Sad indeed. I'll probably support the war. BUT even more so I support freedom of speech, for or against the war.

However; having grown up in suburbia and frequenting the mall in my youth, I can tell you that mall security guards can be extremely overzealous. When I was younger we weren't allowed to walk in groups greater than four. And like it or not, the mall isnít the public per se. For whatever reason when they tell you to leave, you must leave. Not that I like it.


[Edited on 5-3-2003 by Bob88]

Since the shirts were purchased from a merchant within the mall, it makes me wonder about any ramifications that he/she may endure. Its a very sad state when one cannot wear clothing that advocates for peace. Oh, and that's another thing, the logo "give peace a chance" does not specify "peace" to whom or what (as in a country or a war). Hmmm...think I'll break out one of my hippie shirts from the 70's with the "peace" sign on it...

they had the actual man who was arrested on the Power Hour this morning. ww.thepowerhour.com It truely is amazing that you cant even get away with wearing a shirt like that. I too wondered why the merchant can get away with selling it, but he cant wear it...unbelievable

Diva, has it ever made you stop and think when you can go into a store and buy a pack of smokes, but if you light it up in the store they'll have a hissy-fit?

While I think these types are ill-informed and incorrect in their opinion, they have the right to voice it, or wear it on their T-shirt, as long as it has no profanity involved. To violate this right is to attack the constitution and cannot be tolerated.

While some might argue that a mall is private property and therefore the owner has the right to control the messages displayed on his property, they'd be wrong, as a mall is there with the expectation of being a place where the public will come, and as long as there is no violation of public decency, there is no injury.

In other words, SUE!!!

You need to have protest singers, poets and walker for peace... If not, how can you stop wars ?

Thank God we have a president that will do what it takes to protect this nation in spite of ignorant and cowardly protestors. If we allow the enemy to beat us down, I doubt those we've rescued will do the same for us. While Tony Blair is willing, it seems the polls show that the British people aren't.

But if the constitution is destroyed by ourselves, the nation that has been a bright and shining beacon for freedom will only be a militarily strong loose canon.

[Edited on 6-3-2003 by Thomas Crowne]

Members:

In my opinion; What was going on here was simply an over-zealous security guard (Not a police officer, state trooper or military person) who took it upon themself to enforce their own personal opinion.

Thank God that that IS NOT the standard enforced by our Federal, State or Local governments.

This is my opinion.

USAFSS-SP

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Diva, has it ever made you stop and think when you can go into a store and buy a pack of smokes, but if you light it up in the store they'll have a hissy-fit?

Not really a fair comparrison, TC...People have the Constitutional Right of free speech but there's no equivalent right to smoke cigarettes...

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne While some might argue that a mall is private property and therefore the owner has the right to control the messages displayed on his property, they'd be wrong, as a mall is there with the expectation of being a place where the public will come, and as long as there is no violation of public decency, there is no injury.

I agree. Mainly because this would mean that the owners of the mall are being given the Right to *suspend* Citizen's Rights.

...But in a way, wouldn't that be also true of ATS Admins/Mods suspending an American poster at these forums for exercising the same Right to Free Speech through their recent "Take Back ATS Campaign"?...I guess it just depends on which side of the same coin you're looking at...
Let it be known that I *do* advocate that an American's Right to Free Speech does *not* include verbal attacks on others (verbal abuse), vindictive insults upon others (slander) & just plain 'ol verbal profanity. It just depends on *what* is being censored as to how such censorship may be violating the 1st Amendment. In the case of the mall security, yes, that's a blatent violation of the Bill of Rights...Yet, in the case of ATS banning those who use profanity & verbal abuse, no it's *not* a violation. This is where I think a lot of mixup comes from the arguments that've been used against Admins/Mods here.

Originally posted by USAFSS-SP What was going on here was simply an over-zealous security guard (Not a police officer, state trooper or military person) who took it upon themself to enforce their own personal opinion.

If we allow a mere *security guard* to violate the Bill of Rights, then how quickly do you think the *federal government* will pick up that banner & begin committing the same violations...As if they *haven't* been doing so all along.

MD, nobody has been denied their point of view at this board, but they have been expected to post as mature adults and not like filthy roadscum. There is quite a bit of difference, and I'm sure you know that.

Among the same people who wrote the framework of this nation also passed the first laws against public profanity. Go figure. Right to speech is tied to the responsibility of decency.

The latest on this story is the mall management asking the police to drop the charges after about 100 protesters showed up the next day with similar shirts to the one he was wearing. I'm surprised that even after the security guard turned them over to police, that they wouldn't just release them after escorting them out of the mall. Personally, I dont think they should have even be made to leave the mall, but arrested? Give me a break. I'm 100% for the war, but this is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
MD, nobody has been denied their point of view at this board, but they have been expected to post as mature adults and not like filthy roadscum. There is quite a bit of difference, and I'm sure you know that.

It's precisely that difference was what I *was* talking about...Perhaps I didn't phrase it clearly enough...
It's also what I meant (when I mentioned it in other threads) that "Ultimate Freedom also carries Ultimate Responsibility" for what a person *does* with that Freedom.