A Victory for "Freedom of Speech"

[Masklinn]

my question is, what kind of communist mall doesn't let you wear specific apparel into it?

What communist has to do with that ? I'm really wondering.

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Grojlach: "Insulting"? You're using that word a bit too easily lately, Jim... And once again you misunderstood my post as well. I never said the security guard's logic was twisted, I was referring to the logic behind banning those t-shirts and making a big deal out of it, and the fact that there are most likely people out there who actually would have enforced the same ridiculous rules if they had owned the mall (granted, my post was a bit vague, but I did say "their logic", not "his logic" ).

No Maarten, I dont think that I am using that word a bit too easily. It *was* insulting, both to the guard(even though he'll likely never read this), and to me, someone who was almost in that guy's shoes. I found(and still find) it rather distasteful that you can have such a cavalier attitude about some poor guy losing his livelihood, just because you disagree with the policy of the mall(namely, the banning of certain T-shirts, something that they are perfectly within their rights to do). You, and several others, seem to be missing the central issue. The security guard was just doing his job, enforcing the policy of the mall's owners. That's it. Yet he's been vilified in the press as some sort of fashion nazi.

Also, just for clarification...The rules put in place by the mall were not ridiculous. The local news, when covering this story, noted that the reason for the policy was based on a near riot around Christmas, when a large group of anti-war protesters were staging a rally at the mall(dont ask me why, that part made NO sense to me), and it got out of control. The mall, again in an attempt to cover it's butt, decided to create a policy that they hoped would prevent such issues from arising again. And again....THIS IS THEIR LEGAL RIGHT! Regardless of your, my, or anyone else's opinion on the subject, it is their right to create and enforce whatever sort of dress code they desire.

I hope you're not serious about that Rambo bit, because that's not what I was hinting at at all. Anyways, I'll try to clarify the second part of my initial post. Thing is, this case seemed to have made it to worldwide media coverage; the fact that the guy was fired has caused some serious distress, especially with those who initially took the side of the mall in this case (or, technically, took the side against mr. Downs ). If I read some of the dismayed replies here and try to picture some of the other responses in the US, I think this could actually turn mister Williams into some sort of martyr to some of those who'd rather put more of the blame on mr Downs than on the mall for him being fired, if Robert Williams plays his cards right. And that's why I said I wasn't too worried about his job prospections. Of course I'm aware of the current problems on the job market in the US, but with the above described reasoning, I don't think it's an issue here.

Umm...I'm not sure what you mean re: the Rambo comment. I was just making a joke about the guard, and the fact that someone interested in hiring a private bodyguard probably wouldn't be interested in some guy who's only claim to fame was calling the police on some guy and signing a complaint.

AFA the rest...for my own part, I mainly took the side of the guard. He was just doing his job, and I feel badly for the guy.

Personally, I think that the mall created a silly policy as a knee jerk reaction, then, compounded the silliness by having yet another knee jerk reaction when their silly policy bit them on the hindquarters. In both instances, the owners, IMO, made a poor call. BUT!!! CAVEAT!!! It's still their right to do so, last time I checked.

Anyway...I think that you're wrong about the guy being able to come out of this smelling like a rose. He's now, forever, branded as 'the guy who kicked that other guy and his kid out of the mall for wearing a peace t-shirt'. Personally, I hope I'm wrong...but I doubt I will be.

EDIT: Spelling errors, and to fix a horribly screwed up quote tag. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 03-25-2003, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]

[Melusine]

I feel really ignorant now, because I hadn't realised the situation was quite this bad. So an employer can really fire someone arbitrarily and usually there's nothing you can do about it?? I have to tell you, the moron that would try to introduce the same thing in Holland would not get very far indeed. Seriously, I think everybody here would be absolutely OUTRAGED if anything like that happened here. Just as we would be outraged if someone was removed from a mall for the text on his T-shirt. Is that really the land of the free? Yeah yeah I get it already, don't jump on me. People are FREE to decide what to do with their private property, including malls. I understand that, even agree with it. Just saying that if any mall owner would be stupid enough to try that trick here, he could wave goodbye to his customers because he wouldn't be getting any. Of course he should have the right to install a rule like that... I'm just saying it would cost him his customers here.
But anyway I'm much more outraged about the employer thing though!! It makes an employee completely dependent on the whims of the employer. I mean, if you know he/she can fire you almost at will, you'll do anything, grovel, do overtime, swallow your own opinion... right? Or is it not that bad? Could someone tell me how things really are, legally speaking? Because if it's really true what I gather from this thread, that is truly horrible!

[ 03-25-2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Melusine ]

[pritchke]

You think that is bad in Winnipeg a pizza delivery girl was fired for stopping to aid a gun shot victim. The manager fired her for failing to deliver the pizzas on time and said aiding a gun shot victim was no excuse. There was a public outcry and business for the pizza place is now doing not so well.

I don't think the guard should have been fired but the manager who made the crazy rule. It all as to do with how high on the food chain you are not if you are right or wrong.

Well Melusine there are laws were you can bring your employer to court for being improperly fired. You do need to be able to afford a good lawyer however or belong to a union. That is why many of these employers get away with these things as well as most work is now contracted out. However Melusine I believe you live in the freest country in the world the rest of us just like to claim we have freedoms.

[ 03-25-2003, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Melusine: I feel really ignorant now, because I hadn't realised the situation was quite this bad. So an employer can really fire someone arbitrarily and usually there's nothing you can do about it?? I have to tell you, the moron that would try to introduce the same thing in Holland would not get very far indeed. Seriously, I think everybody here would be absolutely OUTRAGED if anything like that happened here. Just as we would be outraged if someone was removed from a mall for the text on his T-shirt. Is that really the land of the free? Yeah yeah I get it already, don't jump on me. People are FREE to decide what to do with their private property, including malls. I understand that, even agree with it. Just saying that if any mall owner would be stupid enough to try that trick here, he could wave goodbye to his customers because he wouldn't be getting any. Of course he should have the right to install a rule like that... I'm just saying it would cost him his customers here. But anyway I'm much more outraged about the employer thing though!! It makes an employee completely dependent on the whims of the employer. I mean, if you know he/she can fire you almost at will, you'll do anything, grovel, do overtime, swallow your own opinion... right? Or is it not that bad? Could someone tell me how things really are, legally speaking? Because if it's really true what I gather from this thread, that is truly horrible!

Yep, sadly enough, it is true Mel. In Idaho we also have the 'right to work' law(we call it the 'right to get screwed' law, and other, less polite things), and it really is true. A business can, and will, fire you for, literally, NO REASON. You can just show up for work one day, and they can tell you "Thanks, but your services are no longer required." That's it, you're gone, have a nice day, and dont let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Now, theoretically, the reason for the job is to prevent unfair hiring practices, and is also, supposedly, a union busting law. However, like many other laws designed to 'level the playing field', all it ends up doing is giving companies yet ANOTHER way to screw their employees. I've swallowed my opinion, worked "mandatory, voluntary" overtime, and had to shut up and take it in the shorts on more than one occasion, and there wasn't a damn thing I could do about it, except grin and say 'Please sir, may I have some more?'

And you want to know the REALLY sick sad thing???!!!??? That law comes up for repeal about every two years in Idaho...And, for the last 20 years, IT'S BEEN VOTED BACK IN!!! How sad is THAT?? There's always a HUGE media blitz, with doom and gloom predictions spewed out by business' that dont want to lose their ability to stomp on their employees. These companies spend MILLIONS on advertising, and, so far, they've always managed to win...my hope is that, someday, the people in the voting booths will FINALLY wake the hell up and vote to repeal the law.

Erm...AFA the t-shirt thing...Yep, I agree with you on that too. I also think that it was stupid of the mall to ban t-shirts...they should have dealt with the root problem, that of large crowds of protesters gathering on their property. The proper, IMO, solution would have been to forbid protests on their property. Seems simple enough. Instead, they had an infantile, knee-jerk reaction, and this is what they got. Horrid publicity, a possible lawsuit, and some poor guy getting all the blame. And, I would imagine, a sharp drop in their sales. That's pretty much become my opinion BTW...I choose to vote with my wallet. Unless there's a store in Crossgates that I cant find anywhere else, I'm not shopping there, ever! And that's *MY* right. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Nachtrafe: Quote: Originally posted by Grojlach: "Insulting"? You're using that word a bit too easily lately, Jim... And once again you misunderstood my post as well. I never said the security guard's logic was twisted, I was referring to the logic behind banning those t-shirts and making a big deal out of it, and the fact that there are most likely people out there who actually would have enforced the same ridiculous rules if they had owned the mall (granted, my post was a bit vague, but I did say "their logic", not "his logic" ).

No Maarten, I dont think that I am using that word a bit too easily. It *was* insulting, both to the guard(even though he'll likely never read this), and to me, someone who was almost in that guy's shoes. I found(and still find) it rather distasteful that you can have such a cavalier attitude about some poor guy losing his livelihood, just because you disagree with the policy of the mall(namely, the banning of certain T-shirts, something that they are perfectly within their rights to do). You, and several others, seem to be missing the central issue. The security guard was just doing his job, enforcing the policy of the mall's owners. That's it. Yet he's been vilified in the press as some sort of fashion nazi.
Also, just for clarification...The rules put in place by the mall were not ridiculous. The local news, when covering this story, noted that the reason for the policy was based on a near riot around Christmas, when a large group of anti-war protesters were staging a rally at the mall(dont ask me why, that part made NO sense to me), and it got out of control. The mall, again in an attempt to cover it's butt, decided to create a policy that they hoped would prevent such issues from arising again. And again....THIS IS THEIR LEGAL RIGHT! Regardless of your, my, or anyone else's opinion on the subject, it is their right to create and enforce whatever sort of dress code they desire.
[/QUOTE]And once again you misunderstood my post. Jim, I'm not sure if you're trying to focus your frustration over this case on just my post now, but I was not saying the things you seem to be claiming that I'm saying about the guard. My criticism is focused on the mall and those who would have enforced the same rules if they had owned the mall... Maybe some of the media vilified him as "some sort of fashion nazi", but I most definitely didn't. And I know it was their legal right to enforce those rules, just like it's my legal right to think that they were silly and laughable, even taking the context into account. And if I read the second part of your post correctly, you seem to hold the same opinion.
But I never commented in any of my posts on the question whether firing him over this is justified or not, yet strangely enough this seems to be your biggest concern with the "cavalier attitude" (?) in my posts. Look, maybe you're just reading too much in my words. All I did was making a prediction on the guard's future and criticise the mall; if you want to argue my opinions, then focus on those two points, not on the "should he have been fired, yes or no?" matter because I simply didn't comment on it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my purpose with that prediction in my first post, but I was in no way trying to implicate that the mall was right with their decision, because I don't think they were. It was more a response to the cynic way Cerek seemed to be presenting the news (it looked like a slightly bitter reproach with those who criticised the mall to me) than it was a reply to the news itself. Sorry.

[ 03-25-2003, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Nachtrafe]

Originally posted by Grojlach: And once again you misunderstood my post. Jim, I'm not sure if you're trying to focus your frustration over this case on just my post now, but I was not saying the things you seem to be claiming that I'm saying about the guard. My criticism is focused on the mall and those who would have enforced the same rules if they had owned the mall... Maybe some of the media vilified him as "some sort of fashion nazi", but I most definitely didn't. And I know it was their legal right to enforce those rules, just like it's my legal right to think that they were silly and laughable, even taking the context into account. And if I read the second part of your post correctly, you seem to hold the same opinion. But I never commented in any of my posts on the question whether firing him over this is justified or not, yet strangely enough this seems to be your biggest concern with the "cavalier attitude" (?) in my posts. Look, maybe you're just reading too much in my words. All I did was making a prediction on the guard's future and criticise the mall; if you want to argue my opinions, then focus on those two points, not on the "should he have been fired, yes or no?" matter because I simply didn't comment on it. I'm sorry if you misunderstood my purpose with that prediction in my first post, but I was in no way trying to implicate that the mall was right with their decision, because I don't think they were. It was more a response to the cynic way Cerek seemed to be presenting the news (it looked like a slightly bitter reproach with those who criticised the mall to me) than it was a reply to the news itself. Sorry.

OK...Perhaps I did read too much into what you said Maarten. I'm sorry about that. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm guessing it's just a language issue again. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm done being ruffled, I promise.

Suffice it to say that I think that, on the important points, we agree. The mall's policy was pretty silly and didn't address the true problem. And their firing of the guard was pretty inexcusable. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Cloudbringer]

Seraph- it really is amazing and sad, isn't it? There are a lot of people willing and able to work in our area, who even pass those drug tests these days and they can't find anything, not even part time work! A friend's son-in-law spent months looking for work as a laborer/ warehouse worker, something that used to be available and hiring all the time since it's not the world's most glamorous or well-paying job. Now, even Burger King can be immensely picky about who it hires!!! Used to be they hired a lot of kids in high school and took anyone who could press a cash register button and pick his nose simultaneously [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Mel, it is pretty much that bad. Unless you have a contract with the employer that lists terms of employment and loss thereof, you are at the mercy of the employer. Now, I DO understand the premise of the law. I believe it was to avoid costly and long fights with unions etc over the legitimate firing of an employee, but as others have noted, it now leaves people at the mercy of the hiring officials or their bosses good mood.

pritchke, the only way someone could win such a suit is if they could prove that the employer was discriminating against them based on their age, gender, sexual preferences, race, religion, etc.. things that are under federal mandate here. Not easy to prove even when it IS the case. Something I know from long experience where I am. But if there isn't any evidence of that sort of discrimination, the employee will spend a lot of time and money for nothing.

[pritchke]

True, Cloudbringer it is very difficult and costly that is why most people do not bother. We have a few more laws up here which protect people from being verbally abused or mistreated by their employer. Problem with those cases though it is usually a my word vs. your word and unless there are witnesses it is basically impossible to win.

examples: Any one being dragged into a office every day just to be told they are a failure and useless, screaming and yelling at the employee telling them they are wrong when they were actually right and no apology afterwards, being asked to do unethical things and being screamed at when you refuse, after awhile such an environment does become difficult to work in with such a manager. - In order to win, write down things said with dates and times, ask to record conversations, or just do it anyway (I don't know if it is legal to record conversations without permission but at least you can embarrass them when they deny having said it). Best case scenario is leave and find another job but if the market is tough than might as well bring down the big guy.

[ 03-25-2003, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Originally posted by Grojlach: I'm sorry if you misunderstood my purpose with that prediction in my first post, but I was in no way trying to implicate that the mall was right with their decision, because I don't think they were. It was more a response to the cynic way Cerek seemed to be presenting the news (it looked like a slightly bitter reproach with those who criticised the mall to me) than it was a reply to the news itself. Sorry.

Did I seem bitter, Groj? If so, it's because I AM! Primarily because the bulk of the criticism I've seen from those defending Stephen Downs' right to wear his shirt were NOT directed at the mall - they were directed at the security guard. Robert Williams has been called everything from "overzealous" to "Rambo" by those who disagree with his actions...yet there is NO EVIDENCE AT ALL to support those accusations. And while many people have said they were sorry to hear about Robert Williams being fired...that apology has consistently been followed by something along the lines of "But the charges shouldn't have been brought against Stephen Downs in the first place" (which once again implies that Williams acted inappropriately).

I also can't help but wonder how staunchly Stephen Downs' First Amendment rights would have been defended if he had gotten a T-shirt made that said "NUKE IRAQ". I have a strong feeling that many of those currently supporting Stephen Downs would have been on the other side of the fence and would be saying "Yeah, he has a right to own that T-shirt...but the mall certainly had a right to ask him to remove it."

The thing that upsets me the most is that Robert Williams was fired for doing his job the way he had been told to do it. The mall used him as a scapegoat for their "knee jerk" policy...yet the only thing most people seemed concerned about is the "improper treatment" Stephen Downs received. That's laughable, because if ANYBODY came out of this incident "smelling like a rose" - it was Stephen Downs. All charges were dropped against him, so he never faced the risk of a trial or jail time. He was payed to appear on Inside Edition and he gained his "15 minutes of fame" for becoming a temporary martyr/hero for the First Amendment. Meanwhile, Robert Williams is out of a job in an area where job openings are few and far between and he may not be able to find another job as a security guard due to the "blackmark" that is now on his record.....all because Pyramid Corporation (the owners of the mall) didn't have the backbone to take the flak for THIER policy. The ironic thing is - if Robert Williams had NOT approached Stephen Downs and his son and asked them to remove their shirts - then the mall would actually have had legitimate grounds for dismissing him because they would have documented proof that he failed to enforce the mall's policy.

So Robert Williams was in a No Win situation either way - yet everybody still seems more concerned about the treatment Stephen Downs received.

I sincerely apologize to you Grojlach, because this rant is NOT directed at you personally. You ARE right, though...this whole stinking incident has made me VERY bitter and I feel very frustrated at the way Stephen Downs has been portrayed as the "innocent victim" in this case. My comments are not directed at you personally. Rather, it is a "venting" of my frustration about this whole case in general. I apologize again if my comments were taken the wrong way.