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.
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.
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?
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...
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.
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.
Simon Property Group is the largest publicly traded retail real estate company in North America with a total market capitalization of approximately $42 billion
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
And they can still spend their money at the malls. Remember, not all teenagers are foul-mouthed.
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Retailers remove objectionable items from their shelves all the time due to public pressure. It's good for business.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Originally posted by jsobecky
Actually, retailers have done just that. Wal-Mart, to be specific, refused to sell CDs with profane lyrics.
Originally posted by jsobecky
As for who determines what is offensive, someone (Wyrde One?) pointed out quite correctly earlier that society does.
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?
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.
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...
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Society does?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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?
Words are what? They're just words. Why does someone swearing bother you?
Originally posted by jsobecky
I leave that up to the sociologists.
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.
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.
Originally posted by jsobecky
Words are not just words. They are tools, and like most tools, can be used to build or to destroy.
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.
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.
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.
:
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.