Roseville pastor arrested for free speech

www.wnd.com...
This I got through my email from World Net Daily, which I don't always endorse because they have Michelle Malkin,and Alex Jones seems to think she is part of the fema camp genocide conspiracy since she endorsed fema camp incarceration of citizens in a book she wrote. But they have some accomplishments to their credit, including pink slipping congress which apparently was a big help to defeating the obamacare bill, at least so far.
But this is an example of free speech being denied by security guards at a mall in Roseville, a suburb of Sacramento.

The case developed several years ago when a youth pastor was arrested at the Galleria Mall in Roseville, Calif., for having a conversation about religion with two other people. Matthew Snatchko, who works with youth at his church, was interrupted in the middle of a conversation by a security guard. A second guard joined the confrontation and told Snatchko he was being placed under citizen's arrest for "trespassing." The pastor said he agreed to leave but instead, the guards grabbed him, roughly shoved him against a storefront window and handcuffed him tightly enough to draw blood. Snatchko later was taken to the police station where he was booked on charges of battery and trespassing. A short time later the charges were dropped, but officials with the Pacific Justice Institute decided to pursue a case against the mall over the impact of the policy on free speech.

I can't quote the name of the book by Michelle Malkin,,but it was referred to here in a clip on a demonstration
www.youtube.com...

The gloves are coming off, yes?

I'm guessing he settled out of court with the mall on this. Unless there's a history of him trying to preach on private property, there's no way he can't sue the mall and the security people themselves. At the very least it's also kidnapping if this was during regular mall hours and the preacher was just one of the people in the mall. He could have established a citizens grand jury with subpoena powers to review the evidence and make the indictments against the "security people". However, it's hard to imagine that a few people sitting and talking about religion would among themselves would become such a focus of attention. More likely the preacher had been going around soliciting people on the subject and perhaps had even been warned in the past not to do so.

The correct action would have been to allow him to leave. A citizens arrest is questionable with a grand jury indictment. But being private property the mall certainly has the right to refuse him access.

The mall is private property and as such has the right to determine what type of actions it will or won't permit. Many malls don't allow provocative speech of any type, including slogans on t-shirts. There have been several incidents where mall security agents arrested individuals wearing t-shirts critical of the war or the former administration. If this mall didn't want preaching, it has the right to have its security agents prevent it and there is not much this minister will be able to do. There is well established case law on the matter.

You can't be arrested for speaking freely, but you can for being on private property and preaching.

I suspect there was a history of complaints against him. If he's just standing around and talking religion in a mall (I've done that), no one will think anything of it. If he's standing around with a Bible in hand, exhorting the crowd of shoppers (we have them at the university) or stopping people to ask them if they believe, he's a nuisance and security would be on the alert for him.

So I'm betting he had a history and this wasn't the first time he showed up to "talk religion" to people.

If he was an Islamic mullah, he'd get the same treatment. If he was one of the Hari Krishnas (who were a real nuisance in airports and other public places back in the day), he'd get the same treatment.

Sometimes there's a bias because the preacher is Christian. To check if there is, ask yourself what kind of treatment a Satanist preacher would get (or a Voodoo priest) who was doing exactly the same thing. It's tolerated more if the person is Christian, but there's a line.

OK I understand that he is on private property. But then isnt a mall a public place as well. Seems like the case law on this is walking a fine line. I think he may have crossed the line before in this mall? Does anyone know if he has done this before? Or is this simply a new incident that just happened to occure?
Either way, its starts getting a little scary if you can be arrested in a mall for talking? Seems free speach is starting to go on the window. I think we have entered a slippery slope here in our society.

I cannot believe that folks didnt know that there is no free speech these days.
It doesnt mean anything, lip service is paid to the idea in both the US and the UK , but if you use your freedom of speech in a way that makes things hard for your government , you run the risk of getting pooped on from on high. In fact, the only people who get to have free speech in the UK are folks who quite frankly should be shot at dawn for treason. Im talking about Nick "The Nazi" Griffin, and of course every so called "hate preacher" on the islamic fundamental side of the race row. The truth is, both the BNP and the fundamentalist radicals here ought to be removed as a matter of public saftey! They are both as vile as one another, and because they do not behave like humans, they ought not be afforded the human right to free speech, liberty , or even a pulse in my opinion.
What I am saying is, it will always be the case, that the only folks who can access freedom of speech will be the people who you would rather didnt have any right to it. They will be the ones causing fractures in already tense communities, the ones standing on corners causing fights.
People like this pastor will always have trouble getting the right to free speech to actualy work in thier favour, because of all the bastards who have come along and abused the same rights in the past. He will be suspect because he has a messege, and the people fear men with a messege. The people are used to the men with a messege, also comming with a free suicide jacket and an ak47, so why not wail on EVERY man with a messege? Thats how this patheitic planet welcomes men of God now.

If this guy's profession involves teaching religious beliefs to teenagers, and he was inside a privately owned mall or any other privately owned building, and if there are "no-solicitation" signs (which all malls post), then he can be arrested for trespassing. Simple as that.

People who invest in market places, like malls, have the legal right to defend how their properties are used by people who walk into those properties. A mall isn't the public square. It's a corporate business venture.

Good luck with the law suit. That guy hasn't got a legal leg to stand on.

IMO he should've been arrested simply for preaching a religion.

That's just me though, I think all religions on earth that believe in one supreme being should be outlawed.



Peace

Originally posted by m khan

But this is an example of free speech being denied by security guards at a mall in Roseville, a suburb of Sacramento.

Security guards can deny free speech. Free speech is a right coming from the first amendment.It reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It says Congress can't make any laws, not security guards.
If I own a mall it is my property and if I want to eject some bible=spouting Christian Jesus-freak idiot pastor from my property, I can.
The amendment was widened to apply to the states by the 15th Amendment.
Do you folks want to abolish private property in favor of "free speech"?




[edit on 15-2-2010 by 4nsicphd]

I wonder what would have happened if the preacher had had his own security guards along with him to arrest the mall security guards for assault.

It seems to me that regardless of people's rights and their right to legal recourse, no matter how liberal the administration of justice is, the man with the military enforcers has a tremendous power to get his way simply through the power of arrest.

Most people don't have the time or money to challenge the legality of an arrest and simply plea or deal their way out of trouble and let it go.

When I'm rich, first thing I'm going to do is what all those other wealthy people do, hire my own army.

When all is said and done, like it or not, as far as this world is concerned, might is still right.

[edit on 27-2-2010 by ipsedixit]

What I want to know is, how does someone get manhandled by a friggin mall rent-a-cop?

Sorry, but the minute one of those shlubs puts their hands on me it over-and I am not a violent person!