View Full Version : shades of fascism: Peace shirts outlawed

03-05-2003, 04:08 PM
GUILDERLAND, N.Y. (AP) -- About 100 anti-war demonstrators marched through a mall Wednesday to protest the arrest of a shopper who wore a T-shirt that read "Peace on Earth" and "Give Peace a Chance."
"We just want to know what the policy is and why it's being randomly enforced," said Erin O'Brien, an organizer of the noontime rally at the Crossgates Mall.
Protest leaders were scheduled to meet with the mall's manager after the rally. Calls to mall officials were not immediately returned.
On Monday, Stephen Downs, 61, and his son were asked by mall security guards to remove their peace-slogan shirts or leave. Downs' 31-year-old son, Roger, took off his shirt. But Downs refused.
The guards called police, and he was charged with trespassing and pleaded innocent.

The unelected, supreme leader will be pleased. I bet this 60 year old man is held without bail, nor access to an attorney for being a sympathizer of the supreme leader's victims.

03-05-2003, 04:13 PM
hes a dangerous radical. ill bet he knows other dangerous radicals.

somewhere there is intelligence indicating an imminent terrorist attack.

for the good of everyone we have to torture him and see if we can get any leads.

if it saves even one life it will be worth it.

03-05-2003, 04:20 PM
To torture him we'd have to fly him to a country that permits vigorous interrogations to comply with the supreme leader's Christian values. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would do just fine.

03-05-2003, 04:34 PM
not if alan dershowitz, et al, get their way.

03-05-2003, 04:45 PM
The supreme leader demands that everybody sing.......

"but I'm proud to be an American, where at least I can watch TV
and I won't forget the Iraqis that will die to keep that right for me

So STAND UP, Stick your right hand out, and salute the Bush CIA

You'd better recite this everyday' GOD BLESS THE USA

(and damn all those Muslims to hell, Jesus expects you to do this too, or you will risk the Lake of Fire)

03-05-2003, 04:57 PM
Just a couple small points:

peace shirts weren't outlawed; private security guards not government officials asked them to remove the shirts or to leave; and the only charges are trespassing for not leaving upon request.

Now maybe the mall employees were wrong to ask them to leave and to push this matter--but the government didn't do anything wrong here as far as I can tell--and there is no law against peace shirts.

I don't think Bush will care one way or the other about this incident--but maybe someone could write a letter to the mall officials;-)

03-05-2003, 05:32 PM
can u throw out a black person cause theyre getting uppity and drinking out of same water fountain?

03-05-2003, 05:34 PM
Can someone explain to me why the word "uppity" is only used in association with blacks? (At least, I've never heard it used otherwise.) I like the word in the abstract, but seems to have developed a negative connotation.

03-05-2003, 06:28 PM
Why is the word "ensuing" only used before the word "kickoff"?

Baltimore Ron
03-05-2003, 06:34 PM
Apparently there was a little more going on than just wearing of shirts. Below is a copy of the mall's press release. At this time, there is a bit of the "he said, they said" going on, but I'm sure that more info will be forthcoming.

My opinion? IF, the father-son duo in question were being disruptive, the mall had every right to request their departure. I don't quite understand the bit about asking them to remove the shirts, unless the shirts were an inducement to get into arguments with the other patrons of the mall. Mall security would probably be on firmer ground just asking the pair to leave, irrespective of whatever shirts they were wearing or not wearing.

(via instapundit.com)


On the evening of March 3, Crossgates Mall security received a complaint regarding two individuals disrupting customers. The individuals were approached by security because of their actions and interference with other shoppers. Their behavior, coupled with their clothing, to express to others their personal views on world affairs were disruptive of customers.

Crossgates’ management is committed to maintaining the mall as a family-friendly facility that provides a secure and enjoyable experience for all its visitors while allowing merchants a prosperous place to do business. While Crossgates Mall is perceived by some to be a public place, it is privately owned. The courts have affirmed that private properties, including shopping malls, have the right to restrict actions and behaviors deemed inconsistent with its intended purpose -- in this case a shopping environment.

The existing rules of conduct at Crossgates Mall strictly prohibit loitering, disorderly or disruptive conduct, harassment, offensive language, fighting or any illegal activity. The Mall will not tolerate violations of these regulations. In this instance, mall management given the information provided to them, determined the customers in question were violating mall policy.

Information has surfaced regarding future demonstrations at Crossgates Mall. Mall management cannot and will not allow this type of activity to occur and will be vigilant in enforcing the rules of conduct which provide a safe and comfortable environment for visitors, merchants and employees.

In light of recent events, it is important to note that Crossgates Mall has long been a safe, friendly atmosphere for shopping, dining and entertainment.


Mark Heide
03-05-2003, 07:19 PM

Here's a link to the full story, just so we can get the facts accurate:


What really happened here is what I've been talking about previously. This is an example of our society censoring the views of other people. When someone here thought that I was from a different planet, because I thought that censorship here was not different from the former Soviet Union. It's not!

A countries ideology is supported by the majority. If this viewpoint does not agree with that ideology, the majority will seek some method to suppress it.

This example is a perfect example of suppressing the rights of other individuals. It's done in every country.

Another example in the US was the suppression of the movie The Last Temptation of Christ. The Catholic Church was outraged. They had managed to protest it so well that you could only see this movie in a few art film theaters across the country.

So, in the United States we usually do not have the government doing it, but our own citizens using powerful organizations to suppress information like religious groups and corporations. Capitalism just suppresses freedoms using methods that are different from other ideologies like Socialism.


03-05-2003, 07:51 PM
Mark, you must also consider degree and type of censorship.

Just because some forms of censorship may exist in two separate arenas, doesn't mean they are entirely equivalent. Even if they are equivalent in some ways they may still be distinct in other ways.

Censoring all of a newspaper's articles to mold to the Party line is obviously different than censoring only some articles, while still allowing other articles to be published which are in fact opposing viewpoints--and this is true regardless of your definition of censorship.

We have articles published in our major news media--Time magazine for example--that are highly critical of our government's policies. This simply didn't happen in the Soviet Union or under Mao-Tse Tung, nor does it happen in North Korea today. Also, our government doesn't arrest journalists who deviate from the "party line."

Can't you see the differences outlined above?

We have a variety of opinions expressed in our news media--quite a wide variety actually. In Red China, and in the USSR, the media expressed one point of view.

The mere fact that a wide variety of differing opinions are expressed here is a testament to the relative lack of censorship. Do you want to try to make the argument that we are censoring all but, say, 1,000 different viewpoints? At any rate, that's a helluva lot less censorship than censoring all but one viewpoint.

03-05-2003, 08:46 PM
They are important legal issues that have not been mentioned in all this hoopla. Malls are private property. But malls are, almost by defalt, considered public space by most people.

Also, the use of the term fascism is a bit much. Fascism is much, much more than a silly incident about a T-shirt at a local mall.


Mark Heide
03-05-2003, 09:37 PM

The problem with measuring censorship in degrees or types is that the degree or type needs to be objectively viewed in comparison to the person measuring censorship based on his ideology. In other words, it's impossible to measure the degrees and types unless your ideology is neither US Capitalism, Russian Socialism, or a combination of both.

The Soviet Union operated from a centralized point of view. Pravda was supported by the majority of it's population for quite some time, because it reflected the views of the majority. It was the minority that objected and became dissidents that the US government exploited during the propaganda war between us and them. I think the propaganda from the Cold War has clouded the thinking of many Americans, besides having biases from viewing the world from a Capitalistic viewpoint.

I was watching the BBC World News tonight. They did a report on Russia. The BBC did a survey that stated that 30% of the population liked Stalin and what he did for Russia (I know it's not the majority, but the percentage of citizens liking Stalin has been going up). I believe the reason for this is the comfort level for the average citizen in the Soviet Union was much better than today with todays failed attempt at capitalism. If I find the story on the web I'll post it.


Bill Murphy
03-06-2003, 12:21 AM
Why is the word "set" only used to describe three-of-a-kind in poker? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

Bill Murphy
03-06-2003, 12:25 AM
..this was absolutely ridiculous, and Bush ought to strongly condemn it.

BTW I'm also in favor of dragging suspected Al-Qaeda off to Russell's Old Room on some Uzbeki airbase and "interrogating" 'em w/a pair of pliers & a blowtorch.

03-06-2003, 03:36 AM
"Their behavior, coupled with their clothing, to express to others their personal views on world affairs were disruptive of customers."


03-06-2003, 03:42 AM
After a year in which they had won every game they played, Bill Walton reported to UCLA's first practice the next year looking like he hadn't had a haircut since the previous year's championship game. Probably he hadn't.

Coach Wooden told him to get off the floor. Walton told him he had no right to tell him how to wear his hair. Wooden told Walton, yes, you're absolutely right. But I do have a right to decide who is going to play on this basketball team, and Bill, we're gonna miss you an awful lot.

Walton got on his bike, raced into town, got a haircut, and raced back.

03-06-2003, 06:16 AM
you think if people realize war is imminent theyre gonna spend money on the crap they have at the mall? come on

03-06-2003, 04:42 PM
Fascism is the correct term. A government run for the sole purpose of enforcing coporate policy through force and suspension of civil liberties. To begin with, Bush was not elected. Secondly, the Patriot Act abolishes the right to legal counsel, the right to Habeus Corpus, and the abolishes the IV amendment against illegal search and seizure. Attacking Iraq for oil is fascist. Iraq has not taken offensive action against the USA. Bush's Christianity is a fundamentalist form.He probably believes himself to be chosen by Jesus to conquer Islam. If it brings about nuclear war, so much the better for these loons. They believe that only through apocalypse can Jesus return.

This country looks and sounds more and more like Nazi Germany everyday. The main difference is that Jews have been replaced by Muslims as the target of intense discrimination.

03-06-2003, 05:20 PM
bush is not christian.

look up bohemian grove

and skull and bones (yale)

03-06-2003, 11:23 PM
You may be ranting a bit. Just an observation.

I still maintain that this little, silly incident is just that: little and silly. Now if your initial post had been about the abuse of civil liberties that can be caused by the patriot act, then maybe the term "shades of fascism" would be appropriate. But even then, it is only a shade.

A truly fascist state is monstrous and oppressive, like Nazi Germany in 1938. We are far from this state of affairs in the US. You dilute the meaning of the term fascism by using it in this flippant way.
In my opinion.


03-07-2003, 03:33 PM
Just an opinion, but you are probably white, with an above middle income that gleefully sticks his head in the sand. Everything I cited above is accurate. Americans all over the country are boycotting anything to do with France because the French don't condone fascist aggression. The people boycotting don't know squat about why, but the supreme leader told them so.

I think the near half a million Iraqis that will die after they are attacked by what Bush would accuse Saddam of being weapons of mass destruction would disagree with your assessment. I believe that Maya Indians in Guatemala would disagree with your assessment. I believe that the peasants of El Salvador would disagree with your assessment. I believe that the Vietnamese would disagree with your assessment. The Koreans (both North and South) disagree with your assessment. The African American, Native American, and Latin American communities disagree with your assessment.

The KKK agrees with your assessment. Aryan Nations agrees with your assessment. You get the picture. The oppressed disagree. The oppressors agree. Your in good comapany.

Just an opinion.

03-07-2003, 11:33 PM
I believe that you are now Raving. Is it possible for you to crank yourself up a few more clicks to Hysteria?

I would like to make a few more observations for my notebook.

Thank You.


03-07-2003, 11:35 PM

03-08-2003, 05:31 AM
I believe that Zeno is now raving. Is it possible for Zeno to deny American fascisn in any more cynical tone?

Just a few more items to add to my notebook.....I don't think that I'll share them with you. It might cause you to
revert to McCarthy like tactics.

04-26-2003, 05:56 AM
No one has the right to be on another person's property without their consent, which they can withold for any reason they choose. The peace activist has the right to demonstrate or wear a peace shirt on his own property or on public property, so none of his rights are being infringed.

If 100 pro-war demonstrators demanded the right to march through your bedroom, would you not be entitled to stop them? If you don't like fat people or Republican voters, you're within your rights to not allow them in your house. It's no different for the guy who owns the mall.

04-26-2003, 09:24 AM
I'm also in favor of dragging suspected Al-Qaeda off to Russell's Old Room on some Uzbeki airbase and "interrogating" 'em w/a pair of pliers & a blowtorch.

Absolutely correct. After all, as the police comish once asked, Why would the police arrest someone is he weren't guilty?