T-Shirt and "Public" mall - What does it mean?
 

No doubt you've all seen the story in the news about the guy arrested in the mall. He was asked to remove his "Give peace a chance" t-shirt, or leave the mall. When he refused to remove it, he was arrested for tresspassing.

Regardless of your political leanings re: the war, this case will go straight to the issues discussed on this board regarding "free speech" on a "private" property such as a mall. There have been many postings asking how to go about filming in malls. The issue of how "public" and "private" a mall are will be the point in this case.

It will be interesting to see how it moves forward.

I shot a scene in a mall food court about two years ago. I had to get a release from the Manager of the mall, and a release of any people that were in the shot. I wasn't allowed to show the names of any stores, or defame any of them either. Also, they wanted me to have liability insurance.

As far as the news people go... as far as I know they don't get any ones permission.

As for the guy being kicked out of the mall goes, I think thats the stupidest thing I've heard.

-Nori

It is only beginning. The greatest threat to our liberties isn't overseas, it is right here. What was the quote from Franklin -"Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither."

Here's one of the many reports of the incident from Reuters via Yahoo. Seems the senior fellow is a lawyer for the NY state's judicial review commission. (Here's a funny link to some pics of wackos waiting for that mall's Apple store to open last October.)

It really baffles me. The US population is theoretically the most highly educated that its ever been. Every urban area today is multi-ethnic. Yet we seem to have so little tolerance for each other or thoughts outside our personal system of beliefs. Growing up in the late 60's and 70's I would have thought that we would have a much more thoughtful and tolerant society today. If anything, it seems more intolerant than ever.

This just goes to show what a fantastic job of brainwashing that our government and media have managed to carry out. Here in Illinois a local grocery chain removed all French products from its shelves because the French government won't go along with starting a war. A Maine manufacturer has ceased all orders to his German supplier for the same reasons.

Unfortunately, all this terrorism threat is probably going to cause is the loss of additional civil liberties for us.

Furthermore, I think that some of the things that you can shoot video on now will be prohibited in the future. I can easily see them making the point that the video could be used for planning a terrorist attack.

I'm not a fan of stamping on free speech but I do have to say that the two people who were the subject of this recent incident were part of a much larger group who had made noise and were kicked out of the mall previously.

Yes, I suspect there's more to this story. Malls are sensitive to disturbances and it's hard for me to believe that this was simply a matter of an objectionable t-shirt.

Here's a more indepth article than Reuters. It doesn't say if they were part of the "two dozen" there previously. But I think if the first incident never happened it wouldn't have gone this far. Obviously the lawyer was trying to make a statement with this. Whether that was his intentions of the shirt in the first place, who knows.

Malls have one objective...to make money. And activists have one objective...to get attention for their beliefs. And the media has one objective...to make you look at them rather than the competition. And lawyers have one objective...to make their client an angel and to paint the "other side" as the worst examples of humanity in history.

So with that pot-pourri of objectives...who knows what really went down that day?

John, you have one mistake in your list of objectives.
A lawyer's objective is to make money. Acting in their client's best interest is just a means to that end. :)

Anyway, I'm in favor of freedom of speech, but the bottom line is that whoever owns the mall can do whatever they want. However, if the story is accurate, that probably wasn't the best reason to use to remove someone undesireable. I don't believe that the T-shirt was the only reason they kicked him out.

Dylan...I stand corrected...but that makes it difficult to type so I'm sitting down again...but still corrected.

How many of you have had your free speech abrogated by the government since Sept 11? I would wager to say a big fat ZERO.

I think that the whole lose of civil liberties routine is merely a red herring----

Not to defend the ambulence chasers and mindless rabble-rousers, but lots of people endure difficult careers as attorneys with loftier goals than making money. Some even fight for equal opportunity and combat the injustices of prejudice. What about the thousands of cases taken on pro bono each year? Or the thousands of lawyers who work for legal aid societies on wages often less than the blue-collar workers they represent?

Sorry if I've spoiled a good lawyer joke. Let me make amends.

A man walks into a bar with his alligator and asks the bartender, "Do you serve lawyers here?"

"Sure do," replies the bartender.

"Good," says the customer, "Give me a beer, and I'll have a lawyer for my alligator."

I find the entire article very interesting and a bit sad. It's like a throw-back to the 60s when 'the establishment' wouldn't serve anyone with long hair! However, I agree that there could be more to this story than just a t-shirt. We'll see.

My lawyer joke contribution:

An elderly man was on his deathbed, when he called his doctor, pastor and lawyer to his bedside. "Gentlemen? I want you to know that I'm going to dispell the old adage that 'you can't take it with you'. In these three envelopes is all the money I have left in the world - $90,000. There is $30,000 in each envelope. Upon my burial, I want you to drop these envelopes on my casket just before they cover me up."

The three agreed, took the envelopes and left. When the old man died, all three waited until the family and friends left the graveside and walked to the hole in the ground. The pastor said, "I feel a bit guilty about this. Our church needed a new roof, so I took $10,000 from the envelope." And he tossed the envelope on the casket in the ground.

The doctor said, "Yes, I too feel a little guilty. Our office needed new examination equipment and borrowed $20,000." He then tossed his envelope on the casket.

The lawyer looked at the two in disgust and said, "I am truly ashamed of you two", as he tossed his envelope in the hole. "Why I just gave my personal check for the full amount!"

The more I read about the story, the more I am amazed by how stupid the mall has been. The two guys, who happened to be lawyers, bought the shirts at a custom T-shirt place in the mall (!) There was an anti-war demonstration in the mall last December, but, at least according to news reports, the two guys who bought the shirts were not involved.

The mall had no problem with them buying the shirts, but threw them out when they put them on. I fully agree that as managers of private property, the mall management has every right to exclude those who are disruptive or interfere with shopping. That being said, being merely stupid is not acceptable.

Of course, following the arrests there was a large demonstration in the mall with a hundred or so folks getting anti-war shirts made in the mall t-shirt shop. The mall also asked that all charges be dropped against the two guys it arrested.

Sounds like Much Ado About Nothing----Only person who seems to have benefited was the guy selling the T-Shirts---Thats what I love about America---there is always an opportunity to profit! Speaking of which, I was working on a WTC documentary when I ran across a guy who has actually started a business in which he makes baseball type trading cards with pictures of people who died that day. On the back of the cards are statistics about their lives etc----Wow!

In most jurisidictions, there are no First Amendment rights in a mall, which is deemed private property. California is a notable exception, however. California's constitution has a first amendment which goes further than that of the US Constitution. Because of this, malls in California are deemed quasi-public forums, and First Amendment rights apply. In California, it would have been illegal to remove the t-shirt wearer, as wearing clothing with political messages is clearly and unambiguously protected speech. See Cohen v. Superior Court (war protester's jacket with words, "f___ the draft" in a court house held to be protected speech).

Where it gets interesting, though, is when malls receive subsidies of some form. The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment, is a restriction on _government_ action, only, which is why there are no First Amendment rights on private property (except in California). However, I think there is an argument to be made that, if a mall receives a subsidy in the form of tax relief (very common), that may be sufficient government action such that Constitutional protections might apply. At any rate, that's something I would argue with respect to the t-shirt wearer.

As for shooting in malls, I'm not at all certain that the act of making of video constitutes speech in the First Amendment sense. _Showing_ a video is certainly speech. Making one very well may not be. However, in those jurisdictions where there are no First Amendment rights in malls, it is clearly permissible to bar videoing (and still photography, etc.). Even in California, malls are, at most, quasi-public forums, which means that reasonable time, place and manner restrictions can be imposed on First Amendment activities, i.e. the mall can require a permit, limit the hours of shooting, limit the number of crew, etc.

I work at a newspaper in Albany, N.Y., near where the mall is located. When the story broke, we were unsure if it was big enough news for us to even follow (we're a business newspaper). Then suddenly it's on CNN and every major news Web site! I have to hand it to those guys. They were really smart. Everything they did seems calculated to push the mall into taking an unreasonable action and get themselves maximum exposure. The fact that they bought the t-shirts in the mall gives the story extra irony and is the sort of detail that lends itself to a short news story. Also, the guy who refused to take his shirt off made sure it only contained an innocuous message about peace. I think its interesting that his son chose to comply with the security guard's orders and took off his shirt, which made specific references to the looming war with Iraq. If it hadn't been for the anti-war slogan, the security guards probably never would have made an issue about the peace shirt, but after stopping the two guys, the mall didn't feel like it could back down. The whole thing appears very well thought out and is a perfect example of how to manipulate the media and get yourself on TV.

Instead of a Lawyer joke, how about a true story. Sent to me
by my brother...

A Charlotte, NC lawyer purchased a box of very rare and
expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among
other things. Within a month having smoked his entire
stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having
made even his first premium payment on the policy, the
lawyer filed claim against the insurance company.

In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost
"in a series of small fires." The insurance company
refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man
had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.

The lawyer sued ... and won!

In delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the
insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The
Judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a
policy from the company in which it had warranted that
the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it
would insure them against fire, without defining what
is considered to be unacceptable fire, and was
obligated to pay the claim.

Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process,
the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid
$15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars
lost in the "fires."

NOW FOR THE BEST PART...

After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance
company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!!
With his own insurance claim and testimony from
the previous case being used against him, the lawyer
was convicted of intentionally burning his insured
property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a
$24,000 fine.

This is a true story and was the 1st place winner in
the recent Criminal Lawyers Award Contest.

ONLY IN AMERICA.


This has to be the best one of the year so far.

Sorry, but that story is completely untrue. Go to www.snopes.com and search on "cigar lawyer," and you'll find that it's been circulating since the 60s. As snopes points out,

"Insurance policies are generally written so that deliberate actions on the part of the policyholders cannot trigger payouts. Furthermore, destroying your own property isn't arson, as long as the act isn't intended to defraud anyone. If a court had already ruled that the insurance company was required to pay, then obviously no fraud was committed, and thus the burning could not be considered arson. "

As entertaining as these fictions are, the problem is people believe them and accept them as "proof" that the justice system in general, and lawyers, specifically, are corrupt and need reform.

okay, I'll relay that to my brother. I still thought it was funny.