Aqua-Soft ForumsOt: You Guys Have To Read This!
Wow, that's kind of odd.
I'm sure he'll beat the charge though, seeing as how he is the director of a state judical oversite commission.
I don't think any judge in their right mind would convict the guy.
Bling Bling,
Grusic
yup read abuot it over at neowin. some **** huh?
i think they are going way too far with this, getting arrested for wearing a t-shirt? (i know thats not the reason for the main arrest but inside it is i bet)
wats next? we lose our freedom of speech? oh wait.. we already lost that 
btw can threedrives can u continue ur topc sentence, you said something before its....
What about free speech? What ever happened to that?
I know war is unavoidable, but come on, this is fascist.
edit: it's also pretty stupid to arrest a lawyer 
Shak:
Thanks for the other site "AquaXP", it gave me a place to keep in touch with people while AquaSoft was down. Good job you did!
-----------------------
hehe... Only in the **Land Of The Free**
Sometimes I'm glad i live in crappy old England, at least we're allowed to protest here
fissy
PS, War isn't the only way: http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
fissy
I'm sure that he will win in the court. Although the mall is a private place in terms of ownership, it qualifies as a public place.
If he was conducting some form of organized protest then it could be regulated as a private place and force him to obtain a permit from the Mall owners or corporation to be there. Since his intention there or business there was the same as any other shopper, to look and shop then what he wears becomes a personal form of speech no different than the clothes other people wear. I'm sure we will hear more on this in the news, unless the Mall drops all charges.
Originally posted by fissyb@Mar 5 2003, 11:25 PMhehe... Only in the **Land Of The Free**
Sometimes I'm glad i live in crappy old England, at least we're allowed to protest here
fissy
PS, War isn't the only way: http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
I live in the US and i c both sides protest with no problems.
Unfortunatly there are few wackos in each side.
Make sure you guys not gliding into politics. Thanks.
fissyb,.. I am lying on the ground in hysterics,..... that **** is incredibly funny masturbate 4 peace,.. touch your sack not iraq???????? that is the funniestthing i have ever seen on the net,.. thank you so lots much goddamn i gasping for breath
here is something funnier:
terrorism is a ****ty cl*t, chop it off and be a surviving eastwood clint.
I wont comment on my political view on this matter, but I think that is pretty ****ed up. (even though I dont agree with the stupid guy) WOOPS! Did I say something?? I guess it just slipped. 
Oh well! Sorry!
O.K.
I just saw the guys on T.V., and apparently they did it on purpose. They said that they went to a T-shirt printing shop inside the mall and after they got their T-shirts they put them on and went to the food court. May Co. (Large Clothing Store) called the mall security and asked to remove the protestors from the mall. Then they said that the security and the police charged them with tresspassing after not wanting to leave. They also stated that they were aware that in previous days other people were removed for protesting inside the mall.
I think they will win the case, but that will not give anybody a license to go into the mall and conduct a protest. They will win, I think because they were not organizing a protest. The fact that they were wearing the T-Shirts is not enough to charge them with conducting a protest inside private property, since they were eating at the food court.
Because they knew that the mall had encountered protestors before and were removed, their actions were premeditated to challenge the mall legally. I don't sympathize with the way they went about it.
Darn it! - angry: I had a picture of the guys to post it but the picture-server is down probably for a day (pics.paulsonator.com).
use sigup.com
btw I think now the mall has a sign that says please do not wear anything that are debatable matters or something like that..
HA! If the mall doesnt like what I wear then we shall see how much longer I shop there huh! I mean, its not like the mall are losing money to the internet or anything 
!
Here is the picture:
From the point of view of the mall, it is not what you wear but what is your intention of conduct inside private property. Can you kick out a guy that stands in your front yard with a T-Shirt that says Child molestor lives here. You will call the police to throw this guy out of your property but he will say it is his freedom of speech to wear what he wants. So it depends the circumstances.
I have a 'shut-up and Gimmie head' shirt and I haven't been removed from any shopping centres, but then again I could wear something positive and informative and would be.
It goes like this: If you can't figure common sense, it means you don't have any.
Another way of putting this case is your rights of freedom of speech or any other freedom end where someone else's right begins.
I now saw a second interview of these guys and they are showing to be a bunch of clowns. They even had a parade of 20 or so protesters marching with the same T-shirts that they got printed., which apparently happened the day before or a few days before. If that is the case, then they have no rights to practice their freedom of speech in a private place. Since the mall has a policy to prevent such activities their rights end where the mall rights begin. The activities of shopping and consuming goods in a mall was just a rouse to challenge the mall authority over their activities to protest. If the mall ever goes to court and shows the tape that these clowns provided they can be arrested or fined.
I now have the suspicion that they were part of this protesting group and went back to see if they could generate a lawsuit against the mall. Sorry- They might get the Turkey Award. 
Well, if this would have happened under Stalin I would understand it.
Have you lost your common sense ? To what extent can you compare the guy in the 'child molester lives here' t-shirt in your front yard with a guy with 'give peace a chance' t-shirt in a mall ?
I would not consider the t-shirt guys clowns, but the security guards pit-bulls.
To the extent that you can claim that they somehow disturbed the peace (hahaha) in the shopping temple by wearing a 'peace' t-shirt, I bet that you can go in any mall and thrash two dozen teen agers that wear t-shirts like 'I hear voices in my head and they don't like you' ( or the Che Guevarra ones) and such.
Again the common sense might just be lost in the pitt-bulls pockets when a statement like 'make peace' on a t-shirt can get you out from a mall.
I came from a former communist country and this is just the kind of thing the people got out and died for in 1989 - so nobody will dare to tell them what to wear ( or to say for that matter).
And here it is - 2003 in the USA and this looks like a terrible deja-vu.
For somebody that has seen the communism in one of its worst forms ( I am from Romania) I find this disturbing. And I would find as disturbing if the guy(s) would have had a 'kill Saddam' t-shirt.
You are trying to offset the common sense of wearing a non-offending t-shirt with some sort of savant free-speech vs. private property
When you try to make this point you do not realise that based on your arguments in this country any printed t-shirt could get you out of absolutely any place except your own house .
I agree.
1.) I don't think what matters is what is written on the t-shirt.
I doubt anyone would have got kicked out wearing a "Saddam Sucks" T-shirt do you?
They just got kicked out of the mall because they voiced an opinion that went against their president.
2.) But whatever... the fact that the slogans "Peace on Earth" and "Give
peace a chance" are considered offensive - or even controversial - is
a measure of the hell that men in power have made of the human species.
What does it mean to you that the phrase "Peace on Earth" is considered a criticism of Bush?
I'm sorry if i caused offence with my post, i was writing in shock.
I thought free speech was supposed to be a principle irrespective of property rights, ok you might not want someone wearing a t-shirt designed to annoy you in your own home but this seems a bit fascist to arrest some people with the *wrong clothing* because the mall is legally not public property.
IMHO, the fact that these people might have walked in knowing they were going to get arrested is irrelevant, it just highlights the stupidity of the mall guards for arresting them. They weren't doing anything "wrong" were they? To me this seems to be the sort of human rights abuse our 2 countries are going to invade iraq unilaterally for.
i've never set foot on a plane (and won't for years now that i'm a uni student), so haven't had the chance to see the US for myself but the fact that it reminds Vlad of a totalitarianist regime ought to make a few of you guys out there think.
Oh yeah, when i said "only in the US," i was lying, i have been held and searched for holding up a banner to the queen with "Republic" written on it. F@@@@@@ idiots everywhere.
fissy,
And remember guys, You can't whack off with nuclear Arms
When you try to make this point you do not realize that based on your arguments in this country any printed t-shirt could get you out of absolutely any place except your own house .
That is exactly the point I'm making because that is the law. It does not matter what is printed on the T-shirt. All your rights end where someone else’s rights begin. Freedom of Speech and many other freedoms do not apply inside private property. This is the law. The only exception to this is when the State is given the right to intervene inside private property when questions of general health threat is concerned or general public safety. Nobody has the right to speak or conduct any protest or even enter any private property without permission. One can argue that a mall is not private property but that in front of the law is a very poor and insignificant answer. Private property that has "public access" is only considered a public place to conduct business defined and regulated by those owners. If you go to a restaurant in the U.S. or anywhere in the world with a T-shirt that says F**K You, you can legally be removed from the property because the owner did not grant you any permission to express yourself that way in his property. Why do you think some restaurants in the U.S. and in Europe and in Latin America have dress codes? Do you think you can enter the lobby of a private company sit down with a T-shirt that they don't approve and read the newspaper? No! You are violating the Freedom of Speech of the owners, because you are using their property to speak and express your point of view. The owners Freedom of Speech is to silence your point of view within their property. The so called Constitutional Freedom of Speech and many other freedoms granted by the State to citizens apply only to property owned by the State or where the State finances a portion of a private business. That means your freedom applies to the streets of a city or to property owned by the city government or State government.
The fact that you are not thrown out of any mall or small business does not mean that you have a right to wear anything you choose when you enter those businesses. It all depends on the way that business feels about your conduct in their property.
Many shops just don't want to call the police every week to throw people out. Many police departments don't want to respond to such calls when they need to respond to robberies, and homicides,and drug busts, but if forced by private owners they don't have much choice.
Disneyland has thrown out of their amusement parks during the 80s and early 90s people that have displayed public homosexual behavior, such as kissing between 2 grown men or repeated close romantic behavior of same sex couples. The law upheld that policy since such freedom of expression does not extend to private property. Several amusement parks in California have not allowed kids from entering the amusement park based on color combination of their clothes and given styles of clothes, even with no specific words written on them. This was also upheld in court because private property owners can regulate behavior within their ownership. Why would they do this? Because there were gang violence and shootings inside the amusement park where such gangs distinguished themselves by color combination of apparel.
Even Freedom of Speech is not absolute giving you the right to say anything. There are times what you say can be a crime: hate speech is a crime, yelling fire in a business when knowingly such a fire does not exist is a crime, in some cities wearing clothes with sexually explicit words or common cursing words may get you a fine from the city under the local moral code voted by the local citizens. Just as sexual material and shops can be regulated from where they can conduct business and to what degree they can visually expose the public to their items or services is regulated by local laws under morality determined locally. You don't have the right to spread speech that is considered trash or offensive by local communities. The whole concept of Freedom of Speech was not a blank check for people to say anything and everything they want to say. Freedom of Speech was conceptualized to allow you to speak against the government or religious and political institutions in public=government owned/controlled property without government retribution. The key is political speech in government property, not in private property. As time went by such freedom was extended to businesses that receive government assistance but that is all.
The example I gave applies, you do not have the right to stand in front of somebody's front yard (which is private property) and wear an offensive shirt or demonstrate. You may stand in the sidewalk in front of the house (which is city owned and demonstrate) provided again that the city sees that you are not blocking the usage of the sidewalk for others or you are not having a local impact of usage of the street traffic or you are not endangering the lives and safety of onlookers. In such cases where your demonstration can have such an effect you must ask permission of the city or register for permission so that the city may take the proper steps to give public safety.
In short you may enter a private business to conduct behavior that is consistence with the reasons the business exists and grants permission within the context of doing business. You may enter a restaurant to eat. You may enter a shop to look at the merchandise and buy. You may not enter a restaurant to sing or display your free speech. You may not go into a shop to shout obscenities or engage in other behavior such as a sit-in to express an opinion. If you don't know this then you don't know what the law is and what rights other people have which some choose to trample on. The particular case of the mall is not an open shut case but given that people were entering a private property to conduct activities outside the purpose of normal business is almost an open shut case for a violation of the law where people think they have the right to impose their freedom by denying the freedom of others.
Go to the Smoking Gun web site. They have depositions there from the people involved.
These two dip****s weren't removed from the mall simply for "wearing shirts". They were stopping people in the mall and harassing them. In at least one instance, they provoked a verbal fight that a customer felt compelled to report because she was afraid violence might erupt.
The mall has every right, and in fact, an obligation to provide its customers with a friendly environment. Those customers include store owners who don't want potential customers scared away by two jerkoffs who feel the need to harangue people with their minority view of the Iraq situation, whether they want to hear it or not.
It's not a freedom of speech issue at all. The mall is private property, not a public space. Its management can decide what constitutes a threatening or unpleasant environment for their customers, and it reserves the right to kick anyone out who creates a disturbance, which these two morons were doing.
They cant do everything because it's private property, they cant ban say Jews or Blacks can they now?
Apart from the technical "man's law" details, apart from all the stuff that I call petty and pedantics,
How can you call someone who stands up (literally out of the chair your sitting in now and into a mall) for peace a moron?
I shouldn't have to say,.... just look inside your heart and tell me whats right? I'm not saying if the guy is right or wrong or naive or a hippie or whatever, just look at the measure of the man,... believing in something! And in what? What is it that he ( a man JUST like you) is willing to "risk" embarrasment and mockery over? yes... nothing but that one thing that everybody has forgotten, and the one thing we never saw depart our civilisation ever so stealthily,..... peace.
man I almost feel gay using that word,.... that is what men in power have made of that word ever since 'Nam.
I cant even say uhm,.. sorry i don't want hate, death, resentment, war I just want peace and love.
dont you think it's strange that someone gets kicked out of a mall for advocating peace?
I use the word "strange" because I have respect for you guys,.. I actually want to use the word "god dam ludicrous",... but I don't know how much you guys (who I respect) are into violence and destruction.