Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 601
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthemPage 25 of 45    (5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45)
Pence didn't want to give up emails from when he was guv and Carrier wanted to shed jobs like a dog wiggling off water, and now there's a closer look at his PR stunt and what it cost taxpayers? Let's hope there's a Benghazi-level investigation--in the interest of fairness, of course.

Meanwhile, Sean Insanity, who can't jump on a bandwagon fast enough, is willing to say, "hey, let's hold on" about multiple pedophile charges. Evangelicals are beginning to split on where their support lies.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/12/allegations-against-roy-moore-roil-us-evangelical-ranks.html

(can't happen to better people, its time they came to Jesus over these issues. Render the children, and all that).

The GOP, since Nixon's Silent Majority crap, has told America it simply must listen to these social justice warriors and their view of how America should become a religious nation--their type of religious nation. Now, after decades of inflicting America, the GOP is getting split apart by their own social justice warriors

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/mitch-mcconnell-vs-roy-moore-is-now-a-battle-for-the-soul-of-the-gop/ar-BBEVdOi?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

no wonder intelligent people are watching with glee. its sooo wonderful to watch the roosters finally come home to roost. I don't know if we'll repeat the era of televangalists crying over the sins of sex in the 1980's, but who knows.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 602
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:17:51 PM
Jerry Jones being put on Notice

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/group-of-nfl-owners-warns-jerry-jones-and-threatens-penalties/ar-BBEVggh?li=BBnb7Kz

JJ, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys and most ardent opponent of Commish Goodell, has hereby been told to STFU by at least 6 other owners...as he has been trying to block Goodell's contract extension

Most (if not all ) of the other owner want to keep Goodell in...why? because he has been the main reason why many of these Billionaire owners have gotten even richer....and no, most of the owners haven't factored in the NA issue at all!

The finishing touches on Goodell's contract are nearly complete....rumor has it that he'll be getting nearly 50 million/yr along with his own Jet
 deetristate
Joined: 12/4/2014
Msg: 603
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 11/13/2017 4:24:18 PM
""""The GOP, since Nixon's Silent Majority crap, has told America it simply must listen to these social justice warriors and their view of how America should become a religious nation--their type of religious nation. Now, after decades of inflicting America, the GOP is getting split apart by their own social justice warriors"""

not being original and crimping from the right again?


sjw calling people sjw?

are you saying that mcconnell is an sjw?

for the left, a very weak "maybe."


mcconnell hasn't been a republican or conservative in a long time.

most ( who matter) would like to see him go.


history provided was at least somewhat educational.


again. please expand the universe of your source material. it really can be interesting even if you don't agree.
 Yule_liquor
Joined: 12/7/2011
Msg: 604
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 11/13/2017 6:57:51 PM
^


mcconnell hasn't been a republican or conservative in a long time.

most ( who matter) would like to see him go.


You are talking outta your ass (again)
actually, most GOP senators are okay with MM....if they weren't there would lots of activity designed to push him out.

The ones who wanna see him out are Trump & bannon more than anyone...and neither one has the capacity to unseat him
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 605
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 11/13/2017 8:20:03 PM
"Also, here in the USA, if I owned a ballpark and put on the admission tickets you must stand when our N A is play, you have to stand or I can have you escorted out of my ballpark."

No...you couldn't. First, ballparks are generally tax payer supported, so are quasi government property. Second, you have no right to violate anther person's constitutional rights to support your own....

"Most of us like our freedom and think Big Brother isn't a protagonist."

Unless a dumb f uk like you is the big brother.
 Sandbyday
Joined: 7/25/2017
Msg: 606
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 11/13/2017 10:14:46 PM
Kap is suing the very organization he is seeking a job from.
His lawyer is a hollywood glory hound.
He never had a winning season after playing for Harbaugh.
He's a loser.
If I was applying for a job at my local Home Depot
and a social media proved I was suing Home Depot, chances are I would be heralded with flying colorers as a must hire within the industry right? Right.
After turning down ten mil from the niners you'd better stop giving all of your money to black lives matter lest you end up broke and a member of who the fvck cares.
 John252817
Joined: 8/24/2016
Msg: 607
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 11/13/2017 11:14:27 PM
Kap can keep on a kneeling, hopefully he doesn't find a job, he can go up north to that "wonderful" CFL league!!! They'll pay him something. Kap has only himself to blame, owners should and can be able to say who plays. It happens every week, quit crying Kap and go north young man!!! YIKES!!!
 gtomustang
Joined: 6/16/2007
Msg: 608
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 11/14/2017 5:33:49 AM
McConnell would have been replaced like Boehner got replaced, if he MM wasn't mainstream Republican. He's as Establishment GOP as George Will or National Review, who are both against the self-proclaimed populist Chump. Bannon and the Tea Party are the radical wing, supporting wingnuts like Moore in hopes of replacing GOP seats. They are the Bolsheviks going after the Mensheviks.
 benartflick
Joined: 3/8/2012
Msg: 609
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 6:09:58 AM

"No...you couldn't. First, ballparks are generally tax payer supported, so are quasi government property. Second, you have no right to violate anther person's constitutional rights to support your own...."


Mr Trollman, naturally you're incapable of backing up your illogical opinions. Finding ANYTHING that might suggest there's a grain of truth in your above sentences will be virtually impossible.

Rarely do any of your postings make any sense. Remarkably, at times, a few think there's some truth in what you write, but, of course, they're not American or from Texas. Ya know, that state where W Bush comes from.

Naturally you're incapable of backing up any of you illogical opinions.

Most here might be aware that using profanity or being disrespectful are valid reasons to ask people to leave private property. I witnessed a player being escorted out of a poker room for saying 'mucking dealers'. Another player was ordered to cover up the wording on his shirt or he had to leave. The words were, "Trump Whitehouse, Hillary Jailhouse, Bernie Nuthouse". I have no idea how anyone would consider that disrespectful - kinda funny and true to many at the time.

The following are from lawyers found online:

"Stores are private businesses. You can be asked to leave for almost any reason so long as it is not due to discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc. Your constitutional rights protect you against the government. They do not apply to interactions between citizens."

"In a store, you are on private property. The owner or someone representing the owner may ask you to leave if you're being disrespectful to their employees or customers."

"Asking you to leave because you are making other customers uncomfortable is an absolutely valid reason to do so."

"If I am the owner of a store or other business, I do indeed have the right to tell someone to leave my property. After I have asked nicely, and the person remains, he or she is
trespassing."
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 610
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 7:22:02 AM
^^^^^^^^
Doubling down on your stupid fukery...so sad. You are under the mistake belief that just because you think something should be a certain way that it is that way and you are also too dumb to distinguish between "disturbing the peace" and peaceful refusal to stand for the anthem.

You think private businesses have unfettered rights to violate the fundamental rights of their customers? Think again. Better yet...find me a court case supporting what you say.

Here is an example a dummy like you might understand. Joe able body seaman is injured in the service of his vessel and brings a Jones act lawsuit against his employer. Guess what fuktard, if he is fired for bringing his claim, he can now sue the private business for violation of his constitutional rights.

Can owners mandate NFL employees stand for the anthem in a contract? Probably, but only because not standing has proven to be so disruptive to the game.
 butheremails
Joined: 11/1/2017
Msg: 611
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 7:25:13 AM

Yes, it IS up to the team owners. There's nothing in our Constitution that suggests otherwise. Do you think the employers (team owners) should have the right to order their employees to stand when our National Anthem is played?


They do not have that right nor do I think they should.




The team owners can force their employees to stand and show respect when our N A is played if they're on their employer's property and on the clock. Otherwise the employers can tell their employees to find employment elsewhere after being warned. Do YOU doubt that? Do YOU think the employers should have that right? How about sharing your opinion?


Nope, business owners can force people to stand for a song.




Also, here in the USA, if I owned a ballpark and put on the admission tickets you must stand when our N A is play, you have to stand or I can have you escorted out of my ballpark. Them's my rules! Ya don't like 'em - don't buy a ticket. Do you have a problem with that or do you think Big Brother should be ordering us what to do?


Nope, you can not do that.

You can put what ever you want on a ticket, but if that rule violates anyone constitutional rights you will get your azz handed to you in court.




I'm not aware of any American believing there should be a law requiring people to stand for any song. I can tell by your sentence you're not American.


So you are not aware of an law requiring people to stand for a song but you think that people who own business can force people to stand for a song based on wording on the ticket.

I mean there is dumb and then there is that level of dumb.



Most of us like our freedom and think Big Brother isn't a protagonist.


Just an FYI, that statement contradicts itself.





The following are from lawyers found online:

"Stores are private businesses. You can be asked to leave for almost any reason so long as it is not due to discrimination based on race, sex, religion, etc. Your constitutional rights protect you against the government. They do not apply to interactions between citizens."


Do you pay admission to get into retail stores?

When you figure out that answer, you will be well on your way to understanding there is a difference, and while the owners of the Ball Park can refuse admission to anyone they do not want in, they can not force them to stand during a song.
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 612
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 7:39:49 AM
^^^^^^^
Paid admission or not is not dispositive. A private store can't violate your fundamental rights...for example could not force you to pledge allegiance to the flag on entry. Unfortunately, the way the conservative courts are heading, they may not have to bake you a cake if you are gay, but that really does not involve a fundamental right i.e. the bill of rights.
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 613
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 9:08:46 AM
This actually is an interesting subject imho....there is no doubt that completely private clubs, etc. can limit the terms of membership...The First Amendment gives the right to associate with whom you want, and if that means that you must recognize the great Moose in the sky to gain entry...so be it...if that means only practicing Protestants can join, so be it.

And yes, a private Business can dictate the terms of employment for the most part (although there are exceptions... based on constitutional rights)

But lets look at the Football Stadium issue...once public law enforcement officers get involved to enforce a private employer's edicts, i.e., seeks to remove a patron who refuses to stand for an Anthem.... there has clearly been a violation of that customer's rights under Color of State Law.........and a claim for violation of constitutional rights can be brought.

If a "private" security guard has the audacity to put his hands on a person and physically remove him for refusing to Stand for the Anthem.... well, I would love to be suing Flick if he was the responsible party for that battery. Flick, maybe you can show me anywhere in the country a private security guard can take the law into his own hands and manhandle a patron who is lawfully and peaceably on a person's premises. If a cop interferes in a strictly private..civil matter, that cop is asking for trouble and most of them have been trained to recognize that.

Take a look at the United Airlines case where the cops got on the plane and removed the passenger for his refusal to voluntarily get off the plane. They were fired.....why? they had no right to manhandle this guy because he was not breaking any law... they violated his rights.... and as for United Airlines.... we don't know what it paid for its stupidity, but I'm pretty sure it was a huge amount.

So this is the way it works Flick...lets assume somebody violates the terms of your ticket requiring a person Stand when in your stadium? What are you going to do about it? Law enforcement can't get involved to enforce your private contract. Private Guards would be subject to battery charges (there better be a compelling reason before a private guard puts their hands on somebody, like when they are endangering other patrons), your only option would be to deny that person entry the next time around....or alternatively sue them for breach of contract. Good luck on that. I wonder how such a case would be decided. The Courts generally take a balanced approach to these matters. So assuming the Stadium was not publicly financed (they are all publicly financed)...maybe...maybe...you could enforce your rights in Court....but you know what... that would not be very good business would it .... you fuktard.
 benartflick
Joined: 3/8/2012
Msg: 614
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 9:55:07 AM

"nor do I think they should"


Okay, it's your opinion, you do know what you think.

Most of your OPINIONS aren't supported by facts or anything I'm aware of. I based my opinion on written laws, what I observed here in the USA and a bit of research.

I absolutely believe an employer should have that right. I know he does. Whatcha got that suggests otherwise?


"So you are not aware of an law requiring people to stand for a song..."


That's correct! If you're aware of a law requiring people to stand for a song, please tell us where it's written.


"...you think that people who own business can force people to stand for a song based on wording on the ticket."


Nah! I KNOW if I own a business, I have the legal right to have reasonable rules like requiring patrons to be respectful to other customers, my employees and our country. Ya don't like my rules - don't buy a ticket. That's unreasonable to you?

My guess ya think if a person owns a Jewish deli, he can't fire an employee if the guy wore a Nazi patch and gave the Nazi salute every time someone entered his store. Are there any exceptions to your 'employees have a legal right to be disrespectful'? Please share you list - since there isn't a list here in the USA.

Some voters showed up at Bernie's public office wanting to know why he voted to invade a country (after promising not to do that). Bernie had them arrested after they refused to leave without hearing an explanation. Ya think Bernie had the legal right to do that?


"I mean there is dumb and then there is that level of dumb."


You gotta be one of toocash's multiple ID's. You think like him, write like him ....Oh, I can go on and on, but it might get insulting. I'm trying not to misbehave. That's difficult when dealing with a man or child of your caliber.
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 615
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 9:58:19 AM
^^^^^ hey Flick you idiot, read this case. I get it will be far over your head, but it has lots of simple information in it. Its older but fairly easy reasoning for a stupid fuktard, so I am posting just for you.



CITY OF JAMESTOWN, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Gertrude A. SCHULER, Defendant and Appellant.
CITY OF JAMESTOWN, Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
Elizabeth I. KISER, Defendant and Appellant.

Crim. Nos. 910171-910192.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Nov. 20, 1991.
Page 832

Joseph F. Larson, II (argued), Asst. City Atty., Jamestown, for plaintiff and appellee.

Paul T. Crary (argued), Walhalla, for defendants and appellants. Appearance by Peter B. Crary.

LEVINE, Justice.

The appellants were convicted of violating a Jamestown trespass ordinance. We hold that the application of the ordinance under the facts of this case violated the appellants' First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. For that reason, we reverse the convictions.

The appellants waived jury trials and submitted their cases to the trial court on stipulated facts and briefs. We refer to those facts throughout this opinion.

The City of Jamestown holds title to the Jamestown Mall, as is required by the Municipal Industrial Development Act, Chapter 40-57, N.D.C.C., for MIDA bond financing under that act. The City has assigned its interest in the property to James Refrigeration Company, the developer of the mall, who, in turn, has leased space in the mall to various tenants, one of whom is Dr. Robert Lucy.

On the north wall of the Jamestown Mall, located adjacent to the east and west entrances, is a posted notice which says in part:

Page 833

"Any unauthorized activity (exclusive of activity expressly permitted by statute) in the Jamestown Mall common areas not directly related to the commercial purpose for which the Jamestown Mall was developed, regardless of whether that activity is conducted by one or more persons and regardless of whether that activity is peaceful or non-peaceful, will be considered unlawful trespassing, and it will be treated as such by the owners and managing agents of the Jamestown Mall.

* * * * * *

"By way of example only, and not intended to be a complete list, the following are activities which constitute trespassing and will not be permitted: Loitering, soliciting, speech making, picketing, distributing handbills or other literature, seeking signatures on petitions, or taking surveys (or anything else which might be classified as expressive activity )." [Emphasis in original.]

The appellants entered the Jamestown Mall and conducted abortion protests in the hallway near Dr. Lucy's second floor medical office. The appellants were informed that "they were not authorized to be in front of Dr. Lucy's office" and were asked to leave. They ignored the notice and remained in place.

The appellants were in the mall to protest and not to engage in any form of business or commerce. During the protests, they sang, prayed and maintained silent vigil. At oral argument, counsel for the parties agreed that the protestors were in all respects peaceful and orderly. They did not attempt to inhibit ingress or egress of patients at Dr. Lucy's clinic nor did they threaten injury to any person or property.

The Jamestown police, summoned by Dr. Lucy, arrested the protesters for criminal trespass. 1 The protestors were subsequently convicted and have filed this appeal.

On appeal, the appellants urge reversal of their convictions because they are based on conduct protected by the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and peaceable assembly. They assert that application of the city trespass ordinance under these circumstances, to enforce the mall's prohibition against expressive activity, directly infringed upon their First Amendment rights and that their convictions must, therefore, be overturned. We agree.

The First Amendment forbids the enactment of laws "abridging the freedom of speech ... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Peaceful picketing and leafletting are examples of expressive activities involving speech protected under the First Amendment. United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 103 S.Ct. 1702, 75 L.Ed.2d 736 (1983). A restriction on the right to engage in protest or picketing on an issue of public concern "operates at the core of the First Amendment" and such restrictions on public-issue picketing are traditionally subjected to careful scrutiny. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474, 108 S.Ct. 2495, 101 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988). The scope of protected speech was discussed by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Dellinger, 472 F.2d 340, 358 (7th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 410 U.S. 970, 93 S.Ct. 1443, 35 L.Ed.2d 706 (1973):

"Ideally the analysis should begin with a delineation of the scope of speech protected by the first amendment.... All expression of ideas is effected by, or is, itself, conduct, and all conduct necessarily expresses some idea, emotion, or thought. Perhaps we can do no better than a generalization which equates first amendment 'speech' with conduct which makes an offer in the market place of ideas. Indeed we need no more precise delineation for the purpose of considering the statute here, for it is clear that individual or group conduct for the dominant

Page 834

and virtually sole purpose of expressing views on public questions is well within the concept of speech protected by the first amendment."
The City of Jamestown acknowledges that the protestors assembled in a peaceful and orderly manner for the sole purpose of expressing their views on the abortion issue. The City does not argue that the activity of the protesters involved opprobrious or objectionable conduct. Rather, the City only argues that the protestors' activities were lawfully banned by the mall owners, because the mall is privately owned and is not, therefore, subject to First Amendment restrictions.

The constitutional guarantee of free speech under the First Amendment is a guarantee only against abridgment by government, federal or state; it provides no protection against infringement by a private corporation or person. Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, 424 U.S. 507, 96 S.Ct. 1029, 47 L.Ed.2d 196 (1976). To direct our analysis, we briefly trace the history of United States Supreme Court decisions involving the First Amendment in a shopping mall setting.

The United States Supreme Court recognized an exception to the requirement of state action for First Amendment purposes in Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946), when it determined that a privately owned corporate town, having all the characteristics of other municipalities, was subject to the people's First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. In reaching that conclusion, the court emphasized that the right to exercise the liberties safeguarded by the First Amendment "lies at the foundation of free government by free [people]." Id., at 326 U.S. at 509, 66 S.Ct. at 280, 90 L.Ed. at 270.

Finding striking similarities between the business district of the corporate town in Marsh, supra, and the Logan Valley Mall, a privately owned shopping center, the high court held, in Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, Inc., 391 U.S. 308, 88 S.Ct. 1601, 20 L.Ed.2d 603 (1968), that peaceful picketers in the mall must be accorded their First Amendment free speech rights and that the mall owners could not bar protected First Amendment expression conducted in the mall which was consonant with the mall's purpose and use. The majority decision, written by Justice Marshall, recognized that the premises of a shopping center resemble the business areas of a municipality, freely accessible and open to the public, which are historically associated with the exercise of First Amendment rights.

In the subsequent case of Lloyd Corporation, Ltd. v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551, 92 S.Ct. 2219, 33 L.Ed.2d 131 (1972), the court backed away from its position in Logan Valley Plaza, supra. Tanner also involved a privately owned shopping mall. The mall owners refused to allow persons in the common areas of the mall to distribute materials protesting the draft and the Vietnam War. The high court concluded that a ban on the distribution of literature in the mall did not violate the First Amendment rights of protestors whose attempted expression was unrelated to any specific mall activity and who had alternative means of communicating outside the mall.

In the later case of Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, the high court fully retreated from its position in Logan Valley Plaza, supra, and, expressly overruling that case, held that the constitutional guarantee of free expression under the First Amendment has no part to play where persons are attempting to exercise that right in a privately owned shopping mall. 2

Page 835

Our case is different. In Tanner, supra, and Hudgens, supra, there were privately owned shopping malls. Here, the City of Jamestown owns the Jamestown Mall and leases it to a private developer. To determine whether the appellants' convictions violated their First Amendment rights we must conduct a two-part analysis. See Citizens to End Animal Suffering v. Faneuil Hall, 745 F.Supp. 65 (D.Mass.1990). First, we must determine whether the regulation of the appellants' expressive activity by the Jamestown Mall constitutes state action. Second, if state action is involved, we must then characterize the forum involved to establish the constitutional standard by which we judge the mall's regulation of expressive activity.

The appellants assert that the City ownership of this property brings the mall's actions within the realm of state action to which the First Amendment applies. However, the prosecutor argues that there is no state action because the City has mere legal title, and has, in effect, leased away or assigned all control as well as financial risk and benefit to the private developers of the mall. The key question is whether the government, as an owner of property, can, by lease or assignment, disengage the property from the realm of state action and the constitutional imperatives that state action carries with it. We conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, the City has not divested the mall of its "state action" designation for First Amendment purposes. We find several federal cases persuasive on this issue.

Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619 (5th Cir.1981), involved the constitutionality of a local ordinance governing distribution of literature and fund solicitation at the Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport complex. The argument in that case was that the leasing of every square foot of the airport to private air carriers removed the facility from the "public forum mold." The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, stating:

"Despite the leaseholds of the air carriers, ownership of the airport remains in the municipal governments. Moreover, the existence of a leasehold by a private party on public property does not remove from the realm of state action restrictions on the exercise of civil rights at the site." Fernandes, supra, 663 F.2d at 627.

In International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Schrader, 461 F.Supp. 714 (N.D.Tex.1978), a city owned facility, the Dallas Convention Center, was leased to private tenants for various activities. In rejecting the contention that the private leasing of the facility warranted a declaration "of the nonpublic status of the physical plant," the federal district court said:

"The City seems to seek a declaration of the nonpublic status of the physical plant. Such a blanket exception from the First Amendment is neither constitutionally permissible nor procedurally available. Although the City might act in a proprietary role as landowner and let the premises on nondiscriminatory terms, it cannot furnish as part of its rental package assurance to a tenant that the tenant's activity is insulated from the First Amendment.

* * * * * *

"Any suggestion that a tenant enjoys unfettered rights to exclude because its activity is wholly private ignores the dual role of the City as sovereign and as landlord in enforcing that censorship; it equally ignores the reality that public forum is not a concept controlled by the common law of real property, running with the land or reverting to and among tenancies. Given the interrelationship of the City, private property owners and the sometime propinquity to public events of the center's usage, the concept here serves as an analytical tool for assaying the relative interest of owners of private property and the interest of a free society in the highly placed value of open markets for ideas. A tenant of the city need not take his private property, here a leasehold interest into that marketplace, but if he does, he must abide its rules; ..." Schrader, supra, 461 F.Supp. at 717-718 [Emphasis added].

In Citizens to End Animal Suffering v. Faneuil Hall, supra, protestors were denied

Page 836

the right to distribute literature in lanes between buildings at Faneuil Hall Marketplace by the private owners who leased the marketplace from the city of Boston. The protestors claimed violations of their First Amendment rights and sought a preliminary injunction against future interference with their attempts to distribute literature. In granting the injunction, the federal district court found that the private owners' actions were fairly attributable to the state. A key factor in the decision was the city's fee simple ownership. Also significant, the city leased the property to revitalize the downtown area and so derived economic benefit from the restrictions imposed by the owners to enhance the success of the marketplace.
Although Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 81 S.Ct. 856, 6 L.Ed.2d 45 (1961) involved racial discrimination rather than infringement of free speech, the decision is instructive for its holding that the conduct of a private restaurant owner, who leased space in a building owned by a state agency and financed by public funds, constituted state action.

These cases persuade us that the Jamestown Mall's restrictions on expressive activity constituted state action in this case. The City's ownership of the property is, in our view, a significant factor in concluding that the attempted infringement of free speech by the mall involved state action. We reject the prosecutor's argument that, because legal title was taken by the City primarily for purposes of meeting statutory prerequisites to MIDA bond financing, the City's ownership should not be equated with the presence of state action.

In Lawless-Avelar v. Westminster Mall Company, 819 P.2d 55 (1991), the Supreme Court of Colorado held that free speech rights under its state constitution applied to a private shopping center. In finding the presence of state action in the mall's activities, the court made the following statements with which we agree:

"Our finding that governmental involvement exists here is not based on any single factor. Nevertheless, we find significant the City's two million dollar purchase, financed through the sale of municipal bonds, of improvements which the Company made to adjacent streets and drainage systems. It is now common for governmental entities to compete, by providing financial subsidies or inducements, to attract private business so as to reap the benefits of an increased tax base. Economic necessity, however, cannot provide the cover for government-supported infringements of speech."

The Jamestown City Council issued a resolution approving the MIDA bond financing for the shopping center. In that resolution, the Council expressly recognized "the desirability and need for industrial and business expansion within the community to improve and enhance the economic growth of same." Thus, the project was viewed as a benefit for the City and community as well as for its private participants.

We conclude that the City of Jamestown, as legal owner of the property, could not, by lease or assignment of the property, sweep aside state action and in the process erase the guarantees of free speech accorded to the people under the First Amendment. Therefore, we hold that the restrictions on speech by the mall authorities involved state action by the City of Jamestown, as owner of the property.

Having concluded that the restrictions on expressive activity by the mall constituted state action, we turn to the second part of our analysis to determine the nature of the forum involved and the scope of the appellants' rights of free speech and peaceable assembly under the circumstances.

The federal constitution does not require the government to freely grant access to all who wish to exercise free speech on every type of government property, without regard to the nature of the property or to the disruption that might be caused by the speaker's activities. Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 105 S.Ct. 3439, 87 L.Ed.2d 567 (1985). The high court has adopted a forum analysis as a means of balancing the government's interest in limiting the use of its property to its intended

Page 837

purpose and the interest of those wishing to use the property for expressive activity and other purposes.
This forum analysis was nicely explained by Justice O'Connor in Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., 482 U.S. 569, 572-573, 107 S.Ct. 2568 2571, 96 L.Ed.2d 500, 506 (1987):

"In balancing the government's interest in limiting the use of its property against the interests of those who wish to use the property for expressive activity, the Court has identified three types of fora: the traditional public forum, the public forum created by government designation, and the nonpublic forum. Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 45-46, 103 S.Ct. 948, 954-955, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). The proper First Amendment analysis differs depending on whether the area in question falls in one category rather than another. In a traditional public forum or a public forum by government designation, we have held that First Amendment protections are subject to heightened scrutiny:

" 'In these quintessential public forums, the government may not prohibit all communicative activity. For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end.... The State may also enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication.' Id., at 45, 103 S.Ct., at 955.

"We have further held, however, that access to a nonpublic forum may be restricted by government regulation as long as the regulation 'is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely because officials oppose the speaker's view.' Id., at 46, 103 S.Ct., at 955."

See also, United States v. Kokinda, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3115, 111 L.Ed.2d 571 (1990).

Examples of public fora are public streets and parks which have traditionally been devoted to public assembly and debate. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn., 460 U.S. 37, 103 S.Ct. 948, 74 L.Ed.2d 794 (1983). Public places similar to the common areas of the shopping mall in this case also have been found to be public fora. For example, in Wolin v. Port of New York Authority, 392 F.2d 83, 90 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 940, 89 S.Ct. 290, 21 L.Ed.2d 275 (1968), the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that the municipal bus terminal operated by the Port of New York Authority was a public forum conducive to the public communication of views on issues of political and social significance:

"The Terminal building is an appropriate place for expressing one's views precisely because the primary activity for which it is designed is attended with noisy crowds and vehicles, some unrest and less than perfect order. Like a covered marketplace area, the congestion justifies rules regulating other forms of activity, but it seems undeniable that the place should be available for use in appropriate ways as a public forum. The admission of charity solicitors, glee clubs and automobile exhibitions without untoward incident evidences the ease with which the Terminal accommodates different forms of communication. To deny access to political communication seems an anomalous inversion of our fundamental values."

Not unlike the bus terminal in Wolin, supra, the common walkways and public areas of the modern-day mall, like the Jamestown Mall, lend themselves to expressive activity of the public. These malls offer concourses that are wide, well lit and able to accommodate large numbers of the public at one time. They are complete with restrooms, sitting areas and fountains. They often include display areas for entertainers, exhibitors and others to perform for the public at large. In essence, they are the functional equivalent of the city

Page 838

streets, squares and parks of earlier days. Indeed, in many instances, the shopping mall has displaced the shops along main street. With its controlled environment, it is an appealing place for the public to converse and socialize as well as to browse and shop in and about the stores there.
In many ways, the common walkways of a shopping mall are indistinguishable from the concourse of the St. Louis airport facility found to be a public forum in Jamison v. City of St. Louis, 828 F.2d 1280, 1283 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 987, 108 S.Ct. 1289, 99 L.Ed.2d 499 (1988):

"We agree with these courts and with the City's implicit acknowledgment that the concourse of a large airport facility like the one in St. Louis has the character, pattern of activity, and nature of purpose that make it an appropriate place for the communication of views.... As has been noted, an airport terminal is much like a busy city street. Both are lined by shops, restaurants, newsstands, and other businesses, with travelers or other members of the general public coming and going as they please."

See also Fernandes v. Limmer, 663 F.2d 619 (5th Cir.1981) (Dallas-Ft. Worth airport terminal constituted a public forum in which efforts to regulate speech were subject to First Amendment free speech guarantees).

We hold that the common area walkways of the Jamestown Mall constitute a public forum and that attempted regulation of expressive activity in these areas must comport with the First Amendment. The mall authorities may regulate the time, place and manner of expression in the mall. However, the regulations must be reasonable, content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and must leave open ample alternative channels of communication. Perry Education, supra.

The regulation of expression by the mall authorities in this case does not fall within the First Amendment limits for restricting expressive activity in a public forum. The posted notice at the Jamestown Mall states that anything which might be classified as "expressive activity" will not be permitted. The mall authorities enforced that notice by refusing to allow the appellants to peacefully protest in the common areas of the mall. Concluding that similar language was facially overbroad and in violation of the First Amendment, the United States Supreme Court in Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus, Inc., supra, 482 U.S. at 575, 107 S.Ct. at 2572, 96 L.Ed.2d at 508, stated that "no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech." This all-encompassing ban on expressive activity by the Jamestown Mall is legally indistinguishable from the facially invalid resolution in Jews for Jesus, Inc., Id.

We hold that the appellants' trespass convictions constituted an infringement of their First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceable assembly. For that reason, the judgments of conviction are reversed.

ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, GIERKE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.

---------------

1 The appellants were convicted of violating Section 22-46 of the Code of the City of Jamestown, North Dakota, which provides:

"A person is guilty of an offense if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place as to which notice against trespass is given by actual communication to the actor by the person in charge of the premises or other authorized person, or by posting in a manner reasonably likely to come to the attention of the intruders."

2 In the subsequent case of Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980), the high court, while implicitly recognizing that there is no federal constitutional right of free speech in a privately owned shopping mall, held that a state, in the exercise of its police powers, is not precluded from finding such a right under its state constitution. Although the appellants have asserted, in the alternative, a free speech right under our state constitution, we first proceed with their claim of a free speech guarantee under the First Amendment.
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 616
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 10:11:25 AM

My guess ya think if a person owns a Jewish deli, he can't fire an employee if the guy wore a Nazi patch and gave the Nazi salute every time someone entered his store. Are there any exceptions to your 'employees have a legal right to be disrespectful'? Please share you list - since there isn't a list here in the USA.


The level of stupidity of this Flick guy is beyond being a mere "fuktard". Now he is equating a Nazi with choosing not to stand for the Anthem. Only a person beyond Fuktardism would not recognize the differences between the two concepts.

My apologies to Joe in using his "words" but flick is such an incredible Fuktard, I really have no choice.
 butheremails
Joined: 11/1/2017
Msg: 617
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 10:48:29 AM

Most of your OPINIONS aren't supported by facts or anything I'm aware of. I based my opinion on written laws, what I observed here in the USA and a bit of research.


FYI, it is clear you are not aware as I pointed out the fact your examples are not related and yet you keep using them.

Also it seems you are not aware of that thing called the The US Constitution and also seem to have no idea what US Labor Laws are.




You gotta be one of toocash's multiple ID's. You think like him, write like him ....Oh, I can go on and on, but it might get insulting. I'm trying not to misbehave. That's difficult when dealing with a man or child of your caliber.


I highly doubt you have the mental capacity to see it, but you literally just took a page out of tRump book where you pretend that you are above insults and then toss one out. I can only assume that is because he is your hero and you try your best to emulate him, or you are a total loon.

Either way, best of luck with all of that.


"Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me 'old,' when I would NEVER call him 'short and fat?' Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!"

D. tRump
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 618
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 11:19:52 AM

Nah! I KNOW if I own a business, I have the legal right to have reasonable rules like requiring patrons to be respectful to other customers, my employees and our country. Ya don't like my rules - don't buy a ticket. That's unreasonable to you?


This is just such a nonsensical statement. You think the rights of a person who wants OTHERS to stand for the Anthem override the rights to a person who chooses NOT to stand for the Anthem. You think not standing for the Anthem shows a "lack of respect" to other people. You are such an ahole....despite the fact you are legally wrong... this shows you are just a flaming totalitarian....a good little Republican who believes that you should be able to inflict your viewpoints on everybody else. Fuk You.
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 619
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/14/2017 12:10:38 PM

Clearly, then, if the refusal to participate in the ceremony attendant upon the singing or playing of the National Anthem had not occurred in a public-school classroom, but in some other public or private place, there would be not the slightest doubt that the plaintiffs were free to participate or not as they choose. Every citizen is free to stand or sit, sing or remain silent, when the Star Spangled Banner is played.



Furthermore, the recent case of Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961) has made it clear that only the most tenuous connection of the defendant with the State is necessary to constitute "State action" within the ambit of 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343(3). The Supreme Court there held, relying on United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 61 S.Ct. 1031, 85 L.Ed. 1368 (1941) and Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 65 S.Ct. 1031, 89 L.Ed. 1495 (1945), that the phrase "under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any State



Our forebears realized that ideas for preservation and improvement of a free society must come, not from the government, but from the people, and must compete for acceptance by the people, just as goods and services compete for acceptance in our free-enterprise economy. They realized too that in order to compete for acceptance, these ideas must be freely expressed by act and deed; that only in this way can the truth prevail; that only in this way can an idea despised today win the acceptance of reason tomorrow, or be thoroughly discredited; and that only by protecting the freedom of the smallest minority to express unpopular ideas by word or deed can the majority insure freedom to believe and express its own ideas, and to dispute and criticize those of others. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630, 40 S.Ct. 17, 22, 63 L.Ed. 1173 (1919) (Holmes J., dissenting).


Sheldon v. Fannin, 221 F.Supp. 766 (D. Ariz., 1963)

So what do we know about ball parks...beyond the fact they are always supported by tax dollars....... there are also plenty of State supported actors in getting people to the Ball Park...such as Traffic Officers, State supported subways, state supported Highways. My guess...although it has never been specifically tested in the context we are talking about that there is no possibility patrons of even a supposedly "private" ball park ...could be compelled to stand for the anthem. Such a rule would fly in the face of Freedom of Expression, and there is no more peaceful freedom of expression... than sitting or kneeling during the National Anthem. So Flick, you asked that I prove you wrong... I have done so. I enjoyed this exercise though..........I found the subject interesting.
 toocash
Joined: 9/5/2017
Msg: 620
Might be more than a loose screw and an unsound mind
Posted: 11/15/2017 10:16:55 AM

Mr Trollman, naturally you're incapable of backing up your illogical opinions. Finding ANYTHING that might suggest there's a grain of truth in your above sentences will be virtually impossible


Now that I have proven by the source documentation itself that I am right and Flick is wrong, I wonder if he is going to apologize?
 LLove2LaughToo
Joined: 10/25/2017
Msg: 621
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 2/11/2018 4:17:03 PM
Vicepresident Pence, who is leading our Olympics delegation in South Korea, refused to stand when both Korean teams marched under a unified flag during the Olympics opening ceremony. South Korea is the host country, so is it ok for Pence to disrespect an important ally?

This is the same crybaby who walked out when NFL players kneeled at a stupid football game during the national anthem, yet he disrespects South Korea athletes by remaining seated during the Korean team ceremony. What a hypocrite.


Tweets About Mike Pence Not Standing For Korean Athletes At The Olympics Opening Ceremony Are Ironic

If you watched the Olympics opening ceremony on Friday, Feb. 9, you might've noticed that tensions ran high when both North and South Korean athletes marched together under one united flag. However, the tension didn't come from the competitors; it came from Vice President Mike Pence. That's right, our VP made the special moment a tad uncomfortable when he decided not to stand for the Korean Olympians as they made their big entrance. Instead, he sat during the ordeal while South Korean President Moon Jae-in and and North Korean officials stood up and applauded their joint team.

https://www.elitedaily.com/p/tweets-about-mike-pence-not-standing-for-korean-athletes-at-the-olympics-opening-ceremony-are-ironic-8185795
 CadetBoneSpurs
Joined: 2/7/2018
Msg: 622
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 2/16/2018 8:57:29 AM

This is the same crybaby who walked out when NFL players kneeled at a stupid football game during the national anthem, yet he disrespects South Korea athletes by remaining seated during the Korean team ceremony. What a hypocrite.


In his defense, he is a complete loon.
 Llove2LaughToo
Joined: 4/14/2018
Msg: 623
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 4/25/2018 5:01:18 PM
I expect to see Comrade Cadet Bone Spurs Trump going on a twitter rampage against the NFL owners.


Inside the Confidential NFL Meeting to Discuss National Anthem Protests

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/sports/nfl-owners-kaepernick.html
 NewYorker58
Joined: 6/11/2013
Msg: 624
view profile
History
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 4/25/2018 11:19:15 PM
Kaepernack was very close to becoming the Seahawks backup quarterback, but supposedly won't be considered, because he said he'll continue to kneel. They got rid of Michael Bennett that started kneeling.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2018/04/12/seahawks-reportedly-postpone-a-colin-kaepernick-workout-over-protest-uncertainty/?utm_term=.a9bda4c90a40
 drinkthesunwithmyface
Joined: 3/27/2012
Msg: 625
view profile
History
Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem
Posted: 4/26/2018 2:41:19 AM
I swear...the U.S.A....no matter what else is going on in the rest of the world, I'm sure that the rest of the world is frequently saying "what the hail are y'all arguing about now? Y'all are like that one house on the block that the rest of the neighborhood can always hear yelling and fighting about everything imaginable...always screeching down the street and in and out of your driveway, stuff spilling out into your yard, parties and music and fights at all ours of the night and day, running around down the sidewalks by everyone else's house and hollering at other people to mow their lawn and pick up their trash..."

Oh wait...some of that might be the Middle East...
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Sitting, kneeling or hiding out in the lockeroom during our anthem