Like Ellis Hugh said the mall is private property. They have the right to ask someone to leave. The guy and his son had the shirts made in the mall and put them on in the store. They were obviously trying to cause a scene, and if they were not on private property than that would have been fine. He was not arrested for wearing the shirt he was arrested for refusing to change his shirt. If someone came in my home and I didn't agree with what they were wearing, it is my right to tell him or her to leave.
The issue if taken to court will all be on how the charges were filed and what the father and son were asked to do.... it is your right to where pro or anti war shirts as long as it does not inhibit the or endager the right of others....ie the... it is against the law to yell fire in a crowded theatre..... i see how both sides think they are right just like how the anti war and pro war sides belive they are right........
They still have the shirts. They were waving them like a flag all over the talk shows yesterday and today. It was a Macy's official who complained, not the T-Shirt store. It's their 15 minutes of fame. And if they do sue: Exactly what are their damages? Embarrasment? They are the ones who are milkingthe issue for all it's worth.
Again, Tuwho. What damages have been inflicted such as to warrant mega bucks, should a civil lawsuit ensue? Would a jury be enraged sufficiently to award more that a couple thousand bucks? I certainly don't see any thing here that would warrant exemplary (punitive) damages. They weren't physically harmed. Their quality of life and ability to earn a living havn't been impaired. I'd be more inclined to feel sorry for them if they had been wrongly accused of shoplifting the offending T-shirts. But, that's the problem with today's civil justice system. Too many people see it as a lottery. One little thing goes wrong and they want a million bucks...and well meaning but ignorant jurors are willing to give it to them.
That is a good question. What wre the damages? Can they honestly say that their free speech was restricted? Because of this, they have (willingly) been on every news show and talk show waving their T-shirts. So effectively they have gotten their message to millions of times as many people as would have seen them at the mall. So effectively, the mall has (unintentionally) boosted their ability for free speech, not restricted it. While I know that their motives don't count, it brings me back to the question, what are their actual damages?
Which would point up the need for serious tort reform in this country. No wait... Let's just change the Constitution... Wait... They have....
The Bush family has certainly taken the luster.... off one of man's favorite pastimes and pursuits...
