manner is surely illegal in and of itself!

For the love of god - there is NOTHING profane about a t-shirt stating "give peace a chance", the man was asked to leave on what must surely be an illegal and discriminatory basis. I would suggest the lawyer counter-sues to that effect.

> Have you ever heard of the store Spencers, where they sale many sexual
> aids including "massage" toys? Anyway, they have them here in
> Kansas. Back to the topic, I agree that it is somewhat crazy to kick the
> man out. I personally would not have kicked him out, but the owner still
> has the right. If you wanted to kick someout out of your establishment
> then you have the right to. Even if it seems crazy to someone else. You
> also have the right to boycott the mall and say that you disagree with the
> owner.

NOBODY has the right to discriminate unlawfully. Period.

> You were saying that Mike Joyce shouldn't be discussed on this board as
> it's a board to discuss Morrissey, yet here you are contributing to a
> thread about offensive t shirts!

> Relevance to Morrissey please?

When one day you walk with your Morrissey t-shirt into Mike Joyce's shopping mall (purchased, of course with his millions in Smiths back-royalties and from the sale of Moz's Mum's house), and a couple of heavies pull you aside and insist you remove it before they haul your arse to jail, you'll be sorry you posted that...

First they came for my neighbour...

> But, wait a minute, I don't know much about US common law, but SURELY the
> mall must have some clearly stated policy as to what constitutes
> profanity. How could anyone stand up in a court of law and argue
> "give peace a chance" is in any way profane - is
> "peace" now a dirty word in America?

> I suppose the fuckers would have arrested Christ himself if he'd walked
> into that mall preaching all his pissant, liberal "turn the other
> cheek" crap!

i'm wondering if this same mall played "joy to the world" at christmas time. i mean, seriously, the guy was arrested for "disturbing the peace." what a joke!

> When one day you walk with your Morrissey t-shirt into Mike Joyce's
> shopping mall (purchased, of course with his millions in Smiths
> back-royalties and from the sale of Moz's Mum's house), and a couple of
> heavies pull you aside and insist you remove it before they haul your arse
> to jail, you'll be sorry you posted that...

> First they came for my neighbour...

bore, this hmmmmmm person is full of shit anyway. i never said people couldn't talk about mike joyce -- i talk about him myself. i am forced to conclude that hmmmmmmm is nothing but a twat, and yes, that's profanity, and no i don't care if my mother is proud of me or not since she's dead (that's for his benefit, not yours).

funny post though.

It is not unlawful. People have the right (under law to include or disinclude) whomever they want if it is private property. This happens all the time. Colleges, churches, organizations... Why is that so confusing?

Again it is not illegal. I am not saying it is profane, but the owner has a right to ask someone to leave. If I am in your house (which is PRIVATE PROPERTY) then you have the right to ask me to leave under any circumstance. The mall is PRIVATE PROPERTY, so the owner has the right to ask someone to leave. I would not have reacted that way, but it is whithin his right to do so. It is also within the t-shirt wearer's right to sue. More power to him.

Those are two different issues. Have you ever seen those signs that say no soliciting? That means that people cannot distribute their views to people on private property. Freedom of speech is not perfectly guarenteed in this country. Again, property owners have the right to exclude who they want. there are golf course that reject minorites and women as memebers. There are private colleges that are gender based. There are organizations that are gender based. Churches that are religiously based. If you are going to attack one, then attack them all. Clearly by these examples, it is not illegal. So check you facts before you post.

He was not arrested because the shirt was profane. He was asked to remove the shirt and refused. Then he was asked to leave. To which he refused. He refused to leave private property and was arrested for that. Please reference all of my other post because I am tired of saying the same thing over and over again.

> He was not arrested because the shirt was profane. He was asked to remove
> the shirt and refused. Then he was asked to leave. To which he refused. He
> refused to leave private property and was arrested for that. Please
> reference all of my other post because I am tired of saying the same thing
> over and over again.

the case is being dropped anyway, supposedly.

> Those are two different issues. Have you ever seen those signs that say no
> soliciting? That means that people cannot distribute their views to people
> on private property. Freedom of speech is not perfectly guarenteed in this
> country. Again, property owners have the right to exclude who they want.
> there are golf course that reject minorites and women as memebers. There
> are private colleges that are gender based. There are organizations that
> are gender based. Churches that are religiously based. If you are going to
> attack one, then attack them all. Clearly by these examples, it is not
> illegal. So check you facts before you post.

in the article i posted, a very interesting precedent is discussed. basically malls are just buildings that let out spaces for merchants to ply their wares. courts in california and new jersey have ruled that malls have the same function as a public street lined with stores and freedom of speech is thus protected. so if the mall chose to pursue this case and win in the state of new york, the man could probably take it to the supreme court and win given the precedents set in other states.

I did read the article and it was very informative. Thank you for posting it. If he takes it to the New York supreme court and the laws change then I am fine with that. But as it stands now, the owner was not acting ousited of the law. That is all I have been saying.

P.S I appreciate the intelligent discussion that you and I have had. We may disagree, but it has been very interesting and educational. Hopefully we will agree on something in the future.

Which case? The lawsuit or the prosecution?

sorry to get involved. I'm really not too bothered either way, but one thing's been bugging me - what about the t-shirt vendor?? He obviously displays the shirt among his wares. Has he been asked to remove it from view or leave the premises? Just wondering. Thanks.

The t-shirts were specially made for the father and son, not something that is displayed. That is according to an article I read.

Never mind, found the answer.

> sorry to get involved. I'm really not too bothered either way, but one
> thing's been bugging me - what about the t-shirt vendor?? He obviously
> displays the shirt among his wares. Has he been asked to remove it from
> view or leave the premises? Just wondering. Thanks.
Does anyone have a link to this story and the one about Morrissey and the elephants.
Thanks!

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80413,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80385,00.html

Here are a couple about the t-shirt issue. Don' know where to find the elephant story. I am sure that it is on this site somewhere if you search for it.

> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80413,00.html
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,80385,00.html Here are a couple about
> the t-shirt issue. Don' know where to find the elephant story. I am sure
> that it is on this site somewhere if you search for it.
thanks Leafs.
these rent a cops have gotten really out of control.

> Actually he was arrested for not leaving the mall. It's private property
> and he was asked to leave (when he would not take off the shirt) and
> refused. I agree that freedom of speech should be preserved, but the owner
> of a property has the right to set the rules too.

sorry to be late as always for this discussion. but of course anti-war lawyer was wronged by guards. "owner of a property" (plus his guards) and pacifist lawyer are both americans and entitled to the freedom of speech (5th amendment of american constitution). therefore both of them have a right to argue with each other, however owner (or security guards) had no right to harass or remove the lawyer from the mall, unless the lawyer was drunk or throwing punches around, which was apparently not the case.

i'm sure the lawyer would countersue the mall. LOL

Not on private property. See all of the previous posts.

> Not on private property. See all of the previous posts.

if it is my private property, i still have to observe american constitution and laws of my state. for example, i can not brew a moonshine or hold a sex slave against his/her will on my private property. sorry for deliberatly goofy examples. according to you, on the private property owner has a right to create his own laws and be higher authority then American Constitution, but it is nonsence, sorry!

Those examples have nothing to do with what I am talking about. If you read any of my previous posts, you will see that private institutions have the right exclude people: colleges, golf courses, churches. Have you ever seen a sign that says no soliciting? This is what I am talking about.

> if it is my private property, i still have to observe american
> constitution and laws of my state. for example, i can not brew a moonshine
> or hold a sex slave against his/her will on my private property. sorry for
> deliberatly goofy examples. according to you, on the private property
> owner has a right to create his own laws and be higher authority then
> American Constitution, but it is nonsence, sorry!
Think of it this way. You have a party at your house and someone you don't like shows up, walks through your front door and you ask him/or her to leave and they don't. It's considered a trespass.

Exactly!!!!!!!!

> Those examples have nothing to do with what I am talking about. If you
> read any of my previous posts, you will see that private institutions have
> the right exclude people: colleges, golf courses, churches. Have you ever
> seen a sign that says no soliciting? This is what I am talking about.

here comes the difference! if lawyer would put down a table in the mall and collect some signatures for any cause (green peace or nba or plo or ufo, does not matter), guards have a right to kick him out for SOLICITING. But lawyer didn't solicit anybody, he just exersiced his freedom of speech right by wearing t-shirt with peace message. also, as mindy said, this message was civilized, not obscene. i assume you are republican, but on the other side of the coin, i heard that at berkley university pro-bush held a meeting supporting bush administration and israel on campus and those students were attacked by some intolerant arab and leftist students. so freedom of speech protects both leftists and right-to-center peoples, it cuts both ways.

I register as a Rebublican, but do not confine my self to just one party. I vote for any candidate that I feel represents my belief system regardless of their party. Anyway, the only point I have ever tried to make is that the owner of the mall does have the right to ask the person to remove the shirt and ask the person to leave if he/she does not comply. Mindy's article even stated this. It is very informative. Now, if a state Senate wants to overturn this, then that is within their rights. But for the time being, the owner was not violating any laws.

> Think of it this way. You have a party at your house and someone you don't
> like shows up, walks through your front door and you ask him/or her to
> leave and they don't. It's considered a trespass.

there is a difference between public mall owned by someone or my own house.

for example i have a right to invite peoples i like, and i don't have to explain why i did'n invite Alice K. was it because she slept with my ex-boyrfiend or because she is a bore or because i'm a bitch.. LOL that's my private dwelling, i don't have to explain why!

On the other hand, even if mall is private, owner has to obey the local laws as well as constitution. by city ordinance owner must to install public toilets, fire-prevention equipment, provide adequate ventillation and parking for disabled, he must pay at least the minimum wage to his employees etc... if not, he or she could be closed, his city-issued permit could be withdrawn. if owner would ask Alice K. out of his property he must explain the reason. (was she drunk or high?) otherwise she would sue him for discrimination.

another example: if owner would declare circa alabama 1950s "no colored in my mall", he would be arrested for breaking up the anti-discrimination laws...

Do you agree that golf courses can restrict their membership (excluding minorities or women)? If not then look at Augusta where the NOW are planning to protest. Augusta is a club that receives no money from the government, just like the mall. The owner of the club has set the rules on membership that excludes certain groups. The mall asked the man to leave the grounds. Augusta has never faced any criminal charges for what they are doing. Don't you think if they were breaking laws that they would have been forced to change their ways? Therefore, the laws of this country protect the personal rights of private entities. Same goes for private colleges that only accept men/women. It is the same principle.

> Do you agree that golf courses can restrict their membership (excluding
> minorities or women)? If not then look at Augusta where the NOW are
> planning to protest. Augusta is a club that receives no money from the
> government, just like the mall. The owner of the club has set the rules on
> membership that excludes certain groups. The mall asked the man to leave
> the grounds. Augusta has never faced any criminal charges for what they
> are doing. Don't you think if they were breaking laws that they would have
> been forced to change their ways? Therefore, the laws of this country
> protect the personal rights of private entities. Same goes for private
> colleges that only accept men/women. It is the same principle.

i think lawyer was harrassed on private property. he was just wearing a t-shirt exercising his right to speak his mind and his message was in limits of decency. the difference of golf club membership and public mall is: golf club could be thought as a giant private dwelling (with card games, saunas, golf) with a right to discriminate. but mall is within acme city limits, and everybody could walk in, black or white or antiwar. therefore mall ought to respect acme city laws and not to discriminate. by it's nature mall is a public place open to all, while country club is insulate.

I guess I don't see the difference. Are you excusing the golf course form of "discrimination"? Golf courses, homes, and malls are all within city limits. I guess we can just agree to disagree.

> i think lawyer was harrassed on private property. he was just wearing a
> t-shirt exercising his right to speak his mind and his message was in
> limits of decency. the difference of golf club membership and public mall
> is: golf club could be thought as a giant private dwelling (with card
> games, saunas, golf) with a right to discriminate. but mall is within acme
> city limits, and everybody could walk in, black or white or antiwar.
> therefore mall ought to respect acme city laws and not to discriminate. by
> it's nature mall is a public place open to all, while country club is
> insulate.
48 states disagree with you about a Mall being public place. Doctors offices are places where anyone can walk in. What if a person walks into a Womans clinic where abortions are performed and says to someone your "killing your baby" or wears an Abortion is murder T shirt and the manager of the office asks the person to leave. Are you saying that person should be allowed to stay?

first amendment: an overview
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state. Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a persons practice of their religion.

The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech. A less stringent test is applied for content-neutral legislation. The Supreme Court has also recognized that the government may prohibit some speech that may cause a breach of the peace or cause violence. The right to free speech includes other mediums of expression that communicates a message.

> Those are two different issues. Have you ever seen those signs that say no
> soliciting? That means that people cannot distribute their views to people
> on private property. Freedom of speech is not perfectly guarenteed in this
> country. Again, property owners have the right to exclude who they want.
> there are golf course that reject minorites and women as memebers. There
> are private colleges that are gender based. There are organizations that
> are gender based. Churches that are religiously based. If you are going to
> attack one, then attack them all. Clearly by these examples, it is not
> illegal. So check you facts before you post.
The difference is a private person can't violate your 1st amendment rights. Only someone representing the Government can do that.

i may have already posted this, but i find it extremely ironic that the man was basically arrested for "disturbing the peace" by wearing a pro-peace shirt. how does that work?

but, it doesn't really matter because the case is being dropped and i am confident that any same judge or jury would have seen it for the outrage it is. i do think that places like malls should have a reasonable right to restrict certain expressions of violence, racism, etc., but i seriously doubt that the mall's policy stated that people couldn't wear shirts with non-offensive, non-profane slogans that the mall's proprietors happened to be in disagreement with. malls are privately owned, but they are still public places.

> He was not arrested because the shirt was profane. He was asked to remove
> the shirt and refused. Then he was asked to leave. To which he refused. He
> refused to leave private property and was arrested for that. Please
> reference all of my other post because I am tired of saying the same thing
> over and over again.

I posted this long before any of your posts were up.
My point is that surely it's not legal to discriminate against a person without good grounds by asking them to leave. If the person were asked to leave the mall because they were black, this would surely not be legal?

> Those are two different issues. Have you ever seen those signs that say no
> soliciting? That means that people cannot distribute their views to people
> on private property. Freedom of speech is not perfectly guarenteed in this
> country. Again, property owners have the right to exclude who they want.
> there are golf course that reject minorites and women as memebers. There
> are private colleges that are gender based. There are organizations that
> are gender based. Churches that are religiously based. If you are going to
> attack one, then attack them all. Clearly by these examples, it is not
> illegal. So check you facts before you post.

Fuck you. I started off by stating that I was not familiar with the intricacies of US law. It does, however seem insane that in America of all places you don't have sufficient anti-discrimination laws to cover discrimination on private property or in private transactions. Discrimination of this form is vastly different to soliciting. You could argue that soliciting on your property implies your endorsement of the views expressed, having someone in your wall wearing a t-shirt does not.

> i may have already posted this, but i find it extremely ironic that the
> man was basically arrested for "disturbing the peace" by wearing
> a pro-peace shirt. how does that work?

> but, it doesn't really matter because the case is being dropped and i am
> confident that any same judge or jury would have seen it for the outrage
> it is. i do think that places like malls should have a reasonable right to
> restrict certain expressions of violence, racism, etc., but i seriously
> doubt that the mall's policy stated that people couldn't wear shirts with
> non-offensive, non-profane slogans that the mall's proprietors happened to
> be in disagreement with. malls are privately owned, but they are still
> public places.
I didn't say I agreed with the malls decision to tell the guy to take off his shirt and eventually kick the guy out(I wonder if it had been a woman?). In fact, if I lived in upstate New York I would never shop there again because it is so outrageous what they did. But, I don't think his 1st amendment rights were violated by the mall or he was discriminated because of race, creed, or color.
According to Senator Clinton, New Jersey is JUST a suburb of NYC, so maybe the Junior Senator can look into following NJ's leads on malls being public places. (can you tell im not bitter about that suburb statement)

I am not trying to confront you on this issue, but it just seems that I have to post the exact same thing over and over to explain that what the mall owner did may not be the right thing to do, but it is certainly not illegal. I did not mean to insult you or piss you off. That was not my intent. I doubt anyone thinks what the mall owner did was right, but he was reserving his own right to do so. The same right that is guarenteed to every American. I hope you accept my appology.

Exactly, hey Caleb, it has been great sharing this thread with you. Both you and Mindy have added a lot to this discussion. Take care.

are you sure you're american? if you were taking the american citizen test right now, you'd already have failed.

> are you sure you're american? if you were taking the american citizen test
> right now, you'd already have failed.

hey Mindy. do you ever feel that the US constitution is a load of shit?

> hey Mindy. do you ever feel that the US constitution is a load of shit?

it's good in spirit. too bad it's often been twisted and perverted -- or completely ignored.