• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Man arrested for wearing T-shirt

Actually blame the rent-a-cops in the mall. They are the ones that insisted the man remove the shirt or leave the mall. The cops were only responding to the call because the man refused to leave because of the idiotic request of the rent-a-cops.
 
He was arrested for refusing the leave the mall, and they don't have to have a "good" reason to ask him to leave the mall.

As unfortunate as it may be, I fail to see how he has any legitimate complaint.

Viper GTS
 
Who cares?
"Protesters" get arrested all the time.
Although, I'm sure you kids knew that.
 
They were most probably arrested for the haircuts, their dumb sense in fashion and not knowing when enough is enough. No one has a right to do everything and anything they want.. this is an example.
 
We're probably not hearing the entire story, thanks to left-bent MSNBC. They were probably too "in your face" about it; they could have been loud, disrupting, etc.
 
How do they expect to enforce that mall "rule"?

"wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited"

I could say, "Hey beautiful women, you blouses are provoking disturbances... off with them!"

Ridiculous.

-geoff
 
We're probably not hearing the entire story, thanks to left-bent MSNBC. They were probably too "in your face" about it; they could have been loud, disrupting, etc.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY
 
For crying out loud!! There are signs stating that wearing things which are likely to incite a disturbance is prohibited.... Did they really think, given the current state of affairs, that the shirts would go completely unnoticed??

Speed
 
The Mall is private property. If the Mall's owner wants him out, he is out. It can be said that he was "protesting" and booting him is not considered "discrimination". You can't throw people out just because you don't like them. Laws protect you there.

On the other hand, he couldn't be jailed if he was walking down a public street. 1st Amendment protects that.

I would have chuckled at him, and if knowing he spent $23 for a t-shirt, maybe a guffaw would be in order.
 
Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
How do they expect to enforce that mall "rule"?

"wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited"

I could say, "Hey beautiful women, you blouses are provoking disturbances... off with them!"

Ridiculous.

-geoff
Click to expand...

Considering that it is private property, they could kick you out for wearing a color they didn't like.

The mall security had every right to ask him to leave, & the cops were just doing their jobs when they arrested him.

The only people at fault here were the dumbasses wearing the t-shirts.

Viper GTS
 
Private property gives them all the right they need, especially when they have a sign on the door asking you to not wear anything that could provoke a disturbance. This is not a free speech issue.......just like yelling fire in a crowded building is not a free speech issue.....
 
A shopping mall is a privately-held business organization 🙂
They can say "no kids allowed" for all they care. If they think something is hurting their business, they can try to eliminate the threat. What's wrong with that? Just don't shop there.

Did you forget the:
No dogs allowed
No shoes = no admittance
etc

This is not racially biased or anything. What if someone started shooting at these people with their T-shirts?!

(so I completely agree with Jmman)
 
Originally posted by: ggavinmoss
How do they expect to enforce that mall "rule"?

"wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited"

I could say, "Hey beautiful women, you blouses are provoking disturbances... off with them!"

Ridiculous.

-geoff
Click to expand...

It's private property. It is up to them to dictate what is offensive. Try wearing a taco bell uses horsemeat and hanging out in a taco bell restaurant....
 
I think I support the war, but this is pretty much outrageous. Protesting your government is the first thing the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment!!!

*edit* that Lindsay Cohen chick is pretty cute.
 
Originally posted by: Triumph
I think I support the war, but this is pretty much outrageous. Protesting your government is the first thing the writers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendment!!!

*edit* that Lindsay Cohen chick is pretty cute.
Click to expand...

So protest on a PUBLIC property, not in a private business institution! Try going into MIT with a T-shirt "MIT sucks, FU geeks!". It's not about the free speach, it's about the rights of a business organization!
 
I shop at that mall all the time, I also know someone who works security there from high school :Q


it seems from the article that they were just minding their own buisness, however, once asked to do something by security you have to comply because its private property, therefore the police were correct.
 
Originally posted by: Jmman
Private property gives them all the right they need, especially when they have a sign on the door asking you to not wear anything that could provoke a disturbance. This is not a free speech issue.......just like yelling fire in a crowded building is not a free speech issue.....
Click to expand...

When you yell "fire", it naturally follows that people will panic and run.

How does it naturally follow that wearing a shirt that says "Peace on Earth" and "Give Peace a chance" will lead to a disturbance. The shirt that said that didn't even mention Iraq. The disturbance was caused by the behavior of idiots, which is one thing that is never predictable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top