Land of Free Speech

[diveaustin]

Northeastwrecks once bubbled...
As a preliminary matter, I think that this was absolutely bone-headed. Arresting this guy gives the term "farm animal stupid" new meaning.

That said, the mall is private property. As such, it is not subject to the First Amendment. In other words, unless the prohibition is based upon unlawful discrimination (race, gender, age, sexual orientation, handicap and, in some states, sexual preference), the owner can restrict access however it sees fit. For example, the owner could require formal wear on all patrons. Stupid, yes. Unlawful, no.

The owner was perfectly within its right to order the man off the premises because the order was not based on a prohibited category of discrimination.

In most states, the failure of a person to leave the premises after being ordered to do so by a person in control of the premises is a misdemeanor or a low key felony, depending on the state.

The troopers' analogy is unnecessary because you don't need to be in a house for the property to be private property.

The lawyer was ordered to leave private property. He failed to do so. The police asked him to leave and, when he refused, arrested him. Case closed.

If this had happened at a Federal Building, then I would be concerned. Since it happened on private property, I'm amused at my brother at the bar's stupidity and at the little lessons that life teaches.

Agreeed with and Well said Northeastwrecks.....Besides...It may be a pain in the kiester but what ever happened to the Right to Due Process?:boom:

 

[Northeastwrecks]

Arnaud once bubbled...
I don't know if political opinions are protected as say, race or religion, in NY for this type of situation. If they are, the guy should send a friend of his with a t-shirt pro-war and see what the reaction is... I can hear the ACLU roaring.

The short answer is no. The mall is private property used for a commercial purpose. It can eject anyone it wants, so long as the ban is not based on a prohibited category (see above post).

Nothing in our federal or state laws or constitutions prohibits a private property owner from ejecting people with whom the owner doesn't agree. The First Amendment is not applicable because the Government is not the entity doing the ejecting.

Once again, the mall owner could say that only people wearing red shirts are allowed in. It would be stupid, but it wouldn't be unlawful discrimination.

Diveaustin:

The accused is entitled to due process from the government in connection with his arrest and prosecution, not from a private entity.

Usually, the law on trespass requires an explicit direction to leave and a failure to obey before an arrest can be made. It sounds like the mall and the police complied.

BTW, very cool profile pic.

On a side note, this guy may find himself in a world of trouble. He needs to report his arrest and the disposition of his case to the entity that oversees attorneys.

Conviction of a crime, even one unrelated to his practice, is grounds for discipline. Whether it would happen is another matter, but talk about the icing on the cake.

 

[diveaustin]

Northeastwrecks once bubbled...


The short answer is no. The mall is private property used for a commercial purpose. It can eject anyone it wants, so long as the ban is not based on a prohibited category (see above post).

Nothing in our federal or state laws or constitutions prohibits a private property owner from ejecting people with whom the owner doesn't agree. The First Amendment is not applicable because the Government is not the entity doing the ejecting.

Once again, the mall owner could say that only people wearing red shirts are allowed in. It would be stupid, but it wouldn't be unlawful discrimination.

Diveaustin:

The accused is entitled to due process from the government in connection with his arrest and prosecution, not from a private entity.

Usually, the law on trespass requires an explicit direction to leave and a failure to obey before an arrest can be made. It sounds like the mall and the police complied.

BTW, very cool profile pic.

On a side note, this guy may find himself in a world of trouble. He needs to report his arrest and the disposition of his case to the entity that oversees attorneys.

Conviction of a crime, even one unrelated to his practice, is grounds for discipline. Whether it would happen is another matter, but talk about the icing on the cake.

Given whats going on in the world wouldn't you hate to be the judge? Laws are written and enforced by men.....imperfect creatures. Sure sounds cut and dry but I sure can see a curve coming with this one. What do you think?

 

[WreckWriter]

edited for being out of line

WW

 

[Arnaud]

It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement, because of the race, creed , color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, or disability or marital status of any person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof, including the extension of credit, or, directly or indirectly, to publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any such place shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on account of race, creed , color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex, or disability or marital status, or that the patronage or custom thereat of any person of or purporting to be of any particular race, creed , color, national origin, sexual orientation, sex or marital status, or having a disability is unwelcome, objectionable or not acceptable, desired or solicited.

excerpt from NY Human Rights Law

Isn't this applicable here?

 

[Cherry]

i guess your rules are very different in the US. In Canada the Mall would be considered a public place. Public place being defined by the public access offered by the owner. any public place is subject to legal and appropriate behaviour. to describe this as bone headed as NEwrecks described is correct. I think those of you in the US who would defend your constitution have a very important role right now. It is up to you to make sure that security is balanced by individual rights. I have a bet with a business partner that there will be no war. He says I'm wrong that US citizens are more concerned with security than individual rights and majority opinion. I hope he is wrong. Once you begin to wittle away at your constitution you give Al-queada a big win.

Its a great document defend it not with blood and bullets but with your laws.

Cherry

 

[WreckWriter]

Arnaud once bubbled...

You don't have the right to insist. You're a visitor in our country.

WW

content edited

 

[FredT]

The facts as presented appear to show:

1. The arrested individual was making a political statement.

2. The individual was asked several times to cease making the statement or leave.

3. He refused both options and got busted for trespassing.

The things I'd like to see determined:

1. Does the mall, as do many retail establishments, routinely restrict political statements on their property by ALL sides of any issue?

2. Will the lawyer simply "take his medicine" as an officer of the court or will he try to weasel out of it?

The Mall is a place for THE OWNERS to extract gilt from the public. Having a customer or anyone else make political statements on their property is bound to piss off some other customers, thus limiting the gilt that can be extracted from them. Making a retail establishment a "safe zone" in ANY political argument is simply good business.


Arnaud,

Take the idiology, hate and prejudice out of your arguments, then see what's left.

FT

 

[Arnaud]

FredT once bubbled...
Arnaud,

Take the idiology, hate and prejudice out of your arguments, then see what's left.

FT

What ideology? What hate?

The only questions are:

1. Does the mall or the food court qualifies as "any place of public accommodation, resort or amusement". I don't know the case law, but reading the definition in the Statute, I believe it does.

2. Isn't a political message on a t-shirt, no matter what the actual message is, considered a creed and as such protected by the statute? If yes, this seems like a discrimination case.

If someone wears a G.W Bush pin in a mall, should he or she be kicked out by the owner because the owner is a Democrat and doesn't like Bush? I certainly don't think so.

 

[Ontario Diver]

WreckWriter once bubbled...


You don't have the right to insist. You're a visitor in our country. If you don't like the way we do it, get the **** out. Go somewhere that people agree with your pussy attitude.

WW

What ever happened to "the right to free speech" and "I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." And it AIN"T an "anti-american attitude" to prefer peace over war.... most warriors do.

(and I really hate that song....)