Man Arrested for Wearing Peace T-Shirt

Originally posted by 12clicks

I made a point, your highschool intelligence just didn't see it (no matter what age you are)

you're 35 and thing like this? good luck in life.

We don't really know for sure if anyone was disrupting business, or if the guy with the shirt was even a part of the previous allegations of a disruption... Where's the proof? How many of these shirts were sold? For all you know this father/son team bought the shirts somewhere else... Unless the Mall has some photo documentation of the same guy wearing the same shirt causing a disruption -- these are just retarded allegations.

Originally posted by TheFLY



Bottom line is the guy was arrested for wearing a shirt the mall sold him.

Originally posted by 12clicks

Nope, this is where you're wrong. the guy was arrested for not leaving private property when told to.
when they get to court and the mall says, "people wearing these shirts disrupted my business before so I asked them to leave. they refused, I called the police"
the judge will throw out any suit against the mall. As he should.

Originally posted by MaxDent


``We don't care what they have on their shirts, but they were asked to leave the property, and it's private property,'' Murley said.

Private property, owner's rules.

Originally posted by TheFLY


Then why wasn't the son arrested!?

Originally posted by cluck
You can say that it's because protesters wore peace sign tee-shirts in the past, but the fact is that the peace sign is one of the most familiar symbols in our society. I'm sure the shirt had been worn many times before that and will be worn many times after.

Originally posted by cluck

Still, under this fucking retarded legal system that's considered the business owners right.

Originally posted by 12clicks


re-read the article. they WERE NOT wearing peace signs, they were wearing something much more specific just as the trouble makers of earlier had.

Originally posted by cluck


Again, 12clicks is right, even though by my political belief system that sucks ass.

Originally posted by 12clicks


start your own business, give up all your "business owners rights" and lets see how you do.

Originally posted by cluck


Regardless, if the shirt was sold in the mall or anywhere else really, hundreds or thousands of people could have the same shirt.

Originally posted by cluck
Had they made specific shirts for the event, I could see it being a consideration.

Originally posted by 12clicks

The trouble makers wore the shirts. more people show up in those shirts. its smart to act.

off to lunch.

Originally posted by 12clicks


dude, the right to protect your own property ALWAYS comes before your right of free speech. What was happening there was the mall covering the mouth of two assclowns about to scream fire in a crowded building.
(lets see how many of the teenagers and 35yr olds don't understand that analogy)

MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

We postponed jurisdiction of this appeal from the Supreme Court of California to decide the important federal constitutional questions it presented. Those are whether state constitutional provisions, which permit individuals to exercise free speech and petition rights on the property of a privately owned shopping center to which the public is invited, violate the shopping center owner's property rights under the Fifth [p*77] and Fourteenth Amendments or his free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

I

Appellant PruneYard is a privately owned shopping center in the City of Campbell, Cal. It covers approximately 21 acres -- 5 devoted to parking and 16 occupied by walkways, plazas, sidewalks, and buildings that contain more than 65 specialty shops, 10 restaurants, and a movie theater. The PruneYard is open to the public for the purpose of encouraging the patronizing of its commercial establishments. It has a policy not to permit any visitor or tenant to engage in any publicly expressive activity, including the circulation of petitions, that is not directly related to its commercial purposes. This policy has been strictly enforced in a nondiscriminatory fashion. The PruneYard is owned by appellant Fred Sahadi.

Appellees are high school students who sought to solicit support for their opposition to a United Nations resolution against "Zionism." On a Saturday afternoon they set up a card table in a corner of PruneYard's central courtyard. They distributed pamphlets and asked passersby to sign petitions, which were to be sent to the President and Members of Congress. Their activity was peaceful and orderly, and, so far as the record indicates, was not objected to by PruneYard's patrons.

Soon after appellees had begun soliciting signatures, a security guard informed them that they would have to leave because their activity violated PruneYard regulations. The guard suggested that they move to the public sidewalk at the PruneYard's perimeter. Appellees immediately left the premises and later filed this lawsuit in the California Superior Court of Santa Clara County. They sought to enjoin appellants from denying them access to the PruneYard for the purpose of circulating their petitions.

The Superior Court held that appellees were not entitled under either the Federal or California Constitution to exercise [p*78] their asserted rights on the shopping center property. App. to Juris.Statement A-2. It concluded that there were "adequate, effective channels of communication for [appellees] other than soliciting on the private property of the [PruneYard]." Id. at A-3. The California Court of Appeal affirmed.

The California Supreme Court reversed, holding that the California Constitution protects "speech and petitioning, reasonably exercised, in shopping centers even when the centers are privately owned." 23 Cal.3d 899, 910, 592 P.2d 341, 347 (1979). It concluded that appellees were entitled to conduct their activity on PruneYard property. In rejecting appellants' contention that such a result infringed property rights protected by the Federal Constitution, the California Supreme Court observed:

"It bears repeated emphasis that we do not have under consideration the property or privacy rights of an individual homeowner or the proprietor of a modest retail establishment. As a result of advertising and the lure of a congenial environment, 25,000 persons are induced to congregate daily to take advantage of the numerous amenities offered by the [shopping center there]. A handful of additional orderly persons soliciting signatures and distributing handbills in connection therewith, under reasonable regulations adopted by defendant to assure that these activities do not interfere with normal business operations

Originally posted by 12clicks

Nope, this is where you're wrong. the guy was arrested for not leaving private property when told to.
when they get to court and the mall says, "people wearing these shirts disrupted my business before so I asked them to leave. they refused, I called the police"
the judge will throw out any suit against the mall. As he should.

Originally posted by Miss Novette
So, just so I understand, I can come over to your house and protest? I can cause a commotion and you can't do anything about it?

Cool. Address please.

Originally posted by toodamnfli
am i allowed to kick jehovah witnesses for stepping on my porch at 8am on saturday mornings

Originally posted by cluck


That doesn't mean the owners aren't douchebags.

Originally posted by rooster
"Does that mean if I have an apartment building as my business. That I can deny housing to Black, Gays, Jews or ranyone else. I think we settled that issue a long time ago in the Supreme Court."



If this country was truly free you would be able to deny to blacks etc if you wanted to. But then people would be bitching about that. People are never happy. They just want the freedoms that suit them.

Originally posted by fnet
ok, shut up already.

Downs, the guy who was arrested, is the:

<font size=4>
Director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct.
</font>

This was a setup, people. And twelve clicks took a big greasy bite! Ahahahaha. Verra nice.

Originally posted by TheFLY


HAHAHAHA Fuck nut this isn't even a law, you copied this text off a redneck Mississippi Mall Website!

http://www.bonitalakesmall.com/mall/...urity?openform

1210 Bonita Lakes Circle
Meridian, Mississippi 39301

Here's their other website: http://www.turtlecreekmall.com/mall/...urity?openform

Originally posted by lawpal
I wonder if they will arrest me when I go to the mall this weekend wearning my Gofuckyourself.com shirt.

Originally posted by Living For Today
america is one fucked up place