Peace T-shirt leads to man's arrest

[mf_dolphin]

While I don't agree with these two on their views I think that this is a dangerous precedence. It will be interesting to see if this ends up in the court system. Free speech is an issue that deserves protecting!

GUILDERLAND, N.Y., March 4 - A Selkirk man says he was arrested Monday for expressing his objection to possible war with Iraq at Crossgates Mall. He says all he did was wear a T-shirt bearing a message of peace, which he actually purchased in the mall.
By Lindsay Cohen

STEPHEN DOWNS AND his son, Roger Downs, each had a pro-peace shirt made Monday night. One shirt simply said "Let Inspections Work" on one side and "No War With Iraq" on the other. The other shirt said "Give Peace A Chance" on the front and "Peace On Earth" on the back. The men paid about $23 for each of the shirts and then wore them in the mall.
"We were just shopping. We were wearing these T-shirts. We weren't handing out leaflets, we weren't saying anything," Roger Downs recalled.
They may not have been saying anything, but they were creating enough of a disturbance to one employee, who called security.
Security asked Downs and his son to remove their shirts. Roger Downs complied, but when Stephen Downs wouldn't, he was told to leave the mall. When he refused, he was arrested.
"This struck me as a powerful way of expressing myself. I wanted to do something peaceful," he said.
Roger Downs says he is proud of his father.
"I'm impressed that he's refused to have his civil rights violated," Roger Downs said.
New York Civil Liberties Union President Stephen Gottlieb says he can't believe the peaceful T-shirts could lead to Downs' arrest.
"We believe, most of us, in the Bill of Rights, and we believe that protects the freedom to speak. Well, if there's a freedom of speech, where do we get to do it?" Gottlieb asked.
Gottlieb says he believes there is a law protecting peoples' rights to free speech, even in shopping malls.
Guilderland police say they arrested Downs because he refused to leave private property. That, they say, is trespassing.
Representatives for Crossgates did not return calls for comment Tuesday.
Signs posted at entrances to the mall say that "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited" at the mall.

[Rainband]

I agree, this is AMERICA!!!!




Johnathan

[sunny shine]

I hardly doubt that the actual T-shirt was behind the reason for his arrest. Sounds to me like this man was causing a disturbance in a store that upset an employee. When security asked him to leave I am sure he caused a scene that escalated the situation. The media never tells but one side of the story anyway. He has his rights to free speech, but when you break the laws trying to impose your belief on others then it becomes another issue. Laws are laws and rules are rules.

[mf_dolphin]

The sticky issue here is that they were on private land. Malls across America have been restricting stuff to avoid gang problems and such nonsence. However, I'm surprised that these shirts would be classified in the same vein. The ACLU will be having a field day with this one....

[Rainband]

I agree Marshall and think they should have thought more about this before they acted




Johnathan

[sunny shine]

The ACLU tends to be lop sided when it comes to ANY issue these days. They will have no case here. All they can do is blow hot air like they normally do.

[chadtm80]

I hardly doubt that the actual T-shirt was behind the reason for his arrest. Sounds to me like this man was causing a disturbance in a store that upset an employee. When security asked him to leave I am sure he caused a scene that escalated the situation. The media never tells but one side of the story anyway. He has his rights to free speech, but when you break the laws trying to impose your belief on others then it becomes another issue. Laws are laws and rules are rules.

I agree with you 100% on this one.

[j]

I hardly doubt that the actual T-shirt was behind the reason for his arrest. Sounds to me like this man was causing a disturbance in a store that upset an employee. When security asked him to leave I am sure he caused a scene that escalated the situation. The media never tells but one side of the story anyway. He has his rights to free speech, but when you break the laws trying to impose your belief on others then it becomes another issue. Laws are laws and rules are rules.

I'm with you sunny.....without a doubt there is more to it than the press is reporting. But...should we be surprised???

[mf_dolphin]

Good point Sunnyshine! I can't wait to hear the "other side of the story"!
Where's Paul Harvey when you really need him? :o

[chadtm80]

Just like when people use the race card

[sunny shine]

Exactly Chad. Nowadays, people go out, break the laws and rules, and when caught they holler "racism or discrimination". Or the almighty "violated my rights". As usual, the ACLU steps in to defend them but tends to forget about ALL rules and laws that were broken. The media plays into it because of the race issue. The media tries to paint the person breaking the law as a victim based on their race. But should report that this so called victim broke the laws that any other American citizen follows.

j... should we be surprised? Indeed not. IMO... the ACLU is about as irrelevant as the United Nations.

[Aslkahuna]

American Criminal Liberties Union.

Steve

[JQ Public]

I heard these same security personel did the same thing earlier to 20 people wearing that shirt. I don't know ifhey were protesting or what...probably were

[streetsoldier]

HERE'S Relativism for ya...

My son can't wear any T-shirt with alcohol ads or Christian references to school, but he can and has worn a "Mr. Hanky, the Christmas turd" T-shirt w/o comment...

I am seriously considering obtaining an "Endangered Feces" T-shirt to test the waters further...

[firefighter16]

Things that make you go HMMMMM. :?

[j]

I heard these same security personel did the same thing earlier to 20 people wearing that shirt. I don't know ifhey were protesting or what...probably were

Well....as always OReilly was right on top of this one last night with a personal interview with Mr. Peacenick and Son. In reference to the 20 people previously ....yes they WERE protesting. These 2 claim they were doing nothing but wearing the shirts and heading to the food court for some supper. (and I'll add this....to see just how many people they could piss off). Much to my surprise...Mr. O was totally on their side as long as they weren't protesting. However, there is a law in that County, which supports the Police legally asking these people to one, remove the offensive shirts, or two, leave the mall. The father refused to leave, so he was arrested. After listening to the interview, it seems the only thing open for debate was whether the Police told them what law they had or would be breaking.

Is there anybody out there that can tell me what the Police are required to do legally before an arrest is made?

I know all you out there that totally support a persons rigfht to free speech and expression are going to jump all over me for defending in this case, the Shopping Mall's right to have a person removed that is disuptive by vitue of his actions, which by law are not allowed, or by their actions having a negative impact on their ability to conduct their business free from disruptions that obviously they WERE causing.

Also....these 2 peacenicks knew exactly what they were doing, because they admitted having knowledge of the 20 protestors that were arrested in this very same mall for wearing these shirts, or similar shirts at an earlier date. Their defense is they weren't "protesting".

[streetsoldier]

OK, let me place this in perspective for you...

Back in...uh...1974(?), there was a small shopping mall that had a white-supremacy "bookstore" renting space there. One fine day, one of these characters decides to walk out in the open area within the mall, brown shirt, swastika and all, holding an "Aryan Race = White Power" sign and passing out leaflets to the shoppers.

On a complaint from the mall developers, I and my partner were called in, and told this guy to "cease and desist", or face prosecution for trespassing and public disturbance. HE claimed that he was on "public property" and had the right of free speech....I told him that NO, this was PRIVATE property, to which the public was invited for the purpose of doing business; and as long as he stayed within the "bookstore" he could do as he pleased, but not out in the mall enclosure.

After about a three-second staring contest, he gave me a stiff-arm salute and marched himself back to the storefront whence he came, w/o further incident.

The only difference I see here is that the offending people came from OUTSIDE, had prior knowledge of previous arrests at that locale (testing the limits) and the officers may have had specific instructions to that effect (arrest) by the mall propreitors, who have the right to regulate what is permitted on their property.

Questions?

[blizzard]

I'd post more on this issue, but Sunny Shine has captured my thoughts exactly.

American Criminal Liberties Union.

Steve

This one was also great.....lol