80 Year Old Man Arrested For Anti War Shirt

[Nightjock]

Source: New York Newday

Among the many milestones in Don Zirkel's life -- serving in the Army Army, editing The Tablet, the Diocese of Brooklyn's newspaper, and working in the state Division of Human Rights under Gov. Mario Cuomo -- perhaps the most famous will now be his arrest at the food court in Smith Haven Mall.

"Eighty years, and I have never been arrested before for fighting injustice," Zirkel, of Bethpage, said yesterday.

On Saturday, Zirkel, 80, was at an anti-war rally outside the mall in Lake Grove, wearing a white T-shirt splotched with red and emblazoned with a simple message about the fatalities of the Iraq war: "4,000 troops, 1 million Iraqis dead. Enough."

Zirkel said he was at the rally to support the anti-war protesters. "I was an encourager. I was an affirmer," he said.

During the rally, Zirkel and his wife went into the mall's food court for coffee and French fries. After he declined mall security's request to either turn the T-shirt inside out or leave, he said police put him in a wheelchair and escorted him from the mall. Suffolk police charged him with criminal trespassing and resisting arrest. He was released on bail and is due to be arraigned May 22in Central Islip.



Read more: http://www.newsday.com/news/local/ny-lizirk0331,0,5226608.story

---

Just...absolutely...unf***ing...unbelievable

[GodlessBiker]

1. Holy crap. Do the mall's lawyers know what security is doing?

[wtmusic]

4. Mall security guards are typically not experts on civil rights

and the police just blew it by backing them up.

[coalition_unwilling]

5. Hope the local chapter of the ACLU gets involved in this. The question

of whether mall food courts are areas where the free speech rights under the First Amendment is guaranteed under a theory of "public space" or whether malls are private property with the right to restrict and control speech is the next big battleground in free speech rights.

If any attorneys are reading this (I am not, just an interested layperson), perhaps you could weigh in with the legal perspective.

[wtmusic]

6. At best (for them) it would force the mall to take a position on the war

which from a business POV is not a good thing.

[WritersBlock]

31. Their position on the war is obvious to me by the fact he was asked to do something about the shirt

in the first place. The security guard was acting as a mall representative when he did that. Unless they issue a statement to the contrary, then I'd say it means they agree with what he did.

[wtmusic]

33. It depends on how they respond to it from here out

They could back off and say the guard was overstepping his bounds, and apologize.

If they don't it could cost them a large segment of their clientele.

[merwin]

40. No, that is the rent-a-cop's position on the war, not the mall's position.

I'm pretty damn sure that the management of the mall did not even know what was going on with this guy. If anything, they were too preoccupied with what was going on with the protest outside to worry about some guy in the food court.

[WritersBlock]

45. That's why I said, "Unless they issue a statement to the contrary..."

If they don't issue one, I think it's safe to assume they agree with what the security guard did.

[TexasProgresive]

10. Public though it looks the mall

is not public space. This is one of the sad things that we have let happen. We gave up our commons to the corporations and so have few places the public gathers that one can exercise free speach. There is no free speach in a Mall, department store or whatever. And sadly many of these places were built with tax abatements and other percs from the people.

[Occulus]

13. This is why we need to force laws upon the corporations that say they ARE public space.

I'm so very very sorry, but no, I do NOT believe in giving a corporation the "right" to private property. Period. They are not persons, they should not have that right.

I know I'm going to get flamed for that, but corporations should have no rights, period. They should have privileges, but denying free speech should not be one of them. Nor should property ownership, bearing arms, speedy trials, warrants for searches, etc. NONE of that should apply to the corporation! They are not persons! They are not equal to us, and yes, Virginia, I do mean that!

Corporate personhood is what allows this shit (like in the OP) to occur. Eliminate it and corporate rights and give us back our country, god dammit!!!

[heliarc]

21. F-n right on! I'm not going to flame you... nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

24. No Flames Here...

The worst moment in America's economic history was when we granted "rights" to corporations that are equal to those of real human beings. If I had one wish, it would be to overturn that catastrophic mistake.

[tomg]

26. "I'm so very very sorry"

Why? You're 100% right.

[Megahurtz]

30. Corporations need to be stripped of their "Personhood".

We need to overturn these heinous laws protecting the Corporations! :grr:

[Guaranteed]

57. Enough with the corporate personhood crap. Your problem is with

the whole idea behind the corporation- the ability to hold property and the corporate veil itself- not this "personhood" stuff.

I'm getting sick of seeing "personhood" as a catchword over the web. It's not the personhood- the corporation was a fundamentally flawed concept, right from the beginning.

[alfredo]

76. Then the community would have to take on the costs of upkeep and

policing.

[pokercat999]

79. I may be mistaken but I heard that the SCOTUS did give

corporations "personhood" or at least the same rights as persons. I think that was in 1876 over a hundred years ago. Can someone correct me on this?

[jayfish]

34. Really? Do You Have Any SCOTUS Decisions To Cite...

that back your claim? As far as I can tell the jury is still out on this question.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/25/us/25mall.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003683331_westlake27m.html

Jay

[TexasProgresive]

38. No. DO you?

It looks like your 2 state court cases cancel each other out. Maybe the good deacon from Long Island will take this case to the US Supreme Court- but with it's freeper makeup I doubt he will get justice.

[jayfish]

39. Can You Read?

1)You claimed as a matter-of-fact that malls are not public spaces.
2)I asked you if you could show proof of this fact being codified by the SCOTUS
3)I said the jury is still out on a nationwide level by posting two disparate state Supreme court case rulings

So you, and people like you, please stop passing your personal opinion off as fact in what appears to be an attempt to get readers to accept said opinion as the status-quo.

Jay

[TexasProgresive]

46. Until someone takes this up to the SC of the US

the malls are not public space because they are private property. I agree that that is wrong but the mall security people will be lawful in tossing out people for protesting. It's just like were I work- there is no free speach. Other posters have it right-Corporations need to be striped of "personhood" and we need to restore the commons back to the people.

[proud2BlibKansan]

77. Free speech rights apply at malls

Someone over on aferdowningstreet posted a court ruling.

Think about the strikes where stores have been picketed. Don't you know if it was illegal, store management would have picketers thrown off the property? That's sure not what has ever happened at any picket I have participated in.

[TexasProgresive]

78. I have never seen a picket line on private property

I have walked picket lines and they were always on the public sidewalk or easement.
I've seen nothing that changes what I wrote. See post #56.

[proud2BlibKansan]

84. I have walked picket lines on private property

with attorneys and union officials. And you know the store management would have kicked us off the property if they could.

[TexasProgresive]

85. We were advised to remain on the easement.

And whenever I see pickets at retail outlets(mostly supermarkets) the lines are at the easement and not at the front door of the store. Matter of fact if you are on their property it seems to me that you have crossed the picket line. If what you say is true then I suppose you could picket inside the store or company.

[proud2BlibKansan]

86. We were told not to block the door; that was it.

[hack89]

80. Not in New York

And in an important 1980 case, Pruneyard v. Robins, the court upheld the general notion that citizens have no First Amendment rights to express themselves in privately owned shopping centers while still agreeing that a group of California students had the right to hand out leaflets and collect signatures in a private California mall.

The magic bullet in Pruneyard? The high court found that state constitutions may confer upon citizens broader speech rights than the federal Constitution, and the broadly worded California Constitution gave citizens the right to speak freely, even in private malls. The court dismissed the shopping center's claims that such a rule infringed on its free speech rights, by forcing it to tolerate unwanted speech on private property, and rejected the argument that forcing them to open up to public debate constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of private property.

Pruneyard was an invitation from the high court to the states to amend and interpret their own state constitutions to permit free speech in private forums if they so desired. But 23 years later, only six states have joined California in recognizing a state constitutional right to speak and assemble on private property: New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, and Pennsylvania (and several of them have waffled after doing so).

http://www.slate.com/id/2079885/

[Guaranteed]

56. He may not, but I do.

Try Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 U.S. 507 (1976), distinguishing Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), while also expressly overruling Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley, 391 U.S. 308 (1968), and reaffirming Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1972), which had effectively overruled Logan anyway.

In fact, Lloyd is probably the SCOTUS case most directly on point. It involved "five young people who entered the mall of a shopping center and distributed handbills protesting the then ongoing American military operations in Vietnam. Security guards told them to leave, and they did so, 'to avoid arrest.' They subsequently brought suit in Federal District Court (but lost the case at the Supreme Court level)."

[jayfish]

65. I'll Read Them. -NT-

Jay

[jayfish]

87. I Was Going To Admit I Was Wrong On This, But...

upon closer inspection I'm gonna have to say, "no". In Lloyd, there's big difference between handibills, which the case hinged on, and political speech. Lets take a look at a key part of the decision:

Under the circumstances present in this case, where the handbilling was unrelated to any activity within the center and where respondents had adequate alternative means of communication, the courts below erred in holding those decisions controlling. Pp. 556-570.

One could read that to say that, had they been presenting their invitations verbally, they would have been protected. I don't think Lloyd applies here.


The biggest problem with Lloyd it that the Court inexplicably used it in Huggens to rule against the NLRB. That was just a poor decision that's nearly old enough to be re-heard, in some form, in the near-future. I sure as hell hope it's not court though.

To make a long story short; apples and oranges.

Jay

[niceypoo]

14. Security guards are generally wannabe cops...

...who couldn't make it as the real thing.

[Akoto]

2. I'd say that mall just set itself up for a lawsuit. n/t

[Megahurtz]

28. Yes.

Rent-A-Cops are not supposed to touch you. They are supposed to call real cops if they want him "removed". I hope he sues their asses off. :grr:

[China_cat]

3. What's unbelievable is that they didn't taze him.

[baldguy]

69. Ah, pimply-faced Sgt Rock-wannabe rent-a-cops with tazers.

Just what we need.

:eyes:

[classykaren]

7. Now this needs to be on National news n/t

[Freedomofspeech]

8. Let's send the mall security guards to Iraq....

if they're so tough that they can handle an 80 year old, damn, they should be fighting for whatever in Iraq

[baldguy]

68. oops

wrong spot

[Bonobo]

9. Wow, some posters including me are from that area!!!

Can't say I am that surprised.

Lots of yahoos from Islip.

[Art_from_Ark]

55. Off topic, but

"Obama" means "Little Beach" in Japanese. LOL

[Bonobo]

58. I know that Art. Thanks.

[Turbineguy]

11. You gotta watch out for those 80 year olds!

Talk about a dangerous mob!

[Naipes]

12. Power Trippin' Mall Security Guard

You give these guys a uniform and all of a sudden they start acting like Barney Fife. Idiots.

[Doctor_J]

15. Stamping out terror one Octagenarian at a time

fighting them in the mall so we don't have to fight them in the streets

[Kare]

71. LOL

[madrchsod]

16. private property and they set the rules

..sucks but that`s the way things are

[jayfish]

35. Really? See Posts 22 and 34. -NT-

Jay

[sansatman]

17. Texas Prosecutes Little Old Ladies for Voter Fraud

http://www.alternet.org/election08/80589/

[Toucano]

18. We no longer have public streets but corporate owned malls.

Another example of why malls suck.

[ozu]

19. yeah

As disappointing as this incident is, private companies can refuse or eject people from their property as long as they aren't doing so because of the "perps" status as a protected class, and anti-war protesters aren't a protected class.

There is no grounds for a lawsuit as I see it.

[Megahurtz]

32. Bullshit.

Private Security Guards cannot legally "throw you out". They have to call real Cops to do that. Look it up. Their asses should be sued.

[ozu]

43. ummm

Read the article, the real cops were the ones who ejected him. Mall security only gave him the ultimatum.

"After he declined mall security's request to either turn the T-shirt inside out or leave, he said police put him in a wheelchair and escorted him from the mall."

[Tempest]

20. Another case that will get thrown out of court

Every one of these cases has been thrown out of court so far.

The malls are batting zero.

[L0oniX]

22. The charges will be dismissed. Cases for freedom of speech in malls have all vindicated the ...

defendants. One case in California <snip> In 1979, the state Supreme Court extended free-speech protections to shopping malls, which were described as the modern equivalent of the town square. That case, known as the Pruneyard decision after the shopping mall at its center, allowed petition signature gatherers access to malls and to express their views without interference from mall owners.

In New Jersey <snip>The New Jersey Supreme Court handed down such a decision in June of this year, in the case of Green Party of New Jersey v. Hartz Mountain Industries Inc. The decision affirmed a 1994 case called New Jersey Coalition Against War In The Middle East v. J.M.B. Realty, which held that New Jersey shopping centers could not bar individuals and groups seeking to engage in what has come to be called "non-commercial expressive activity."
http://retailtrafficmag.com/mag/retail_freedom_speech_mall/

Google "freedom of speech in mall court case"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

23. Step Two: Massive Lawsuit

I would like to see the Mall Owners sued into bankruptcy. It only takes one in receivership for the rest to realize that their corporate facism has no place in this country.

Maybe that's Step Three, and Step Two should be daily picketing by local progressives and anti-war groups. I'm sure they're not the only mall in town.

[Kare]

72. Why picket?

Why not get a couple hundred people (as many as you can anyway)
to wear similar shirts and tour the mall?

How many security guards could they have...
and what will they do call out a riot squad because some people are wearing tshirts?

I would want to know where it is clearly posted in the mall that they find these kinds of shirts to be inappropriate for their customers to wear.

How did:

No shirt
No shoes
No service

turn into:

only this kind of shirt

:shrug:

[wtmusic]

29. Thanks -- good background. nt

[BrklynLiberal]

25. What a hero!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RamboLiberal]

27. Definite nominee for Olbermann's Worst Persons

Don't these idiots realize the bad publicity and the $$$$s they will spend on lawyers is such a waste!!!!!!!

Screw this mall.

[Trillo]

36. Idiots. Guy is going into Mall to SPEND MONEY

and morons arrested him.

No more Mall shopping. Not safe.

[Razorblade01]

37. This Practice Will hopefully End Soon!

...When the Dems win in November and gain more seats in Congress. They need to stop alot of these bogus attacks on our Constitutional rights.

[happygoluckytoyou]

41. IN AN IMPORTANT RELATED STORY.......

JOHN "THE REPUBLICAN" MCCAIN WAS NOT ARRESTED FOR WEARING HIS "MY NAME IS JOHN THE REPUBLICAN MCCAIN" SHIRT

WEAR THE NAME PROUDLY JOHN-BOY.... LIKE A LAPEL PIN.... LIKE A POSTER OF THE GREAT W KISS....

BE THE MAN THAT YOU ARE

[Olney Blue]

52. And McCain is almost 80 as well.

[eib1]

42. The degenerate thugs.

An 80-year-old should have the right to wear anything he or she pleases.
There is something called respect.

[Quantess]

44. What a silly thing to get arrested for.

Wearing a t-shirt that bears a true statement? And he's 80!

[NeoConsSuck]

47. wonder if the owners of that mall

are the same assholes that own the Crossgates mall in Albany, NY ? An identical incident occurred at Crossgates a few years ago. Charges were dropped, although I don't believe there was a lawsuit against the mall owners.

[NeoConsSuck]

49. Here is a link to the Crossgates incident

http://albany.bizjournals.com/albany/stories/2003/03/03/daily41.html

BTW, the owners of Crossgates are the Pyramid Management Group (a right-wing pig group)

Tim Kelley, director of center management for Syracuse-based Pyramid Management Group, which owns Crossgates and 15 other malls in New York and Massachusetts, said he had talked to the police about dropping the charges, but the final decision would be made by the district attorney.)

[Hotler]

48. all the while kkkarl rove walks..

around a free man. Why has he not been arrested for treason?

[buckrogers1965]

50. t-shirt policy

Unless that mall has a policy that says nobody can enter the mall with any writing of any kind on their clothes, they are going to lose big in a court case.

[saigon68]

51. Yes they tried to do that in my town

When Black kids came in the mall with Oakland Raider T-Shirts, sweats and Hoodies.

They said they were in a gang and had some arrested.

Needless to say that mall ended up with a few "Out of Court Settlements"

[Olney Blue]

53. The T-shirt simply stated a fact. Would a concert schedule be verboten?

Welcome to DU, buckrogers! :hi:

[Breeze54]

54. Send an anti-war message to the Smith Haven Mall- is the largest public U.S. real estate CO!!

Smith Haven Mall Home

http://www.simon.com/mall/default.aspx?id=103

Click here for mall hours

Mall Highlights

Visit Smith Haven Mall to meet all your shopping needs. Smith Haven Mall
offers more than 140 stores, including Abercrombie & Fitch, Ann Taylor, Apple, Coldwater...

More...

Address

313 Smith Haven Mall
Lake Grove, NY 11755

Click here for map

Location
Smith Haven Mall is located at Middle Country Road (Rt. 25) and Nesconset Highway (Rt. 347).

Phone Number
[phone]

-------

Corporate Profile

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=113968&p=irol-IRHome&m=1&s=0

Simon Property Group is an S&P 500 company and the largest public U.S. real estate company.

Simon is a fully integrated real estate company which operates from five major platforms
- regional malls, Premium Outlet Centers®, The Mills®, community/lifestyle centers and
international properties. Within these platforms, nearly all retail distribution channels
are represented - from community centers to power centers to lifestyle centers to Premium
Outlet Centers to value-oriented regional malls to mega-town centers and super-regional malls.
Our strategy is to have a significant presence in each of these elements of the retail real
estate spectrum since all of these channels have appeal to our retailers and consumers. ....

More >> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=113968&p=irol-IRHome&m=1&s=0

Recent News More >>

03/27/08 Boston Area Simon Malls Undergo Major Development Projects Printer Friendly Version
03/27/08 Simon Property Group Opens Houston Premium Outlets(R) Printer Friendly Version
03/25/08 Simon Property Group Expands Gotemba Premium Outlets(R) Printer Friendly Version
03/20/08 Simon Property Group Schedules First Quarter Earnings Release and Conference Call

[xchrom]

59. kicking your reply -- will contact them.

you gotta wonder would this guy have been escorted out of he had some kind of extreme {rw} religious t-shirt on?

[Breeze54]

61. No kidding and why weren't the pro-war people removed too?

:grr:

I was trying to find a FAX number. That would be better, imho. ;)

Bombard the assholes!!! :grr:

[xchrom]

62. well -- i'm gonna have somethin to say.

and to a certain extent -- choice HAD to play a role here -- imagine all the t-shirts that go in there day in and day out...

[LibertyorDeath]

60. Man they are such Sick Fucks

Sieg Heil
Mother Fuckers...

[OhioChick]

63. Now....

What exactly is he going to be formally charged with?

This is ridiculous...

[BR_Parkway]

64. How do you fucking resist arrest in a wheelchair? n/t

[Breeze54]

66. Kicking...send that mall a fax or an e-mail!

:kick:

Here's the info!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3250145&mesg_id=3250886

[crim son]

67. I wonder if the mall owner has the right to refuse service to anybody he wants

not that this would in any way justify the arrest.

[Elspeth]

70. From wikipedia:

"The mall is owned and managed by Melvin Simon and Associates, one of the largest developers of shopping malls in the United States and owner of Long Island's largest mall, Roosevelt Field Mall in Garden City. Its name is a portmanteau of two nearby towns, Smithtown and Brookhaven.

The food court is notable in that it was home to one of the final works of noted sculptor Alexander Calder, which was made especially for the mall. The food court was named Calder Court for the sculptor, although this was later changed to Saturn Court as the car dealership picked up the food court's sponsorship. No artwork remains from the gallery which existed at the mall's inception, which included work from Peter Max and Larry Rivers, among others."

[wordpix]

83. not a fan of shopping mall developers & these are really big fish. Sue the hell out of them!

[Jim__]

73. Can corporate America regulate our speech?

If they can get away with telling us what type of messages our clothes can send in public areas, then they can.

[JPZenger]

74. Strange that police arrested, mall owner must be angry

It does not surprise me that the mall rentacops overreacted. It surprises me that trained police officers actually arrested him.

This mall is owned by Simon Property Group, which is a huge and sophisticated operation. They must have shit a brick when they heard this story. I expect that right now some well-dressed attorneys are offering a briefcase full of cash to man to be quiet and to avoid a lawsuit.

[marshall]

75. 80 years old--I thought maybe it would be an anti WWII t shirt.

At least he is keeping abreast of the times.

[hack89]

81. This is legal in New York

And in an important 1980 case, Pruneyard v. Robins, the court upheld the general notion that citizens have no First Amendment rights to express themselves in privately owned shopping centers while still agreeing that a group of California students had the right to hand out leaflets and collect signatures in a private California mall.

The magic bullet in Pruneyard? The high court found that state constitutions may confer upon citizens broader speech rights than the federal Constitution, and the broadly worded California Constitution gave citizens the right to speak freely, even in private malls. The court dismissed the shopping center's claims that such a rule infringed on its free speech rights, by forcing it to tolerate unwanted speech on private property, and rejected the argument that forcing them to open up to public debate constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of private property.

Pruneyard was an invitation from the high court to the states to amend and interpret their own state constitutions to permit free speech in private forums if they so desired. But 23 years later, only six states have joined California in recognizing a state constitutional right to speak and assemble on private property: New Jersey, Colorado, Oregon, Massachusetts, Washington, and Pennsylvania

http://www.slate.com/id/2079885/

[wordpix]

82. I would be suing the mall and give the proceeds to Feingold & Co