It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Boston Area Malls Implement No Swearing Policy

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
That's what happens when two ideologies clash. I don't see your point as much as you don't see mine.


Actually, I see your point, and have gone on to disagree with it. You don't seem to see my point, judging by your responses, which means you can't very well agree or disagree with it in any meaningful way.

Bad choice of words on my part. Do a global replace of "agree with" for "see". I do see your solution, which is to promote common usage of profane words. And I definitely disagree that that would solve anything, for reasons I have already stated.

But, enough is enough. This won't be the first time I'll say "we can agree to disagree" and so I'll leave it at that.

Merry Christmas everybody, or Happy Hannukah, Ramadan, Kwanza, or whatever floats your boat!





posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I don't think it's quite dead.


Even if we separate the insults from the every day use of swear words, what is this policy aimed at? The use of the words. I imagine a teen could tell another person at this mall, "You're the stupident, ugliest, dumbest excuse for a human being I've ever met" and that would be ok, because he didn't use a swear word...

What will the policy be to prevent this kind of behavior? No insulting other people?

My concern is not this specific instance, but where it will lead. It's a sign of something, I just want to have my eyes wide open to see what it is...



posted on Dec, 23 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
Surely this is bad for business?

Teenages, tend to be the ones who will spend the most time in Mall's and also spend the most money in them. It is teenagers who buy the most CDs, they're the ones who are in coffee shops the most and so on and so fourth. When I used to work at HMV in the United Kingdom, I'd say about 60% of our money was from people between 14 and 24.

As for clothing - what a joke. I do wonder how they define "Offencive clothing" and if they'll stop shops from selling these items. What about yelling? What if it is to stop something or if someone has lost their child or so on and so fourth?

In all honesty, if someone swears and it bothers you, if someone wears clothing you disagree with, grow up. It's not there problem - it is your problem. Sorry but what a joke.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 05:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't think it's quite dead.


Even if we separate the insults from the every day use of swear words, what is this policy aimed at?

This is the problem. How could you possibly separate the two - who could understand the difference? Certainly not hormone-raged teenagers. They would have a field day with that rule.


My concern is not this specific instance, but where it will lead. It's a sign of something, I just want to have my eyes wide open to see what it is...

My concern is action such as Nancy Pelosi recently took in her attempt to stifle freedom of expression of grassroots political organizations.

www.humanevents.com...



Originally posted by Odium
Surely this is bad for business?

Teenages, tend to be the ones who will spend the most time in Mall's and also spend the most money in them. It is teenagers who buy the most CDs, they're the ones who are in coffee shops the most and so on and so fourth. When I used to work at HMV in the United Kingdom, I'd say about 60% of our money was from people between 14 and 24.

And they can still spend their money at the malls. Remember, not all teenagers are foul-mouthed.

To me, what is more "attractive" than the football jock or the prom queen, is a well-spoken young person. I don't care about their body piercings or the color of their hair.


As for clothing - what a joke. I do wonder how they define "Offencive clothing" and if they'll stop shops from selling these items. What about yelling? What if it is to stop something or if someone has lost their child or so on and so fourth?

In all honesty, if someone swears and it bothers you, if someone wears clothing you disagree with, grow up. It's not there problem - it is your problem. Sorry but what a joke.

Retailers remove objectionable items from their shelves all the time due to public pressure. It's good for business.

As for people taking offense to certain language, you need to go back and read the entire thread. Several posts illustrate why foul language is offensive. We live in a society, and should work together to get along.

A shopping mall is not the private domain of a group of rowdies. It is a private property where diverse segments of the populace gather, and the owners and managers have every right to set the rules for interaction.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
I just want to note that this is not just "Boston Area Mall"

The Simon Company most of the retail malls in the US and plenty abroad.

Wikipedia


Simon Property Group is the largest publicly traded retail real estate company in North America with a total market capitalization of approximately $42 billion


You can be sure that the primary shareholders are "connected". `

I see something more sublime occuring than just limiting teenagers from cursing. This is a global realestate powerhouse with more than 200 MILLION square feet of the earth under roof.

Any law that is implemented under their "roof" is equivilent to it being implemented in a city occupying (correct me if i'm wrong but) 7 square miles.

So... a more appropriate thread title may be it is now illegal to swear or wear "inappropriate" clothing in 7 (of the most densely consumer populated) square miles of the US.

10 acres is 4 city blocks

640 acres is a square mile

200,000,000 square feet is 4600 acres

1840 US city blocks just lost their freedom of speech.

I am,

Sri Oracle



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   
Technically speaking, people have hadn't freedom of speech in malls for a long time.

They're private spaces - no free speech protection for protesters, etc..

Using the no-cursing definition of free speech, just about every store in America works this way. Go into any place of business, and start cursing up a storm - they'll probably ask you to leave.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It doesn't seem to be as simple as private property = no free speech.

First Amendment Center


Colorado and North Dakota both decided cases in 1991 that extended individual free-expression rights to private mall property. These cases, however added an additional element to the mix. In Bock v. Westminster Mall Company (Colo. 1991), the Colorado Supreme Court found sufficient entanglement with the government to support a finding of state action on the part of a mall and commercial retail center. The Colorado court noted a highly visible governmental presence in the mall, including a police substation, military recruiting offices and county voter-registration drives. Even without the government presence, the court still found that “the range of activities permitted in the common areas of the Mall … indicates the extent to which the Mall effectively functions as a latter-day public forum.” Though the court determined that the open and public areas of the mall effectively functioned as a public place, thus allowing the distribution of political pamphlets and the solicitation of signatures, it left open the issue of whether some lesser degree of governmental involvement would be sufficient for a similar holding. So, the Colorado Supreme Court seems to be advocating a case-by-case review.


I'm not arguing this particular case of the teens swearing, but I wanted to point out that it's not as simple as "There's no free speech on private property", because depending on what other forms of expression they allow, we could be talking about a mall as a public forum.

WyrdeOne, this relates to the mall, not the stores.

[edit on 24-12-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
And they can still spend their money at the malls. Remember, not all teenagers are foul-mouthed.


I know, I only stopped being a teenager 6 months ago.


Originally posted by jsobecky
To me, what is more "attractive" than the football jock or the prom queen, is a well-spoken young person. I don't care about their body piercings or the color of their hair.


How far are they removed though? Sorry, but everytime I go into a shopping centre/Mall I get security following me around because of how I dress. I've been asked to leave shops before as well, because they assumed I did not have the sort of money to buy things in there. It happens a lot more than people like to let on, especailly talking to security guards I know.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Retailers remove objectionable items from their shelves all the time due to public pressure. It's good for business.


Really? What about CD stores? Should they remove all CDs with swearing in? Games and movies with violence in? Or even sex in them as well? Why is it O.K. for a shop to sell a product, which has swear words in it but someone can't swear in the store? Also what do you define as offencive? Do we just go and decide off the cuff?

All I see is certain groups of people getting away with it and others not. I am sure a teenager calling someone an idiot will be thrown out or warned, but a man in a nice suit, tie, et al such "expensive" clothing will just get away with it as is always the case.


Originally posted by jsobecky
As for people taking offense to certain language, you need to go back and read the entire thread. Several posts illustrate why foul language is offensive. We live in a society, and should work together to get along.


I did read the thread, I just disagreed.

If someone says a word, you give the word power. You sit there and decide you get offended to it. If two people say something to one another, neither of them are offended - why should you be? They're not speaking to you, you've just decided to engage yourself in their conversation. It's different if they're swearing at people and even in public that's not strictly legal in many Nation's.

I just can't take offence at what two people say to each other. It's not my place to do so, it is for those involved to do so. I am not the moral Police and nor are you. You can't decide what is offencive and what isn't because you dislike something. It's how half of these pointless laws come about.


Originally posted by jsobecky
A shopping mall is not the private domain of a group of rowdies. It is a private property where diverse segments of the populace gather, and the owners and managers have every right to set the rules for interaction.


Actually, it's a piece of land that in reality belongs to nobody. Property rights are in fact rather amusing when you bother to sit down and spend time thinking about them.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 01:49 PM
link   


www.slate.com...

The first cases asserting free speech rights in privately owned shopping centers were successful. In the 1946 case of Marsh v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that the business district of a privately owned "company town" was the same as a public street for First Amendment purposes, finding that "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." A 1968 case—Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza—held that a privately owned mall was the "functional equivalent" of the business district in Marsh.

But realizing they had overreached in the early cases, and sensitive to what they had done to private property rights, the Supremes reversed course in Hudgens v. NLRB, a 1976 case holding that the First Amendment guarantees no free speech rights in private shopping centers. And in an important 1980 case, Pruneyard v. Robins, the court upheld the general notion that citizens have no First Amendment rights to express themselves in privately owned shopping centers while still agreeing that a group of California students had the right to hand out leaflets and collect signatures in a private California mall.

Pruneyard was an invitation from the high court to the states to amend and interpret their own state constitutions to permit free speech in private forums if they so desired. But 23 years later, only six states have joined California in recognizing a state constitutional right to speak and assemble on private property: New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, and Pennsylvania (and several of them have waffled after doing so). Even the states conferring these broader speech rights do so only on two types of private property—shopping malls and non-public universities—and the only speech protected there is political speech.


So, there it is (my emphasis). There are other articles available on this subject (search for Mall Free Speech), and they make for interesting reading.

I haven't found any information contradicting what I've posted above, but if you do come across something of that tenor, do post it.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Really? What about CD stores? Should they remove all CDs with swearing in? Games and movies with violence in? Or even sex in them as well? Why is it O.K. for a shop to sell a product, which has swear words in it but someone can't swear in the store? Also what do you define as offencive? Do we just go and decide off the cuff?

Actually, retailers have done just that. Wal-Mart, to be specific, refused to sell CDs with profane lyrics. And I remember hearing about a video game that was pulled recently from a store (can't remember which one) for excessive violence.

As for who determines what is offensive, someone (Wyrde One?) pointed out quite correctly earlier that society does.



posted on Dec, 24 2006 @ 08:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Actually, retailers have done just that. Wal-Mart, to be specific, refused to sell CDs with profane lyrics.


Well the website shows otherwise here. Unless 50 Cent no longer swears?


Originally posted by jsobecky
As for who determines what is offensive, someone (Wyrde One?) pointed out quite correctly earlier that society does.


Society does?

So we're using the social norms, mores and values arguement? Well that's easy enough to trump isn't it? Anomie by Durkheim would argue that the teenagers swearing and acting in an offencive fashion is actually helpful to society. The Society of Saints arguement.



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by jsobecky
Actually, retailers have done just that. Wal-Mart, to be specific, refused to sell CDs with profane lyrics.


Well the website shows otherwise here. Unless 50 Cent no longer swears?


Below I have listed several sources. I don't know about that particular CD, but retailers have influenced music by forcing labels to offer a "sanitized" version of their music if they want to sell them in their stores.



Originally posted by jsobecky
As for who determines what is offensive, someone (Wyrde One?) pointed out quite correctly earlier that society does.



Society does?

So we're using the social norms, mores and values arguement? Well that's easy enough to trump isn't it? Anomie by Durkheim would argue that the teenagers swearing and acting in an offencive fashion is actually helpful to society. The Society of Saints arguement.

The fact that you can cite sources that disagree means very little. I can find sources that argue the Holocaust was good for Europe. The real test is in the results, isn't it?

And, of course it is society's role to determine standards of decency. Who else should do it? The gov't?

This first example is from a blog, to be sure, but valid nonetheless:


Wal-Mart is a conservative company, they always have been. When they refused to sell music with profane lyrics, record labels began releasing edited versions of their products. This wasn’t some gross violation of free speech rights, it was Wal-Mart, as a private entity, simply choosing not to sell a particular product. The morning after pill is exactly the same deal. If they, as a company, choose not to sell a particular pill for business or moral or any other reason, then they should be permitted to do so without the radical feminist harpies descending upon them with their manicured claws prepared for battle.

right-thinking.com...



This is an early chronolgy of music censorship in America. I put it here to emphasize that the current movement is nothing new:

www.ericnuzum.com...


Wal-Mart is the single largest seller of pop music in the country, accounting last year for sales of an estimated 52 million of the 615 million compact disks sold in the United States. Its refusal to stock albums with lyrics or cover art that it finds objectionable has long been a frustration for some customers, musicians and record-industry executives.


And finally, this is from an article originally printed in the NYT entitled "Wal-Mart's CD Standards Are Changing Pop Music"

www.mindfully.org...



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I don't find curse words offensive, they are just words. When this kid called "my sister a whore" it wasn't a curse word, but I headbutted him in the face for it.

Curse words and offensive language do NOT go hand in hand. There is nothing offensive ago saying "that guy just didn't give a s***, but I guess thats just the way he is" to me it just another word in the sentence. Now if the word was used to offend, then obviously its going to be offensive.

Is the word "cracker" a curse word? No, but we all know by now it can have a racial slant to it, if some one uses it in the right context.

Its not the word that is offensive, its the intent and way the word is used. Thats the logical explaination of the curse word topic.

Point is, I don't use curse words in a debate or usually even a conversation debating something because cursing does show elevated emotion. A curse word is nothing more then an emotionally charged word. Its like saying something but in a much stronger way. when you say crap in comparison to "s***" the latter has more emotional charge to it. If it didn't, nobody would use it to begin with. Which brings me to my next point.

The reason curse words are used, is because so many people are offended by them. Kids don't just use them because they hear it alot. They use it because it offends you. We are rebels. We rebel in whatever way we can. You say "don't curse, its horrible!" so, we do it more. Over generations and generations you should have known better.

We just keep pushing the envelope, because we can. If cursing were perfectly normal, and didn't have that emotional charge that is created by people who don't like it, nobody would have use it. The emotional charge is hard to get rid of now because its almost pre programmed into the language.

People will still use it less if nobody cares about cursing. Human nature is a mysterious thing. You think that if you take the rule away, people would abuse it more and more. In reality, the rule promotes the behavior in the first place. We rebel by genetics, and creating a rule says "rebel against this".



posted on Dec, 25 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Why thank you, Jsobecky for taking the time to post those links.

You did pay attention to the fact that your Wal-Mart link was from 1996? It was also before they introduced the "Explicit Content" labels? If not, that's fair enough but I used to work in a Music Store before and after they introduced the label. Many artists such as N.W.O. and on and on were not in stores, as soon as those labels were introduced stores started to stock them. Including Wal-Mart. Just go check their website once more and do a bit of a search.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Society does?


So you went out and conducted a survey? Which segment of society? Whose version of society do we use? Do we take in social sub-cultures for the argument or just the main social groupings?


Originally posted by jsobecky
The fact that you can cite sources that disagree means very little. I can find sources that argue the Holocaust was good for Europe. The real test is in the results, isn't it?


The results? So the largest accepted functionalist viewpoint on deviance and criminal behaviour is just thrown out by you? So whose view do you use?


Originally posted by jsobecky
And, of course it is society's role to determine standards of decency. Who else should do it? The gov't?


So the store asked society? Again, which members of society?

The arguement you use, doesn't actually hold water.

Words are what? They're just words. Why does someone swearing bother you?



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
Why thank you, Jsobecky for taking the time to post those links.

You did pay attention to the fact that your Wal-Mart link was from 1996? It was also before they introduced the "Explicit Content" labels? If not, that's fair enough but I used to work in a Music Store before and after they introduced the label. Many artists such as N.W.O. and on and on were not in stores, as soon as those labels were introduced stores started to stock them. Including Wal-Mart. Just go check their website once more and do a bit of a search.

Yes, I saw the date on the article. And the "Explicit Content" labels you bring up is a valid point, and seems like a good compromise to me.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Society does?



So you went out and conducted a survey? Which segment of society? Whose version of society do we use? Do we take in social sub-cultures for the argument or just the main social groupings?

Of course I didn't do a survey. I leave that up to the sociologists.

But, whose version do we use? Good question. I would say, different groups for different issues.


The results? So the largest accepted functionalist viewpoint on deviance and criminal behaviour is just thrown out by you? So whose view do you use?

I think you allude to the fact that deviance from societal norms is to be expected, even in a society of saints. That's fine, I agree with that. It still doesn't disprove anything I've said, or dismiss the questions of how much deviance is acceptable or how to deal with it. Or even the most elemental question of what are acceptable norms.


Originally posted by jsobecky
And, of course it is society's role to determine standards of decency. Who else should do it? The gov't?



So the store asked society? Again, which members of society?

Ask the stores. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that they asked the members that affect their existence, i.e., those who vote with their wallets.


Words are what? They're just words. Why does someone swearing bother you?

Words are not just words. They are tools, and like most tools, can be used to build or to destroy.



posted on Dec, 26 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I leave that up to the sociologists.


So which Sociologists support such an idea? As in, when a deviant action happens - banning it. I would in fact, be very interested because the only people who I can think of that support such action would be the fans of Murray and his work. Granted, that deviance was crime commited by Black Youths and he suggested to "remove" them from society - but it's the only example I can think of.


Originally posted by jsobecky It still doesn't disprove anything I've said, or dismiss the questions of how much deviance is acceptable or how to deal with it. Or even the most elemental question of what are acceptable norms.


Accepted social norms depend on the sub-culture which you are a part of. Take for example, homosexuality. Should these stores inforce elderly people from using the term gay - in relation to it meaning happy - because it could offend certain people in society? What's the difference between this word and a "swear" word? The intent is what is different.

Does the elderly person mean to offend? If yes, remove them. If no, the other person should not take offence.

Does the young person mean to offend by swearing? If yes, remove them. If no, the other person should not take offence.

In fact, why are they even getting involved in other peoples business.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Ask the stores. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that they asked the members that affect their existence, i.e., those who vote with their wallets.


A guess? Interesting it not being mentioned in the article or at least I didn't see it.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Words are not just words. They are tools, and like most tools, can be used to build or to destroy.


...and just like tools, we can turn them off. As an adult, you should not desire to enforce your moral views upon another person. We should sit back and allow them to do as they wish as long as they do not cause physical or financial harm to anyone.

A good example of why this policy won't help is to take a look at ASBO's in the United Kingdom.

The ASBO or Anti-Social Behaviour Order, is given to people who conduct:
  • Vandalism
  • Theft
  • Abusive behaviour
  • Harassment
  • Flyposting
  • Organising raves
  • Begging
Now, it has gone on to curb things such as: Flyposting, Begging, Organising Raves, etc. It has done nothing to remove Abusive behaviour - in fact, many people have said it has done the opposite. The ASBO has become a badge of honour for people. They're "cool" because they have one and they play a game of "Cat and Mouse" with the Police when they are banned from areas.

This is exactly what will happen in the Mall. People will be banned from the Mall for things such as swearing. Many of these people will not care if the Police are called and will then go back into the Mall in question. The Mall security will then have to spend time watching for peopel who are banned from the Mall instead of stopping real crimes - theft, assault and so on and so fourth.

The best thing to do in this instance, is to not pay attention. If these children were ignored when they sweared they'd learn it doesn't bother people anymore. They do it for the reaction and nothing more and now the stores are giving them a much better reaction. Those who desire to cause trouble will use being banned as a mark of honour - they'll be the "cool" kids at School.



posted on Dec, 27 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by jsobecky
I leave that up to the sociologists.


So which Sociologists support such an idea? As in, when a deviant action happens - banning it. I would in fact, be very interested because the only people who I can think of that support such action would be the fans of Murray and his work. Granted, that deviance was crime commited by Black Youths and he suggested to "remove" them from society - but it's the only example I can think of.

I don't know - sociology is not an area of interest to me. Society doesn't normally wait for surveys or studies before deeming something objective. Flashing, for example.



Accepted social norms depend on the sub-culture which you are a part of. Take for example, homosexuality. Should these stores inforce elderly people from using the term gay - in relation to it meaning happy - because it could offend certain people in society? What's the difference between this word and a "swear" word? The intent is what is different.

That's a very poor comparison. The term gay offends no one.

As far as intent, that yardstick is unworkable. Anybody can let off a stream of expletives and proclaim that their intent was not to offend.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Ask the stores. If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that they asked the members that affect their existence, i.e., those who vote with their wallets.



A guess? Interesting it not being mentioned in the article or at least I didn't see it.

Well, they didn't mention which specific words were objectionable either, but I can "guess" what they were.



Originally posted by jsobecky
Words are not just words. They are tools, and like most tools, can be used to build or to destroy.



...and just like tools, we can turn them off. As an adult, you should not desire to enforce your moral views upon another person. We should sit back and allow them to do as they wish as long as they do not cause physical or financial harm to anyone.

And as a child, you should not expect everyone to tolerate your lack of discipline. Figurative "you" being used, not referring to you specifically.

As far as physical or financial harm, so by that argument, it's OK if I call a black person a n*******, right?


A good example of why this policy won't help is to take a look at ASBO's in the United Kingdom.
:
Now, it has gone on to curb things such as: Flyposting, Begging, Organising Raves, etc. It has done nothing to remove Abusive behaviour - in fact, many people have said it has done the opposite. The ASBO has become a badge of honour for people. They're "cool" because they have one and they play a game of "Cat and Mouse" with the Police when they are banned from areas.

This is exactly what will happen in the Mall. People will be banned from the Mall for things such as swearing. Many of these people will not care if the Police are called and will then go back into the Mall in question. The Mall security will then have to spend time watching for peopel who are banned from the Mall instead of stopping real crimes - theft, assault and so on and so fourth.

The best thing to do in this instance, is to not pay attention. If these children were ignored when they sweared they'd learn it doesn't bother people anymore. They do it for the reaction and nothing more and now the stores are giving them a much better reaction. Those who desire to cause trouble will use being banned as a mark of honour - they'll be the "cool" kids at School.

Please. Do you think adults care about "badges of honor" and who's "cool" at school? And believe me, they're not "cool" to everybody, just like-minded immature individuals.

As far as re-entering the mall, easily dealy with, with a no trespass order. Let the parents pay a few hundred bucks in fines, and see how fast junior changes his tune.



posted on Dec, 31 2006 @ 02:42 PM
link   
I have a few problems with this, but overall I do agree.

First of all I disagree with the fact that only teenagers have been targeted. When I head to the mall, you know who my biggest problem is? Parents who are screaming at their children in front of everyone. Take your dirty laundry elsewhere or learn how to parent your child efficiently. Parents will enter a store knowing that every damn toy available is going to hit their child's eyes, and then grow irate with them when the child expects something.

This is a target group that needs to be put in line. I'm growing a little tired of everything being kids this, and kids that. Yeah they have their problems, but so do the rest of us. I think this problem stems much farther than teenagers. So I disagree with the terminology of the article and that it seems to restrict itself to the youth.

As BH has mentioned early in this thread, who is going to determine what clothing is and is not offensive? I like the quote, My Rights vs. Your Rights. I feel if your attire has your body appropriately covered, do what you wish.

What messages are appropriate? What are not? Are these malls pro War or not? What about abortion?

What exactly is inappropriate?



posted on Jan, 1 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   
The issue here is "No swearing policy" Its right up there on the title and on my tv station.

I dont know why some here are debating anti-Bush t shirts. That is "freedom of speech" where cursing like a sailor is just plain ignorant.

There is a difference.

And, may i add, Bush is also plain ignorant.



posted on Jan, 2 2007 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Don't like the mall's rules, then don't go there...simple as that.

Plenty of other places are happy to take your money in exchange for crap you don't really need. Maybe the offended should save the cash and do something more socially constructive, rather than eating corndogs and buying sweatshop clothing. Considering the personal savings rate is at a record low, consumers can either save now or learn the damn hard lesson later. Screw malls, their prices, their products and their policies.


At shopping malls, teens' hanging out is wearing thin CSM

BOSTON – Speeding through the corridors of the South Shore Plaza outside Boston, a pack of baby-faced teen boys clad in jeans and baseball caps draw angry stares from store clerks and customers. But they don't seem to care: They're hip, they're loud - and they like getting in trouble.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.








[edit on 2-1-2007 by Regenmacher]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join