Police Arrest 80-year-old Church Deacon for Anti War T-shirt

fuzzy_dogs_mom

I would agree if this were mall policy and posted at the entrance where everyone could see it.  Apparently this was in response to other customers who took offense.  What's going to happen when someone takes offense because someone with Down Syndrome is in a restaurant near them?  Or someone finds overweight people offensive? Or someone decides that someone elses shorts are too short, or their top is cut too low?  Where is it going to end?  Personally, what I find most offensive are people who not only take offense at everything and anything, but then expect others to change their way of dressing, their hairstyle, their "look", their political/religious expressions to suit them. But then I'm still a radical child of the free speech movement, complete with the sit-ins and lie-ins and bra burnings.

Joyce

 

 

But again, they don't have to post it, they have the right to use their discretion.  The group this guy was in was not told to just leave, they were asked to remove the shirts.  They refused, and were then asked to leave.  Too bad so sad as far as I'm concerned.

As far as the examples you gave, the first two might actually be covered by law (as in the mall cannot act just because the people are offended or else get sued), but a business can most certainly ask you to leave if you are scankily dressed to the point that you offend someone (which in our mall would mean that you'd practically have to be naked.  Heck, there have been restaurants and airlines that have removed screaming children because other customers have complained.

It's hardly like there is a rash of anti-war senior citizens being dragged out of malls throughout the country.  It clear to me that this guy was there to make a spectacle of himself and he succeeded beautifully.

sillysally

As far as the examples you gave, the first two might actually be covered by law

I thought Free Speech was covered by law, too...   It sounds as though if this mall is allowed to use their discretion and throw people out who are offending others, then they could as easily ask the black people to leave because some of the shoppers are offended by them and they are "causing a disturbance".

This man was just sitting having coffee.  

There's a difference between private property and public access private property. A mall is not the same as someone's home.  

When Private Property Isn't

Any owner or manager of property generally open to the public must be prepared for situations like this, and so must its lawyers. In some circumstances, the rights of private property ownership yield to the constitutional rights of free expression guaranteed to all members of the public. The task is to learn the precise extent to which, or situations in which, the rights of private property ownership must give way. Even when an owner must make a concession of public access for expressive purposes, limits may be placed on the conduct of persons who wish to use private property for those purposes. An owner should have in place a set of rules and regulations that both recognize and enforce those limits.
...
As a result of this line of Supreme Court decisions, it is now reasonably well settled that the U.S. Constitution provides that limited expressive rights of the public may prevail over certain private property rights. But the inquiry does not end here. As a matter of their constitutions, some states have further expanded the public's free expression rights while shrinking equivalently the rights of private property owners.
...
Owners and managers of property generally open to the public must be prepared when individuals or groups seek to express their views on the premises. They will be prepared if, with the assistance of their counsel, they have promulgated and are willing to follow a set of rules and regulations that comply with federal and applicable state law.

It's far from clear (to me) if this mall even acted within the law. The man was not actively protesting, holding a sign  OR handing out anything at the time of his arrest. The only request he refused was to remove his shirt. He was sitting in the food court drinking coffee with his wife at the time of his arrest.

On Saturday, Zirkel, 80, was at an anti-war rally outside the mall  [...] During the rally, Zirkel and his wife went into the mall's food court for coffee and French fries. [...] Police also said Zirkel was passing out leaflets at the mall, a charge he disputes.

Source

Something is terribly wrong here...  

Thats the offensive shirt? I expected more blood and guts or pictures of dead soldiers.

  I mean it really is not offensive at all, and I am saying that from the side that is more supportive of the war.

and the old guy says he was not passing out leaflets which in my opinion is the only real reason they might have for tossing him out. Or if he was yelling or preaching or causing a disturbance.

 I see far more offensive shirts on a regular basis being worn by teens, not to mention I am always being forced to look at teenage boys underwear or butt crack because they refuse to pull up their dang pants.