http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:19:29 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/06/094716.php#comment-4262 Legally you are correct. The fact - assuming it is a fact - that the pair was stopping customers and forcing their war views upon them also makes it something more than a silent protest via clothing. And it appears that Downs was looking to be arrested. Under the circumstances, it probably couldn't have gone much differently: arrest him to get him out of there, then refusing to press charges to mitiage the PR problem. So, okay. ]]> 4262@blogcritics.org Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:19:29 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/03/06/094716.php#comment-4261 WRONG! You do NOT have free speech rights on other people's private property. You can walk up and down the street carrying signs all day long, but you don't have a right to impose yourself on somebody's private place of business. Legally, the mall is absolutely right. These jackasses have no whiff of a legitimate cause for action against the mall. Now, this was probably bad strategery for the mall. It plays right into these retard's hands. Wow, they get to be free speech martyrs! And the best kind of free speech martyr- one what didn't have to risk any real punishment. Nonetheless, I'm sympathetic to the mall's goals. I doubt management really cares about supporting or not supporting the war, but they just don't want their customers bothered. Customers come to the mall to be CUSTOMERS. It is a place of business, not a public square. ]]> 4261@blogcritics.org Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:10:08 EST