The law forbids privately-owned places of public accomodation from discriminating on the basis of race. In some places, it forbids discrimination on the basis of gender, and on sexual orientation.
I am unaware of any law forbidding discrimination in privately-owned places of public accomodation on the basis of political views. If I wished, I could place a security guard at the entrance to my mall, and require all that enter agree with war in Iraq, with two stars being removed from the US flag, or with the idea that abortions on demand be made available to all those making less than $50,000 per year. The law would not forbid me from doing so.
If you contend it would, then it’s up to you to trot the relevant statute out here. What law, specifically, do you contend forces a private owner of a place of public accomodation to accept a T-shirt wearer he doesn’t like?
If you can’t find such a law, please stop claiming there is one.
Gorsnak’s response, above, pretty much summed up my view on the subject. Particularly his first paragraph. I’ve little to add to that.
I’ll also agree with Gorsnak that something about this situation stinks. Either there are facts not in evidence (which I can accept as a theory only at this point), or the mall officials were just blatantly stupid. Stupidity is usually the simplest explanation.
And what cause of action, SPECIFICALLY, might his civil suit name?
I agree that if had simply been arrested without warning, then he’d have a case. But he was warned - he was told he had to leave. Once that happened, the reason was irrelevant (unless, as has been explored above, the reason was one forbidden by law). The mall could not order him to leave under pain of trespass because they didn’t like his race, or his religion. But these restrictions are imposed by law. The mall CAN order him to leave because they don’t like his shirt. There is no law that protects “choice of shirts” - or forces private individuals to honor “free expression”.
Right. And since it’s ludicrous to suggest that a t-shirt reading “Give Peace a Chance” should be considered “likely to cause disturbance” they did not violate that policy and the arrest was indeed arbitrary.
I mean, some people have a problem with uniformed police, security guards, or military personnel; perhaps they should be banned from the mall as well.
A few technical points about the shirts raised by other posts:
The shirts WERE bought in the mall, but the men had them custom-made … they were not off the rack
The men put the T-shirts on over their other clothes. So removing them posed no public nudity threat.
I just find this all terribly funny, since, when I was younger and angrier, my friend and I bought T-shirts off the rack at the mall that said, “Bang! You’re Dead/Killing is fun!” (with a stick figure drawing of someone shooting someone else) and “I HOPE YOU FUCKING DIE/Killing is fun!”
Boy, that “Let the Inspections Work” is disturbing, ain’t it?
Thanks for the TSG link, Thunderbug. Good to see the opposing side.
Well, since Gorsnak says, correctly, that he/she has no idea what the relevant precedents are, I’m pleased to hear you voice agreement.
As stupid and unfair as it sounds… the mall owners have a right to do this. I’m sorry you don’t like it, but that’s the way it is. I certainly don’t disagree that stupidity is a major factor here – and, frankly, the remedy is better than the law gettig involved: this mall will undoubtedly suffer a huge financial impact from their poor judgement.
I would assume the mall management would be allowed to exclude whomever it chose (with the exceptions already mentioned). The downside of this policy is that the management would then be forced to explain to the owners of the stores renting space there why it was alienating potential customers for (what looks to me like) fairly frivolous reasons. Even peaceniks buy stuff.
Of course. If I were a store owner, I’d be furious - I’m paying money for space from which the landlord is now excluding potential customers? It may well violate the terms of my lease.
But again, that’s a contractual matter between the stores and the mall. It doesn’t give rise to a right on the part of the T-shirt wearer…
Well, for one thing, there had recently been a protest by people that were wearing shirts with peace messages. Compound that with the police report from TSG, and it seems the security guards were perfectly justified in asking the gentleman to either change or leave.
When I first read the story, I thought it was ludicrous. But if the man was causing a disturbance, and was wearing attire similar to others who had caused a disturbance in the past, it seems fairly reasonable. And if the police report is accurate, the security guards had pretty good reason. You don’t think that some guys walking around harrassing others with their political views might be bad for business?
Lastly, the frequent claims that “it was bought in the mall, therefore it can’t be inappropriate to wear it there” don’t pan out, even if you ignore the fact that the shirts were custom-made. In the mall around here, I could go in and buy a thong bikini brief swimsuit. Does that mean that I should be able to wear that while prancing about the mall? Wouldn’t it cause a bit fo disturbance?
If the police report is accurate (and I see no reason to assume it’s not, unless you’re a conspiracy-minded sort), these protesters were in the wrong. The security guards acted properly. That being said, the mall will probably get screwed in the end.
Jeff
I imagine that if another patron of the Mall walked in wearing a shirt with Saddam, centered in a rifle scopes crosshairs, no one would even bat an eye.
No I don’t know all the circumstances. I think it is more likely that other shoppers in the mall were harassing the folks with the shirts on, then vice-versa. Why would you harass someone at large, without know their postion to start with?
Peace is a bad thing now? For the love the anything that is important, is this what we have come to in the US?
Whether the Mall had the legal right or not, this makes me sick to my stomach on so many levels, I can’t even begin to express my disgust at this point.
It doesn’t take a conspiracy theory to suspect strongly that the police report is “inflated”. The account described in the report is not remotely consistant with the account as described by the involved parties and witnesses. I’m not saying these are necessarily beyond suspicion (obviously), but it gives me plenty of reason to suspect the account as told by the guards.
Mind you, I think by the time the police arrived, the situation was handled appropriately (in accordance with Bricker’s description of the law). However, it seems unlikely to me that the guards would see (or be told of) someone harassing customers and then give them an ultimatum based on their shirts alone. So they were harassing customers, but if they had taken off their shirts it would have been ok? Or maybe the guards inflated their stories a little because they realized how this incident was going to be reported later. I don’t know, but I’m not deferring to the “authority” of Crossgates mall security guards.
Oh please. I didn’t claim there was a law. I merely stated that a business open to the public isn’t the same as a private residence with regards to removing people unwanted for whatever reason. You yourself admit this to be the case. And unless you’re a lawyer in NY, I don’t find your claims here particularly compelling. I have been given to understand that the matter of whether speech in such quasi-public areas can be restricted is not a matter of settled law, and that there are precedents on both sides of the issue. Perhaps you can clarify this, if you in fact have expertise on the subject. In such a case, there still wouldn’t be a law against such discrimination, unless you count the 1st Amendment as a law.
Bricker, there are a couple cases you may want to check out. In NLRB v. Calkins, 187 F.3d 1080 C.A.9,1999, the Court said:
SHAD Alliance v. Smith Haven Mall, 498 N.Y.S.2d 99 N.Y.,1985, is another interesting case. In that one, some anti-nuclear power groups sued after they had been ejected from a mall for distributing leaflets and engaging others in discussions. Now, the Court stated that:
They went on to find that the NY State Constitution was not implicated either because, as you pointed out, there was no State action.
However, in a concurring opinion, one judge stated:
He, and a dissenting judge, went on to discuss factors that may, in fact, make it so that a mall could be sued for not allowing some kinds of speech if they allow others.
Gorsnak-If the shirt wasn’t “causing a disturbance” on the rack in the store, why would it cause one on the back of the shopper?
and
Padeye- * his attire “likely to cause a disturbance,” is hopelessly vague and the fact he bought the shirt in the mall doesn’t help their case. It would be like a store that explicitly sold gang colors having a sign at the door reading “no gang colors.”*
Actually it was noted that they had the shirt “made” at the mall, at a print your own t-shirt shop. (as noted by Saen in post#5) I could certainly imagine a lawsuit if they had been refused service at that shop, but surely the mall is not going to be held to the same level of “freedom of expression”. As it stands, I don’t think there is any hypocrisy on this point.
I think it will make a difference how strenuously they were trying to get people to read the shirt. IANAL but I think the mall would be within it’s rights to supress solicitation for any purpose.
