And yet the same mall allows retailers to sell apparel that "may cause a disturbance." Sounds just a little bit inconsistant to me.giff57 said:I have seen other stories on this incident, and they say the mall has signs that state that wearing of any apparel that may cause a disturbance is prohibitied and the person will be removed. It is looking like the guy was out looking for trouble
KMateja said:Ok, here's my take, as this mall is in my neck of the woods (ok - 5 minutes from my house). And also, as a personal bias, I totally hate this mall - they willfully and illegally destroyed a ton of Pine Bush Barrens that were protected, and then ended up paying a fine with annual restitution, but whatever.
Anyway, my understanding is that this guy really was just walking around. he wasn't protesting, or demonstrating or harrassing anyone. i've been to this mall a few times, and, like any mall with scads of young hipsters wandering around, there are plenty of much more provocative outfits and t-shirt slogans to be seen everywhere. AND this mall has more gang activity that downtown Albany, muggings and assaults, so why the hell are the rent a cops picking on tee shirt guy? ugh. again, whatever.
Yep yep yep - the developing company is sleazy sleazy. Same company that landed in a lot of trouble in White Plains for bribing officials (a couple of which are now in jail) and are behind the infamous Carousel Mall in Syracuse, built on acres of toxic waste and I'm pretty sure still has problems with sinking. They just put out horribly designed and executed malls.SGB said:Full disclosure time:
I dislike not just this mall, but the developer too.
Yeah, but the mall is only going to get hung by the rope that they gave 'im.giff57 said:Ok, so now I read that the guy is a lawyer. I am really starting to think this thing is a fame/money making scheme.
I can't speak for New York but other than the bad press here in Texas the mall would have been operating within the law. Just not within common sense.El Feo said:In my mind, the mall was wrong, but his shirt wasn't constitutionally protected (US, I mean), right? The mall's private property. Any of you New Yorkers know if this mall's action runs afoul of the state constitution or any state statutes? Just curious...
Also note that the only ones saying a disturbance was caused was mall security. The offending apparel wearers spoke to no one expressing their views; they simply wore them on their shirts.