Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt (AT THE MALL)

reuters ^ | 3/4/2003 | reuters

[TLBSHOW]

Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt

— NEW YORK (Reuters) - A lawyer was arrested late Monday and charged with trespassing at a public mall in the state of New York after refusing to take off a T-shirt advocating peace that he had just purchased at the mall.

According to the criminal complaint filed on Monday, Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance" that he had just purchased from a vendor inside the Crossgates Mall in Guilderland, New York, near Albany.

"I was in the food court with my son when I was confronted by two security guards and ordered to either take off the T-shirt or leave the mall," said Downs.

When Downs refused the security officers' orders, police from the town of Guilderland were called and he was arrested and taken away in handcuffs, charged with trespassing "in that he knowingly enter(ed) or remain(ed) unlawfully upon premises," the complaint read.

Downs said police tried to convince him he was wrong in his actions by refusing to remove the T-shirt because the mall "was like a private house and that I was acting poorly.

"I told them the analogy was not good and I was then hauled off to night court where I was arraigned after pleading not guilty and released on my own recognizance," Downs told Reuters in a telephone interview.

Downs is the director of the Albany Office of the state Commission on Judicial Conduct, which investigates complaints of misconduct against judges and can admonish, censure or remove judges found to have engaged in misconduct.

Calls to the Guilderland police and district attorney, Anthony Cardona and to officials at the mall were not returned for comment.

Downs is due back in court for a hearing on March 17.

He could face up to a year in prison if convicted.

[weegee]

His arrest provided him with exposure for his stunt. If he had left as asked (or not even been questioned) then all he would have had was a "I got some shirts at the mall and one or two comments pro/against and went home. People are so apathetic." to blog on some website.

[weegee]

Again, I don't see the "I support the President" shirt as being controversial or a protest of anything.

A shirt that said, "Kill All The Islamofascists" would be provactive, against a group of individuals, could be construed as hate speech, etc. I would expect that an individual (not even 2 people) wearing this shirt would be asked to remove the shirt by mall authorities as well.

[occam's chainsaw]

Stephen Downs was wearing a T-shirt bearing the words "Give Peace A Chance"

The victims of the WTC and Pentagon gave peace a chance- peacefully going about their business - right up till their final hours.

We gave peace a chance.

Now it's time to give superior firepower a chance.

[weegee]

The problem with a tactic like the antiabortion protestors use at UofH is that those of us who agree with their stance are assaulted by these images we would rather not have to deal with. Those who are pro-"choice"/abortion have not confronted the reality of what abortion is.

I cannot say that I agree with the tactic in all situations/locales but am supportive that they got their placement at UofH when other protest groups were permitted to gather. U of H is a public university. A private university might have more control over their grounds.

I believe that in the 1980s we were exposed to images of attrocities committed in South Africa (generally on posters/video displays) by the "divest" crowd against apartheid. Sometimes such imagery is necessary to alert people to a horror that they cannot fathom otherwise.

Should the public be shielded from any reminders of what happened at the Nazi death camps? If the public can handle that, they can handle some photos of aborted fetuses. Those who are pro-abortion who say it is just a mass of flesh and no different than semen or an egg alone should have no problem with seeing this "non-human" thing.

More icky medical photos can probably be found on posters of lungs and gums posted by antismoking lobbyists. Should abortion be considered a different sort of animal from the antismoking movement?

[TLBSHOW]

STORY HAS BROKEN OUT ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY

they protested at the mall today a fight broke out between a vet and a protester. Now wgy is making the afternoon show about.

[Iron Eagle]

Wrong -- they can chuck him from private property. Don't confuse your legal concepts.

No shoes, no shit, no service. Those are not federal laws, those are just come rules many people choose to enforce. While it is true that one must make "public accomodation" so as not to run afoul of the equal protection clause, that is not what we are talking about here.

If I own a private business, I can through you out of it for no reason or any reason at all, so long as I have not discriminated based on race. Your right to free speech, however, doesn't get you through the door under public accomodation. I don't have to serve you if you or permit you on my property if you are pushing a policatical message or agenda I find offensive.

The color issue is a red herring.

[weegee]

I am still not sure how "Give Peace A Chance" is provocative, even given the current controversy.

The 4 slogans emblazened on 2 shirts read: ''Peace on Earth'' and ''Give peace a chance''

"Let Inspectors work" and "No war In Iraq" or "No war with Iraq"

The son was not arrested. Did he choose to leave or remove the shirt? I have not heard.

The son was wearing the more "provocative" of the 2 shirts although the "Give Peace A Chance" slogan is an antiVietnam protest chant authored by John Lennon. In consort, the 2 shirts made a united antiwar protest statement (and each shirt did contain a separate antiwar slogan), that is the provocation. The man admits he wanted to see what reaction he would draw.

There is a distinction between this man's shirt an idividual who would walk around a mall in a shirt that says, "Peace On Earth, Goodwill To Men" and "Love Thy Brother" (I would think that religious protection would protect this garment as the same with a black customer or handicapped customer although some public schools have seen fit to banish such clothing). Even just a blanket statement of "Peace" would be different.

However, the American-chicken footprint and the misappropriated 2 fingers (V-for victory) are "classic" antiwar symbols from Vietnam protest and would also be provocative.

The swastika was a good luck symbol, in prominent use prior to Hitler's misappropriation of it, but I still contend that wearing a black swastika on a white circle on a red shirt would be considered an outrageous stunt regardless of your wishing everyone "good luck".

Pictured is a postcard dated January 15th 1914

[weegee]

QUESTION: Can the mall tell me that I have to change my shirt or leave, if it is a button-down shirt with a maker's logo on it like Ralph Lauren Polo, and they don't want that logo displayed because, let's say, they have a Tommy Hilfiger outlet on the premises?

Can your boss tell you to change your Polo shirt if you are working at the checkout counter at Tommy Hilfiger? If the store is not giving you a wardrobe, can they prohibit this?

[Roscoe]

There's a mall here in the San Fernando valley that regularly removes people for gang colors.

[TLBSHOW]

Group Protests N.Y. Peace T-Shirt Arrest

Wed, Mar 05, 2003


By DAMITA CHAMBERS, Associated Press Writer http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857615/posts?page=60

[weegee]

STORY HAS BROKEN OUT ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY

they protested at the mall today a fight broke out between a vet and a protester. Now wgy is making the afternoon show about.

This was the type of thing that I warned about in a prior protest. We have the right to free speech, but there may also be consequences of those actions.

Provocative stunts can provoke people to violent responses. I do not speak of this incident, but in general. I said that the duty of the mall cops is the protect the safety of the patrons. If that means asking one patron (or several) to leave in the best interests of all, then so be it (for your own safety and theirs, please leave before this escalates).

You have the right to use an obscenity or insult against a fellow American. If he decides that he doesn't like that you called him a name (***** or even just "dummy"), then you will have to bear the consequences of your action. That man who responds with violence will also have to defend his use of force. Provocation of violence can sometimes be defended, that is for a jury to decide (were you justified in knocking his block off). Remember too, that sometimes antiwar protestors will spit in the faces of those who oppose them. That is not an action of speech but it is certainly a provocation to violence.

Another consequence of antiwar protestors free speech, I may never pay to see another movie with certain celebrities in them again (broadcast tv and viewing at a friend's home are ways to avoid adding a dime to their receipts). That is my right to boycott their works although to hear Hollywood spin it, they are being "blacklisted". When their names become box-office poison, they have blacklisted themselves. It is the consequence of their actions. If 2 studios collaborate to say, "No one will hire you now" then there may be legal action taken against the studios.

[Illbay]

"Let Inspectors work" and "No war In Iraq" or "No war with Iraq"

Interestingly, though, the shirt bearing those slogans WAS removed. The son was wearing it.

The father refused to remove his "Give Peace a Chance" and "Make Love Not War" shirt.

[Illbay]

Years ago while a graduate student, I delivered pizzas. We didn't get a whole lot of money as salary, and depended upon tips.

We used our own vehicles, our own car insurance, and even purchased our own "uniforms" (jeans, store-logo t-shirt and white tennis shoes).

I had a button made up, reading "I Work For Tips." The employer threatened to fire me if I did not remove it.

[RummyChick]

Dont have time to read this thread so this may have been posted..but more arrests of peaceniks at a mall

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/03/04_protest.html

[Illbay]

We were held for 14 hours, overnight, in the Baltimore County jail, Towson precinct with no food, one cup of water between us three women (there were 5 men as well), many of us handcuffed the entire 14 hours to a metal bench, all of us in leg shackles.

Do you believe this tale? I don't for one second.

[Illbay]

TLBSHOW, these two guys (lawyer and his son) were just on O'Reilly, telling only THEIR side of the story.

PLEASE email Bill O'Reilly and give him the benefit of the information that you have uncovered!

At least we want a fuller account to be available to him.

[PLMerite]

Oh, he might. It might boil down to whether the mall in question has ejected everyone wearing a political t-shirt.

If they allow people wearing slogans like the ones in my t-shirt collection but decide to toss this yutz out, then I think he has an issue.

If somebody wears a satanic shirt to a Christian church, one can fairly assume his intent is to incite.

I don't know whether a judge/jury would agree with me, but I'd be willing to allow idiots to wear political slogans simply to protect me when I do same.

[KrisKrinkle]

Do I have free speech rights there to do this?
_________________________________________________

That's the question, although you complicate it by the situation you lay out. In that situation your free speech rights might be limited in many places owned by the public. The public might consider such behavior to be a violation of their property rights, considering that you as an individual are a minority owner of the public property and have a limited say.

[tuckrdout]

Then you do not believe in private property rights?

[ChuxsterS]

The rent a cops are going to be sorry for this.

Particularly if they were armed:

United States Code; U.S. Criminal Code, Title 18, Section 243: Deprivation of rights under color of law

Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Commonwealth, Possession or District to the deprivation of any rights, privilidges or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains,or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens…

I don’t think that the statute you cite applies. I’ll grant that most statutes are about as clear as mud, but to paraphrase it, I think it boils down to:

If you act under the color of law to willfully deny someone’s Constitutional rights or subject them to special penalties… “on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race”… you’re in deep doo-doo.

I don’t think there’s any implication the lawyer and his son were picked on simply because of his race, color, or national origin.