General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKalidurga
(14,177 posts)most of them don't believe me unless they are people of color or in the theater. Some of my professors as well.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)This is private property. The mall has every legal right to say this. They have no obligation to support or host the protest.
This has nothing to do with my support of the protestors rights to voice their opinions. The legality is that if the mall owners don't want you protesting in their building then you are trespassing.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Action_Patrol
(845 posts)My apologies that facts are so screwball to you.
I don't support the mall but they have every right to not host it.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Action_Patrol
(845 posts)What more did you expect from the carnival of capitalism that is the Mall of America?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Or would you kick them out?
Bryant
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Ya'll getting caught up in the legalese and missing the jumbotron of a meme.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)I did enjoy the jumbotron. Didn't mean to sully your thread with legalese.
It's a flaw I have.
Honestly. My apologies for not enjoying how ludicrous it all is.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The Mall of America, as a stand-in for capitalism itself, shut down at the height of Money's favorite season by people protesting one facet of the system? The bland corporate phrasing of the warning?
Yeah, this is the stuff of some great futurist fiction, and it's happening now.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)forgive me, my life clock crystal ran out a long time ago.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)What we're living here may turn out to be really cheesy futurist fiction.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)That received hundreds of thousand of dollars of taxpayer money through infrastructure improvements and tax breaks. The "private property" argument is bullshit. Just like the sports stadium that pretend to be private property when they were financed by taxpayer money.
When they pay the taxpayers back in full, with interest, I'll buy the "private property" argument.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)The mall and the state. Or don't.
They are a public place and have no right to lie and say that the Constitution doesn't exist. It doesn't exist to their kind, but they have no right to shove their views down our throats.
Action_Patrol
(845 posts)Believe whatever you want. They claim private property and the state believes them, has no law on the books that says they aren't.
This really isn't semantics, it's just something you don't agree with.
marmar
(77,081 posts)951-Riverside
(7,234 posts)First of all the mall is open to the public (ie a public space), Secondly unless they close the entire mall and ask EVERYONE to lease they cannot prevent a certain group from entering the mall without first obtaining a restraining order.
In states like California it is legal for people to petition and solicit in front of stores even when its located on private property.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The other 48? Get yer ass off private property.
earthside
(6,960 posts)Explanation here:
http://www.davelippman.com/LawoftheMall.html
Javaman
(62,530 posts)"now go out and be True Americans and buy something! That's the only real way to show patriotism!"
ileus
(15,396 posts)Reads like it must be.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Action_Patrol
(845 posts)"The Mall of America released a statement late Saturday afternoon saying, "While we wish we could have avoided the inconvenience and disruption for our guests and stores, safety was our top priority. Our goal was a peaceful, quick resolution without incident. With the exception of approximately 12 arrests by Bloomington Police, we believe we were successful in accomplishing that goal. We have a longstanding policy banning political demonstrations and protests on our private property. That policy is in place to protect the safety of all Mall of America guests. The organizers of today's protest were well aware of that policy and the potential consequences for willfully violating that policy."
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Private owners for the most part have been very tolerant of protesters up to now. But eventually they are going to start growing tired of it and start issuing trespass warnings.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)In taxpayer subsidies, it is not "private property." That's a nonsense argument.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Do people who receive public assistance lose ownership of their homes? How about people in subsidized housing? Do they lose property rights, too?
What a silly position to take.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)X_Digger
(18,585 posts)...
Others? Have you applied?
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)their home is not really "private property", and they have limited rights to prevent protests etc. from taking place in their living room.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)... with impunity!!!
daredtowork
(3,732 posts)Ryan Fitzomething
(139 posts)Sorry, but I can't find the source of the quote. This doesn't render it any less truthful.
Capt. Obvious
(9,002 posts)MisterP
(23,730 posts)Agschmid
(28,749 posts)If anything I think it's a postivr thing to see people protest, and in general that sign didn't do much to end the protest.
I don't think you are wrong by any means but I'm not sure dystopian is the right word?