Protester Arrested

Concordia

Swabbie
Banned
A guy who had an anti-war shirt on was arrested in a food-court in a mall. The shirt said "Give Peace a Chance".

Two security guards demanded he take off the shirt; he refused. He was arrested.

WTF? I thought freedom of speach was in effect so that you can criticize the government without fear of being restrained by said government.

The fact that he was restrained shows that freedom of speach is no longer valid.

Maybe I *should* move to Canada.

-Concordia
 

Frosty

a full fledged GF
Originally posted by Concordia
WTF? I thought freedom of [speech] was in effect so that you can criticize the government without fear of being restrained by said government.
Yeah, rent-a-cops aren't the government. Good way to jump to obscene conclusions there, though, I was impressed.
 

Skyfire

Spaceman
Re: Re: Protester Arrested

Originally posted by Frosty
Yeah, rent-a-cops aren't the government. Good way to jump to obscene conclusions there, though, I was impressed.
Thanks be to Frosty for bein' around on this one-I don't think I could have stated this any better.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
That sounded strange. We must have more details before any conclusions are taken. Frosty raised a good point.
 

ChrisReid

Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Originally posted by Concordia
WTF? I thought freedom of speach was in effect so that you can criticize the government without fear of being restrained by said government.

The fact that he was restrained shows that freedom of speach is no longer valid.
You never have unlimited freedom of speech, ESPECIALLY in war time. This has been firmly established in the courts. This is exactly how it looked 60 years ago:
Fred Korematsu: "Hey, locking up 100,000 American citizens in concentration camps for no reason is unconstitutional!"
Supreme Court: "Go to hell, this is war."
Now to come back down to this example. He was in a mall. The mall security told him to take the shirt off or leave. It's their mall. They have the exact same ability to toss you out of the mall that you do to toss some intruder out of your home. What would make you think they didn't? The shirt-wearer in question refused to submit to either of the mall-owners' requests, so the mall had no choice but to call the real police to haul him out for trespassing. This is perfectly normal and has nothing to do with freedom of speech. I've gotted people hauled out of my store and my mall for exactly the same reason. Deal with it.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
If someone with a "pseudo pacifism suck" T-Shirt was thrown out of a mall, no one would care.
 

TopGun

Vampire Ace
Originally posted by Concordia
A guy who had an anti-war shirt on was arrested in a food-court in a mall. The shirt said "Give Peace a Chance".

Two security guards demanded he take off the shirt; he refused. He was arrested.

WTF? I thought freedom of speach was in effect so that you can criticize the government without fear of being restrained by said government.

The fact that he was restrained shows that freedom of speach is no longer valid.

Maybe I *should* move to Canada.

-Concordia
I wonder if this would happen in the UK?
 

Quarto

Unknown Enemy
Wow, I agree with Frosty... so, uh, why hasn't the world ended?

This could happen anywhere, and there's nothing strange or shocking about it. Free speech doesn't apply in this case - the guy was on private property, and therefore was obliged to follow the instructions of the owner. It's like when a friend invites you over - you don't go out of your way to insult him/her, at least not without expecting to be kicked out. While, in this case, the protester wasn't trying to insult anyone, the owners have every right to throw him out or refuse him service anyway. They're not legally obliged to let just anyone in.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Well, it's not such absolute right, since the place is open to the public. It's not like it's someone's house, since it's a business place. They still have the right, but it's not exactly the same kind of right you have over your home, which is much greater. This varies depending on local law, of course.
 

t.c.cgi

Vice Admiral
They may have had a problem with fights between pacifists and those that are pro-war happen in their mall. In an effort to "give peace a chance", they decided to remove someone wearing what a few would concider highly inflamatory. This is just one of the many sub-reasons there could have been. However thanks to Concodia's lack of any real evidence that this even happened at all, it could have been some exagerated story told at the local water cooler.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Well, the text is way too vague. Now, try walk into Disneyworld wearing a minnie/mickey bootleg pr0n t-shirt, and you'll now what free speech is all about.
 

Pedro

Admiral
No, it would never happen in the UK, I'd underline the differences between the two countries at present, however I think despite however many reasons there are to goto war we know bush is doing it for oil and blair is doing it to stay on his good side. This has been voiced numerous times, no ones stopping it, no one cares, we're just in general more comfortable as a country.

EDIT: Well people care, but its just talk and isn't escalated by excessive censorship.
 

Delance

Victory, you say?
Originally posted by Frosty
I love Disney World, it's like the best place I've ever been.
You won't like it so much if you try to get in with the wrong kind of clothing.
 

LeHah

212 Squadron - "The Old Man's Eyes And Ears"
Originally posted by Delance
Well, the text is way too vague. Now, try walk into Disneyworld wearing a minnie/mickey bootleg pr0n t-shirt, and you'll now what free speech is all about.
Free speech doesn't exist in places like Disneyworld or schools simply because they have to maintain order and a "tolerance" of all types. You surrender your privilege of Free Speech the moment you walk through those doors. Tolerance through intolerance.
 

Phillip Tanaka

Swabbie
Banned
Well looking at the news report, here's my thoughts.

This was a T Shirt made up and worn of Stephen Downs' own chosing. He made it up and wore it because has those beliefs about the war. Whether you think he is right or not is moot. He believed he had every right to be able to make up and wear that shirt.

In wearing that shirt, Stephen Downs would have to know he might be set upon by right wing pro war supporters. And to some people, wearing a shirt proclaiming how they do not want a war is like wearing a shirt made of the American flag as a member of the Taliban.

The shirt had obviously been cause for distress for someone who was sensitive on the issue. Now, to say why this is important, think how on airlines, people have been arrested for making comments about bombs or the plane crashing into buildings. Some people would be uneasy enough, especially in America where the entire country was almost at battle stations, at orange alert. But to have talk of terrorism or talk of war would add to the stress. Yes, the shirt was one of peace, but it still might have been considered inappropriate because of, as I said earlier, it might cause conflict.

How uncompliant was Stephen Downs? Was it explained to him why he should remove the shirt? I know that a lot of anti war movement is cause for distress, and in fact they have only taken to the streets for the odd protest, not trying to push the message every day like they were. In Stephen Downs' case, he refused to follow the instructions of the mall, believing, maybe rightfully, that he was not causing any harm. And this was what led to his arrest.

Stephen Downs being ordered to remove the shirt, and the subsequent removal of Stephen Downs, may have been done to avoid conflict. The mall security may have been looking out for his own well being. Someone might have bashed his head in for his shirt. Hey, I'm not saying that he deserves to, he doesn't. But someone might have.

Remember the Mandarins? Tolwyn said how the Mandarins had gone from misguided pacifism to passive treason to outright colloboration. I feel that we have our own Mandarins if you were to follow these guidelines. Misguided pacifism, which was most clearly seen with the protest against fighting terrorism. Passive treason, breaking the law, such as when protests turn violent. Outright colloboration, human shields. In the most extreme, so extreme I wouldn't count it, but someone might, Stephen Downs showed misguided pacifism and passive treason. But to apply it in this sense I think is silly.

So what's my point? Hopefully now you can make a clear and concious decision, based on your education, beliefs and upbringing, whether or not Stephen Downs was right or wrong in his actions.

Originally posted by Pedro
No, it would never happen in the UK, I'd underline the differences between the two countries at present, however I think despite however many reasons there are to goto war we know bush is doing it for oil and blair is doing it to stay on his good side. This has been voiced numerous times, no ones stopping it, no one cares, we're just in general more comfortable as a country.

EDIT: Well people care, but its just talk and isn't escalated by excessive censorship.
Funny. I haven't heard in months that the war is all about the oil, and thought that people had given up trying to prove it. Is this something you have proof of, or your own opinion?
 

junior

Spaceman
The war for oil comment is what you hear from people who forget that the oil fields are probably all going to be torched the day war starts. Yeah, that'll help the world's oil supply.

Back to the original topic.
Unfortunately, there is a lot of intolerance on both sides. I've noted that the anti-war intolerance tends to be found more at the large demonstrations. There's apparently been a lot of anti-semitism at some of them (which has caused problems for Jewish groups that oppose the war and want to attend the larger rallies), and overall, the leadership of many of the larger protests tends to show a highly intolerant attitude toward people that may have even the slightest difference of opinion about the war and the things involved - even if the people with a different opinion oppose the war itself. I haven't seen much about it at the smaller protests, but that could be either because there are more tolerant people involved with the smaller protests, or it could be because the more limited number of people means that there is a less diverse pool to draw from - limiting variance of opinions.
The pro-war intolerance tends to be more along the lines of one man spontenaity. The vet who "pushed" (quotes because I don't know how hard he pushed the protester - was it a nudge, or a good, hard, shove?) one of the people protesting the tresspassing arrest is an example. Its a different form of intolerance, but it is, of course, just as bad. The reason we don't see more intolerance along the lines of the type seen at the protests could be for a few different reasons.
1.) The organizers of the larger anti-war protests often have ties to groups that have been protesting anything and everything for years. These are the people that protest the West, Globalization, the Environment, Israel, etc..., and appear to have pretty much become professional protesters. They've been saying the same thing for years, and just because the war is their current forum doesn't mean they're going to modify the core. Those who support the war, on the other hand, often don't have the same background.
2.) There are no large scale protests in support of the war. For one thing, it would be a rally, not a protest. For another, there's not as much reason to rally when what you support appears to be the status quo. Unless you really think its threatened (not likely, in the US), there's little reason to get into a froth over it. Thus, people who might wish to have organized intolerance at a rally don't get the opportunity.
 
Top