Re: Jerk with a t-shirt

2003-07-24 Thread John Young
The rights of property owners, especially commercial property,
are not as absolute as sometimes argued. Due to the public
services provided by governmental authorities, tax perqs not
the least, property owners are required to abide a diverse range
of laws and regulations to provide assurance that people on the
property are safe. These people include the property owner,
family members, employees, customers and others who may
not be capable of judging what is safe.

Similarly, retail property owners are obliged to provide assurances
to customers that they are safe as prescribed by zoning, building
and health codes. To be sure there is a lucrative industry of 
professionals who advise property owners how to skirt these
requirements -- public relations mongers, lobbyists, lawyers, 
zoning consultants, architects, engineers, planners, politicians, 
so-called public interest groups, bribers, liars, cheaters, the mob, 
whores, pimps, and so on. Most of these are lightly or unregulated, 
even those ostensibly licensed to protect the public interest are
happy to front for those whose only interest is criminal profit.

Keep this in mind: whenever someone argues for the right to
do what they want on their property they are blowing shit in your
face while picking your pocket and placing you and your beloved
mongrels in danger through a smart-ass range of distancing, exculpatory
mechanisms, not least several of the constitutional amendments 
which were set up for just that purpose by the original continental
landscape thieves and which are forever being updated to keep the 
our-screw-you-laws-are-fair-laws racket running smoothly. 

Thanks to two centuries of warping law and culture to bias stolen
property owners, no property owner takes full risk these days,
but some will have you killed if you question that, that's what the
justice and national security mob is paid handsomely to enforce.

Department of Homeland Security looks to be the greatest ever
privacy and property expropriation since the national security apparatus
was set up after WW2, stolen from the public in the name of protecting it, 
given over to the homesec contractors, mediated by the homesec 
slicksters. Homeland is the false positive, as was national defense.

I happen to agree with those who said that since he was on private property 
the property owners had every right to boot him off. I just think you 
should do a little more fact-checking before you post.

Jack



Re: Jerk with a t-shirt

2003-07-24 Thread Jack Reed
At 06:42 AM 7/24/2003 -0400, Steve Furlong wrote:
On Wednesday 23 July 2003 09:18, Tyler Durden wrote:

 But it sounds like a rehash of the mall incident

You don't know what you're talking about. This happened just a few miles
from me, so perhaps I've paid closer attention than you have. T-shirt
man wasn't merely minding his own business while wearing an offensive
shirt. He was stepping in front of people and haranguing them in front
of a large anchor store in the mall. After a while he was asked to
leave by a store employee, so he took himself to the food court and
repeated the procedure. After complaints from several mall patrons, a
security guard asked T-shirt man to either knock it off or leave.
I live in this area too and this is far different than the one I 
heard.  The description of events that I heard was that he was bothering 
*no one*, simply walking around wearing a shirt.  The mall did make that 
claim but I haven't heard anyone else say he was bothering anyone.  The 
newspaper story said they mall had one complaint about him, not many. 
Also, the subsequent patrons wearing Give peace a chance where booted too 
and they were definitely not bothering anyone.  Only when public pressure 
came to bear did they relent.


T-shirt man refused, growing more and more aggressive, and eventually
the local cops came along and arrested him. (I may have fudged some
details, as I'm working from memory, but I don't think I screwed up
anything important.)
Let's see, you believe you're engaging in protected speech, rent-a-cops 
come and tell you to stop, and you don't believe you have to. If you're 
going to lie down if you believe you have a valid argument then that's 
really weak.

I happen to agree with those who said that since he was on private property 
the property owners had every right to boot him off. I just think you 
should do a little more fact-checking before you post.

Jack