Support Crossgates Mall vs Peace T-Shirt Lawyer

[jonalvy44]

I can only guess there was a problem with the albany website due to the media coverage, but I'm confused why this whole thread was pulled by the mod. This is a serious matter...

Support Crossgates Mall in this controversy over the T-Shirt Arrest! Turns out the man arrested is a LAWYER and is trying to milk this for what it's worth! His shirt said "Give Peace a Chance" BUT his son's shirt said "NO WAR IN IRAQ" and "Let Inspections Work". These men were at the mall to make a point! They went to the mall to shop, BUT, they chose to WEAR the new shirts they had printed, thus trying to make a political statement! In light of the heated debate on the crisis in Iraq, mall security was well within their rights to ask the men to either leave or remove the inflammatory shirts in order to preserve the peace at the mall.

The man refused both options, so he was arrested for trespassing. Now it looks like he plans to SUE. Talk about frivolous lawsuits. The job of security at a mall is to keep the peace and prevent possible disruptive behavior.

From the mall webiste, since removed by them:

ALBANY WEB SITES.COM IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH CROSSGATES MALL. WE HAVE TAKEN DOWN THIS WEB PAGE DUE TO THE LARGE # OF EMAILS THAT WE ARE RECEIVING IN REGARD TO THE ARREST OF THE FATHER & SON THAT TOOK PLACE AT CROSSGATES MALL. IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN FORWARDING YOUR COMMENTS TO THE MALL, WE HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY CROSSGATES MALL TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE FOLLOWING PUBLIC RELATIONS #. (716) 854-8182

I called an offered my support!! This is not a Freedom of Speech issue, it's about a scumbag lawyer baiting mall security so he can sue them or receive a settlement!! Visit www.smokinggun.com to see the police report, these guys were witnessed HARRASSING customers. The mall has dropped the charges, most likely because of the media's portrayal of this affair, and that's wrong. I will bet this lawyer will definitely sue now since they dropped the charges...Read the police report!! Bill O'Reilly was way off in his reporting of this affair...The no-spin zone was spun!

[Lurking Libertarian]

This is not a Freedom of Speech issue, it's about a scumbag lawyer baiting mall security so he can sue them or receive a settlement!! Visit www.smokinggun.com to see the police report, these guys were witnessed HARRASSING customers. The mall has dropped the charges, most likely because of the media's portrayal of this affair, and that's wrong. I will bet this lawyer will definitely sue now since they dropped the charges...Read the police report!!

The police report says nothing about "harassing" anyone. It says that they were in a "verbal dispute" with customers (no word as to who started it).

In New York, a mall owner can ban political speech in a mall, but has to ask you to leave before you can be arrested for trespass. It appears from the police reports that these guys weren't even given the opportunity to leave but were arrested for disorderly conduct merely for wearing anti-war t-shirts.

I don't agree with the message, but the arrest appears to have been invalid and the inevitable lawsuit will probably succeed.

[buckalfa]

Though I disagree with the political philosophy of
the father/son who are caught up in this controversy,
I have to support their right of freedom of speech and
expression. After all,is not the slogan on the Free
Republic logo --"defending our constitution".

[KineticKitty]

If they were minding their own business I don't have a problem. {I mean geez, could you imagine wearing a FREEP T-shirt in at the Berkley Mall???} lol

If they were harassing other shoppers in conjunction to the message on their T-shirt, then yes they should have been removed for protesting/demonstrating & trespassing if they refused to leave when asked/told to.

[freeper12]

>>Talk about frivolous lawsuits

Doesn't sound frivolous to me...I hope he ends up owning the mall based on the facts I have heard so far.

[1Old Pro]

The Mayor of Albany said on his morning radio show that they received hundreds of e-mails thru the Albany website and he wanted to say that His Albany police had nothing to do with the arrest of the peacenicks, who he defended. Yes, he's a big D.

[Ann Archy]

The mall is PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owners can kick out whomever they want to, These two were stirring up a little trouble on the all's PRIVATE PROPERTY. Just like II can kick you out of my house if I don't like what you do. Now do you understand?

[The Shootist]

Nonsense.

We cannot have malls, which are now the de facto "Main Street" in many towns, banning shirts that say, "Give peace a chance".

[freeper12]

>>kick out whomever they want to,

You mean they can keep out blacks and gays too if they want? simple as that eh?

[Sloth]

Sorry, I haven't yet heard enough information to make me understand why I should support the mall. If they really did eject these guys just for wearing non-obscene political T-shirts, then I would not spend a nickel there.

[freeper12]

>>The rights of property owners is also a factor here.

I suppose you'd be real concerned about the property rights of a mall owner that kicked out people that had US flags on their clothes too?

[Zansman]

Would you feel the same way if the LAWYER in question were wearing a pro-war t-shirt?

I mean, if these clowns were harassing customers and creating a disturbance (I'd like to know more than the limited info available via "smoking gun") sure, mall security was right to escort them out. Also, the mall has every right to set whatever dress and conduct codes it wants. But I've gotta tell you, ANY time I go to the mall I see at least 1000 shirts that I find more "offensive" than the ones these guys were wearing.

If they weren't or if they weren't the ones that started any verbal altercation, they've got just as much right to be anti-war (and express it) as you or I do to be pro-war.

There are 250,000+ of our best and brightest lined up and ready to fight to the death for our right to express ourselves regardless of how we feel about war. I think if those heroes are willing to make that kind of sacrifice, the mall can deal with an "offensive" t-shirt wearing protestor or two.

[NYer]

From the Smoking Gun web site, here is one of the reports filed with the police.

[trebb]

Don't people know that you don't kick people like that out of the mall; you lay in wait for when they leave on their own and beat the tar out of them.

[KineticKitty]

But was the argument started by the people arrested, and about the message on their T-shirts? If so, I would agree. (Well, even if they just started an argument, period.)

But was it an mutual argument between to parties unrelated to the message on their T-shirts, or started by the other party? If so, then the mall does have a problem. They should have kicked everyone out that was arguing, not just the people with a T-shirt that had an idiotic message on it. lol

[FreeTally]

Support the mall? The mall has already asked that charges be dropped. They knew they made a mistake.

[Sender]

While I completely disagree with the peaceniks and their message, I also think that this all depends on what they were doing besides wearing a T-shirt. If they were hassling customers or preaching their views, then the whole arrest thing should have been about their behavior and not about their attire. If they simply wore a peace T-shirt then we have to grant them that right, otherwise we are all in jeopardy.

[gridlock]

You mean they can keep out blacks and gays too if they want? simple as that eh?

Ejecting somebody because theya are black would be against the law, since shopping malls are considered a "public accomodation", and must be open to the public. I don't know if the same protection covers gays.

The same protection does not apply to political speech and demonstrating, however. This has been settled time and again.

[TLBSHOW]

Lawyer Arrested for Wearing a 'Peace' T-Shirt (left wing nut)


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/857007/posts

[Dutch14]

From what I understand, this isn't an issue of what kind of T-shirts these people were wearing. This IS about them engaging in a heated discussion with other mall patrons, obviously sufficient to raise alarm with another shopper (ie: impending fight) and cause her to report them to the mall security. The fact is that it is private property and the owner has the right to eject anyone from the premisis for any reason.

[wizzler]

Thank you for reposting this. It was extraordinarily frustrating yesterday to watch an entire thread disappear -- after many, many people had contributed posts -- all because the moderator thought there was something wrong with a link in the original post. It revealed a real contempt for the time and work of posters here.

(Not that I don't support the right of Free Republic -- just like Crossgates Mall -- to decide what speech it will and won't allow on its property.)

[Hugin]

Sorry, but I think you re off base. So what if they are lawyers? They weren't bothering anybody. If this happened to someone wearing an NRA or Free Republic shirt you would (rightly) be going ballistic. Free speech includes the right to be wrong.

[NYFriend]

This, or a very similar thread, was posted yesterday. thesmokinggun.com has a copy of what they claim to be the sworn statement by a store detective who called the security guards. She states that another customer complained that the two t-shirt guys were involved in an argument or altercation with other customers.

It sounds like these two were engaging in behavior that antagonized other customers, we asked to stop, refused, were told to leave, refused, and were arrested. Could the mall have decided to back the protesters and tell all the customers who were upset by the anti-war demonstrators to leave.

I think they made the right call, and have decided to do my shopping at Crossgates when practical.

[FreeTally]

A store detective is always plain clothed. How could a mall patron know the person was a detective and thus "approach them" to tell about such a situation? A person with such concerns would go to a mall security office. Sounds specious to me.

[Frohickey]

In New York, a mall owner can ban political speech in a mall, but has to ask you to leave before you can be arrested for trespass. It appears from the police reports that these guys weren't even given the opportunity to leave but were arrested for disorderly conduct merely for wearing anti-war t-shirts.

Did you read the police reports? Here is the link from www.smokinggun.com.

The reports, and there are 2, say that a customer approached a Macy's store detective about a verbal dispute between the 2 peace-tshirt-wearers and another group. The other report, had the security personnel stop the 2, and ask them to stop bothering the customers (they were stopping them) and to cover or remove the shirts, or they will be asked to leave...

[Lurking Libertarian]

The mall is PRIVATE PROPERTY and the owners can kick out whomever they want to

The two peaceniks were in there shopping. (They had bought the shirts at the mall.) They were therefore legally in the mall, and the mall therefore had to ask them to leave before they became trespassers. From what I've read, the mall didn't do that, just had them arrested for "disorderly conduct." If that's so, it was an illegal arrest. The fact that charges were dropped suggests that they were never given the opportunity to leave.

[Hatteras]

I heard the son on our local talk radio yesterday and he had presented himself quite well. I don't agree with his stance on the pending war, but in regards to this case, based on what I have read to date and what he was saying on the radio, I'd have to stand in his corner for now.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The reports, and there are 2

I had only read one (the police report), which said nothing about asking them to leave. The second document does allege a request to leave, which puts a different legal spin on this. Mea culpa.

[Skip Ripley]

That's not actaully true. The Mall is a public place (private property but the existence of businesses implies an open invitation to enter) Unless there is a posted policy regarding the type of speech allowed, I think the mall is a loser on this

I am not in agreement with the views expressed by t-shirt man, but the mall should not have had him arrested or removed unless anyone discussing politics in a loud fashion with him was also removed.

[finnman69]

This is a big to do about nothing. In my opinion the mall would be in their right to eject those two if the were actively protesting in the mall. They were not. IMO the mall was in error.

I do not think those two were innocent but to me its obvious they did this on purpose to generate anti-war PR.

If I were the owner of the mall, I would drop it.

[Ingtar]

"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. Sound's like the mall was within it's rights to have them arrested. What is legal and what is wise do not always go hand in hand.

[KineticKitty]

By reading the Police Report, it would appear the men where identified by their T-shirts, but it's foggy on if the confrontation or argument had anything to actually do with the T-shirts.

"The customer (the older white woman) stated that the two gentlemen where having a verbal dispute with another group of individuals in the mall. The customer was afraid of what would come of the dispute."

[wizzler]

A question for everyone on this thread who thinks the mall shouldn't have the right to kick out who it wants: Do you call yourselves "conservative"?

I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious.

[FreeTally]

From what I understand, this isn't an issue of what kind of T-shirts these people were wearing. This IS about them engaging in a heated discussion with other mall patrons,

Ah, but a "heated discussion" takes at least two participants, thus rasining the question that if it wasnt't about the message on the shirt, why were not all parties involved in the "heated discussion" told to leave? In fact, they were told to take off the shirts or leave, not just told to leave for engaging in a "heated discussion". Those they were "discussing heatedly" with were not told to leave.

I do not beleive a store detective was approached by anyone, for they are plain clothed. The supposed detective cant be proven to be lying because he can just say when asked "who" complained, "Oh, a woman, in her mid-forties, about 5'6" with brown hair. Didn't get her name. Didn't have time. That wasn't a concern of mine". Heck, I assisted mall security and local police with a description of a guy who had just grabbed some jewelry and run from a store, and they never asked my name.

[Corin Stormhands]

You know the way that reads it could be:

1) An old(er) woman being a busy body. It says "verbal disagreement." That's pretty vague.

2) Maybe the guys were just wearing their shirts when a couple of patriots verbally disagreed with them.

UNLESS, these guys were approaching other customers, and there's nothing concrete that says they were (at least nothing I've seen), then the mall was completely out of line.

My suspicion is that the mall realized that and that's why they dropped the charges.

[FreeTally]

Unless there is a posted policy regarding the type of speech allowed, I think the mall is a loser on this.

Ding, ding, ding. we have a winner.

It seems to me that the mall made up the claim that they were harassing anyone. If people were engaged in a heated discussion, and this was a problem, then all participants would have been told to leave. But the guys were approached while not discussing anything and told to take the shirts off, or leave.

[Hatteras]

"From what I understand, this isn't an issue of what kind of T-shirts these people were wearing. This IS about them engaging in a heated discussion with other mall patrons,..."

The son (early 30s) was on the radio yesterday and he said they were told that if they continued to wear the shirts they would be arrested. He took his shirt off, but his father balked and basically gave them an "Excuse me?!" look. After a brief moment he then told the police that they would have to arrest him.

[Skip Ripley]

I don't think it's a question of kicking out who you want to. I think it's a question of applying a rational standard to all parties rather than picking and choosing based on (apparently) political views.

And yes, I am a Conservative

[FreeTally]

A question for everyone on this thread who thinks the mall shouldn't have the right to kick out who it wants: Do you call yourselves "conservative"?

Does that "anyone" include blacks, Asians, Whites, Christians, fat people, midgets, children under 12, lesbians, police, politicians, wheelchair bound, people with green eyes and rodeo clowns?

[Hatteras]

"I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely curious."

Yes, I do. Why do you ask?

[sharktrager]

I don't support them mall. If those of us who disagree with them are "inflamed" by those shirts, that is our problem, not there's.

We need to be able to recognize that people disagree with us without becoming enraged.

[Zansman]

So you obviously would have no problem then if these guys were wearing PRO-WAR or PRO-BUSH t-shirts and thrown out?

You're absolutely right about the privately owned business part and I mentioned that as well. Was there a sign posted at the door saying "NO POLITICAL SHIRTS" or was it (more likely) something like "NO SHIRT, NO SHOES, NO SERVICE."

You said it's not the proper forum to display political viewpoints, what about the pro-marijuana or pro-gay shirts that I'm certain were also being worn at the mall on the same day? Should all those shopper's have been ousted as well?

Does the mall have the right to evict them? Of course.

Was the mall right in exercising its authority in this case? Sorry, but based on what I know no and I'd not spend a nickel of my money there.

[wizzler]

Oh, I see. So it's the government's job to decide what is "rational" or "fair"?

Do you think the government should be able to make the same judgments about property you own, such as your home?

The only thing that's "rational" is to let property owners decide who they want and don't want on their property. If they make stupid or detestable decisions, then let's call them stupid or detestable. But let's not strip them of their rights. Deny one man's rights, and you've denied us all.

[Notwithstanding]

I tremble to think that one day I will be kicked out of the mall for saying grace with my kids at the food court or wearing a pro-life slogan on my t-shirt.

Private property or not, once you invite all comers off the street to engage in commerce it seems that you take all comers as they are unless you post a notice as to what is not allowed (such as "no shirt, no shoes, no service" or "no Christians" or "no homosexuals" or "no guns" or "no patriotic t-shirts").

[wizzler]

Does that "anyone" include blacks, Asians, Whites, Christians, fat people ...

In a society that truly valued freedom, the answer would be yes. But then, Americans long ago traded in the concept of freedom for the nebulous notion of "equality." Judging from the comments here, that left-wing indoctrination has pretty much succeeded.

[Dahoser]

And is not the wording of the amendment, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." not Crossgates Mall? They weren't just guys who popped in wearing t-shirts the mall did not like, they were guys who got shirts made, immediately donned them, and headed for the Food Court where they could be seen by the most people. This is what the mall defines as creating a disturbance, something a private business does not have to tolerate.

If you watched the local news up here that night as I did, you'd have seen ignorance at its best: the father claiming there are so few places to speak out these days, the son claiming he's proud of his father for standing up for civil rights, and the news program billing it as simply an arrest for wearing a t-shirt. That ignorance predictably found its way across the country with this being called a denial of free speech. (Funny thing how telling the former president, "You suck!" resulted in the people responsible being wrestled to the ground, arrested and audited for their ill-advised words with nary a peep anywhere about free speech being denied.)

The arguments over the mall being a de facto public square can rage forever, but in the end, it's private property and they are under no obligation to let anyone protest there, and make no mistake, this was a protest. If a mall has to allow a moving protest (i.e., we were just walking around the mall wearing t-shirts), then it follows that it would also have to allow a stationary protest. In other words, a kiosk of the same type that a business has to pay the mall to set up. Of course, being a protest instead of a business, the expectation would be that there should be no cost for the kiosk thereby depriving the mall of revenue for that spot not to mention potentially alienating customers with the subject of the protest kiosk.