 kkcapricorn says: Police said that Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, was disturbing shoppers at the Lake Grove mall with his T-shirtupsetting? a Tshirt? are we supposed to pretend this isn't happening?  Whatever happened to free speech? Was the public forced to read their shirts, or did they feel so guilty about supporting Bush that they didn't want the mistake rubbed in their faces? Wow. This really seems unbelievable. I would hate to see America stand for this.  Police said that Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, was disturbing shoppers at the Lake Grove mall with his T-shirt, which had what they described as "graphic anti-war images." Police said in a release last night that Zirkel was handing out anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers and that mall security told him to stop and turn his shirt inside out. Zirkel refused to turn his shirt inside out and wouldn't leave, police said. Security placed him on "civilian arrest" and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel passively resisted attempts to bring him to a police car, the release said.So, an anti-war group heads to the local mall to hand out pamphlets and wearing graphi... You mean the law of Hitler? "America stand for this"? I would hope they would. It is called the law. "free speech"? Too bad the gentleman did not do as requested. He could have had all the free speech he wanted outside the mall. Hitler? I smell lawsuit An 80 year old wearing a t-shirt and handing out pamphlets?To try and save American lives? I am surprised they did not tazer him. I am surprised they did not tazer him  They may call a mall private property but it really is public property being used by private business. They have a reasonable right to control handbill work and organized demonstrations, but there are very few things that written on one's shirt should be in their power to control. Censorship of whatever form is always about the ones with power protecting their power, just like women say rape is about power not sex! They may call a mall private property but it really is public property being used by private business.Unless it is owned by the city or the state, then it is private property. Just because the public is granted access that doesn't mean it isn't privately owned. And since it is private property, they do have the right to a dress code and the right to ask people to leave if they don't wish to comply. Geez, for a minute I thought this clip was about an 80 year old man arrested because of a T-shirt. I hope he included the death of the Constitution as one of the casualties of the war. The constitution isn't dead yet. Yes, it did take a blow when the supreme court ruled that the government can take your land in order to give it to someone else in order to make more tax revenue for the city, but property owners do still have some rights left. Unless it is owned by the city or the state, then it is private property. Just because the public is granted access that doesn't mean it isn't privately owned. And since it is private property, they do have the right to a dress code and the right to ask people to leave if they don't wish to comply.Regardless of what the law presently may say, the idea that mall property is private property the way homeowners property is or even private property like a working mine would be which does not need the public to come on it's premises in order to make a living is incorrect. Malls should and do have certain rights, but the right to control what shirts and jackets say should not be ... Public spaces are where the public freely gathers regardless of whoThat is a good point, yance. But, I do not think that suggests the owners cannot moderate the environment however they choose. This is not the government stepping-in here. This is not censorship. His free-speech rights have not been violated. The dude can still say whatever he wants and he can still wear his shirt. He just cannot wear on property where someone else is the benevolent dictator and has every right to be. Malls should and do have certain rights, but the right to control what shirts and jackets say should not be among that right.So, you believe that privately owned businesses that are open to the public have no right to a dress code? Maybe you should take that up with your representative, or even start your own grass roots campaign to put an end to that right. You could call it "No shoes, no shirt, no service, no more!" You are exaggerating. I said they should not have control of any speech on the shirt, jacket! Exempting x rated items and overt death threats and so on! What about ties or other formal wear? What about gang related gear such as products from certain NFL or NBA teams? What about shirts with graphic images on them? What about requiring shoes and shirt? Should the owners be able to regulate those? Why do you want to take the most extreme examples you can think of and pretend that they are the norm that somehow gives blanket power to malls? It is like people saying free speech doesn't include yelling fire in a crowded theater. What does that have to do with free speech?. Absolutely nothing. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not speech, it is action the same way the yelling of fire by the commander of by the Captain of a Army is action. In both cases the word is not intended as speech, it is intended to be the same event as striking a match and lighting a fuse is. Yet people want to take an extreme and even a non example and normalize it so that they can create a context to justif... Why is it you like to dodge simple questions? What exactly in my list is extreme? Why do you think my questions don't pertain to the story? Did you even read the whole story? I say extreme examples partly because your examples have nothing to do with the 80 year old man. He was properly dressed and he wasn't wearing gang colors etc. He was wearing a t-shirt with an anti-war slogan on it. To be fair they should now have security standing at all entrances to the mall and screen every shirt that comes through the door so they can block any that might offend someone's delicate sensibilities. Tazer all the old geezers just to be sure. That should keep them out of the malls and back in the bingo halls where they belong. I say extreme examples partly because your examples have nothing to do with the 80 year old man. Police said that Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, was disturbing shoppers at the Lake Grove mall with his T-shirt, which had what they described as "graphic anti-war images." The constitution isn't dead yet. Yes, it did take a blow when the supreme court ruled that the government can take your land in order to give it to someone else in order to make more tax revenue for the city, but property owners do still have some rights left.This one I agree with completely and I considered it very much a strong hint that the end of the Constitution was well on the way at the time this occurred. I'm not a land owner by the way, so that was not why I viewed it that way. |
View the Top Clips from March 31, 2008
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||
