Show me your papers please... ID's for going to the mall...

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

What civil rights? It's private property - if they want to require everyone wears green shoes they can. It'd be bad for business sure... but there's not a lot you can do other than whine if people want to impose prerequisites for your stepping foot on their private property, (save for where there are laws against it such as requiring the person to be of a certain colour/creed etc).

Actually, that's not hard-and-fast true under US jurisprudence. When I was in law school in the early 80's, I recall reading some cases (sorry, I don't have the citations) in which privately-owned shopping malls were required to allow certain types of public speech activity that they tried to ban - I seem to recall it was something political, like peacefully carrying a "message" sign, or circulating a petition, or something like that. As best as I can recall, the courts likened the common areas of the mall to the modern-day equivalent of the old-style "town square", saying they were limited-purpose public areas, even if they were technically on private property. Sort of a hybrid analysis by the courts, but you get my point. Anyhow, if I was a lawyer for clients trying to challenge this policy, I might use the principles enunciated in those older cases as a jumping-off point to start my research and building my case.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Interesting. Cheers!

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Actually, that's not hard-and-fast true under US jurisprudence. When I was in law school in the early 80's, I recall reading some cases (sorry, I don't have the citations) in which privately-owned shopping malls were required to allow certain types of public speech activity that they tried to ban - I seem to recall it was something political, like peacefully carrying a "message" sign, or circulating a petition, or something like that. As best as I can recall, the courts likened the common areas of the mall to the modern-day equivalent of the old-style "town square", saying they were limited-purpose public areas, even if they were technically on private property. Sort of a hybrid analysis by the courts, but you get my point. Anyhow, if I was a lawyer for clients trying to challenge this policy, I might use the principles enunciated in those older cases as a jumping-off point to start my research and building my case.

I think these are what you're looking for:

"The first cases asserting free speech rights in privately owned shopping centers were successful. In the 1946 case of Marsh v. Alabama, the Supreme Court held that the business district of a privately owned "company town" was the same as a public street for First Amendment purposes, finding that "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." A 1968 case—Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza—held that a privately owned mall was the "functional equivalent" of the business district in Marsh.

But realizing they had overreached in the early cases, and sensitive to what they had done to private property rights, the Supremes reversed course in Hudgens v. NLRB, a 1976 case holding that the First Amendment guarantees no free speech rights in private shopping centers. And in an important 1980 case, Pruneyard v. Robins, the court upheld the general notion that citizens have no First Amendment rights to express themselves in privately owned shopping centers while still agreeing that a group of California students had the right to hand out leaflets and collect signatures in a private California mall.

The magic bullet in Pruneyard? The high court found that state constitutions may confer upon citizens broader speech rights than the federal Constitution, and the broadly worded California Constitution gave citizens the right to speak freely, even in private malls. The court dismissed the shopping center's claims that such a rule infringed on its free speech rights, by forcing it to tolerate unwanted speech on private property, and rejected the argument that forcing them to open up to public debate constituted an unconstitutional "taking" of private property."

-Dahlia Lithwick

[Andy9o8 2]

Thanks, those are some of the cases I was thinking about!

BTW, I would explain the philosophical "reversal" the author describes thusly: the 1946 case was decided by a Supreme Court most (maybe all?) of whose members were appointed by FDR. The 1968 case was decided by the moderate to liberal Warren Court. The 1976 and 1980 cases were decided by the Burger Court, including conservatives appointed by Nixon, such as Burger, Blackmun and Rehnquist.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Truthfully, I don't care

Free market will determine whether this was a good decision or not.

(I'm referring to the ID check )

The market is not free.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Going to the mall without ID isn't a civil right.

So - they could tell black people that they have to use a different water fountain because it is private property and civil rights don't apply?

Civil rights don't stop when you enter a freaking mall.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[steveorino 7]

Quote

Quote

Truthfully, I don't care

Free market will determine whether this was a good decision or not.

(I'm referring to the ID check )

The market is not free.

Read my first statement again ... I'll bold it for you.

steveOrino

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Going to the mall without ID isn't a civil right.

So - they could tell black people that they have to use a different water fountain because it is private property and civil rights don't apply?

Civil rights don't stop when you enter a freaking mall.

This is why I hate "the analogy game".
I agree with you that "civil rights don't stop when you enter a mall", and I think Nightingale does, too. Her post doesn't address whether civil rights are suspended in a mall, it addresses whether entering a mall without ID is a civil right.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Going to the mall without ID isn't a civil right.

So - they could tell black people that they have to use a different water fountain because it is private property and civil rights don't apply?

Civil rights don't stop when you enter a freaking mall.

This is why I hate "the analogy game".
I agree with you that "civil rights don't stop when you enter a mall", and I think Nightingale does, too. Her post doesn't address whether civil rights are suspended in a mall, it addresses whether entering a mall without ID is a civil right.

Exactly. It is a civil right to be able to enter a place of business regardless of your race. It is not a civil right to enter a place regardless of whether or not you have your ID with you. Business owners have a right to regulate who is on their property, provided they are not regulating by race, disability, gender, sexual orientation (in some states), etc...

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Business owners have a right to regulate who is on their property, provided they are not regulating by race, disability, gender, sexual orientation (in some states), etc...

How about age?

Is age discrimination okay? As it may apply to this situation?

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Business owners have a right to regulate who is on their property, provided they are not regulating by race, disability, gender, sexual orientation (in some states), etc...

How about age?

Is age discrimination okay? As it may apply to this situation?

That's actually kind of dicey. I'd say it would have to have a rational basis, and you'd have to take it on a case by case basis. Barring people under age 18 who aren't accompanied by a guardian over 21 probably will stand as long as you can demonstrate that the purpose is to reasonably regulate order and safety. It also occurs to me that movie theaters bar under-age kids from R-rated movies unless they're with an adult - that's purely voluntary; there's nothing in the law that mandates it. I think any challenge to that (theater) policy would probably fail.

[Zipp0 1]

This kind of bullshit always decays into abuse. Imagine a bunch of ignorant mall cops on power trips and you may start to get the idea.

Who wants to live in a world where ID is required to enter any space you don't own? I sure don't, and that seems exactly where we are headed. Frankly, it scares the shit out of me.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

This kind of bullshit always decays into abuse. Imagine a bunch of ignorant mall cops on power trips and you may start to get the idea.

It hasn't decayed into abuse in the malls in which this has been done for years now. As a matter of fact it has been very successful.

Not all mall Security Officers are ignorant.

[Fast 0]

Quote

This kind of bullshit always decays into abuse. Imagine a bunch of ignorant mall cops on power trips and you may start to get the idea.

Who wants to live in a world where ID is required to enter any space you don't own? I sure don't, and that seems exactly where we are headed. Frankly, it scares the shit out of me.

This is the reason I posted the thread in the first place. It isn't so much about having to have ID to enter this specific mall. I am worried about the continuing trend of having to show ID to get into places that you don't own. It goes against what I feel is one of the principles of this country.

If you are willing to think outside the lines and look at how this is a growing trend and how it has grown to effect quite a few things in life as of late, it starts to paint a clearer picture.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Not all mall Security Officers are ignorant.

Bwaaa ha ha!! Ha ha!! HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem....... Of course not.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[Royd 0]

If you've done nothing wrong... you've got nothing to worry about

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


I think that besides the rights of the public, the business owners have the most to lose in this situation. Those that will be affected most are non chain style shops that are owned locally and target a younger market. In general though, if I was the owner of a store in this mall I would be looking to get out with rules like the above.

My concern is that they are not going to just be looking at ID's but rather taking record of the people going into the mall. This is something that would be easy because wisconsin drivers licenses are bar coded. I recently had to let them scan my license to buy cough medicine. I would have protested but I was sick.

More and more we are seeing our personal freedoms and rights violated and people are allowing it to happen in the name of "public saftey." The problem that we are going to start to see is that eventually, they wont even bother drawing a line, they will just do whatever they feel is nessecary to protect us from us. (Not a new thing, I know, I just feel like complaining about it today)

Quote

We could post Border Patrols at every Walmart on weekends and take care of the illegal immigrant problem in no time.

• Quote

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Bwaaa ha ha!! Ha ha!! HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!

Ahem....... Of course not.

I have 30 or so of them working for me. Most are very professional dealing with the 22 million people that walk through my building annually.

I have found that customers can be far more ignorant and demanding. Specially those that refuse to believe they are on private property.

[ExAFO 0]

Mall Cop: "Stop!...or...I'll say 'Stop!' again!!"

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

lol...mine are trained by the Toronto Police ETF team, you might be surprised

[Fast 0]

Quote

lol...mine are trained by the Toronto Police ETF team, you might be surprised

I doubt the people working for you are representative of the average mall security gaurd in the United States.

~D
Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops That's where you'll find me.
Swooping is taking one last poke at the bear before escaping it's cave - davelepka

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

lol...mine are trained by the Toronto Police ETF team, you might be surprised

I doubt the people working for you are representative of the average mall security gaurd in the United States.

I wouldn't think the quality of mall security guards would vary depending on whether it's in the US or Canada. I have definitely seen mall and other private security guards who clearly were not very bright, or well-trained, or were obese or elderly, etc. Some can be real douchebags.

On the other hand, I recently accompanied a client to a large mall to confront a merchant about a high-value transaction in which we felt the merchant had defrauded my client. Because we were expecting trouble (and to cover our asses), we went to the mall security office first, to advise them of what we were about to do. They took our report in a very professional manner, and even sent 2 uniformed guards along with us to stand by in case the merchant got hostile. He did, and the guards stepped right in and kept everything very cool while we called the local police and awaited their arrival. They were every bit as professional as the police officers.

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

lol...mine are trained by the Toronto Police ETF team, you might be surprised

I doubt the people working for you are representative of the average mall security gaurd in the United States.

I wouldn't think the quality of mall security guards would vary depending on whether it's in the US or Canada. I have definitely seen mall and other private security guards who clearly were not very bright, or well-trained, or were obese or elderly, etc. Some can be real douchebags.

On the other hand, I recently accompanied a client to a large mall to confront a merchant about a high-value transaction in which we felt the merchant had defrauded my client. Because we were expecting trouble (and to cover our asses), we went to the mall security office first, to advise them of what we were about to do. They took our report in a very professional manner, and even sent 2 uniformed guards along with us to stand by in case the merchant got hostile. He did, and the guards stepped right in and kept everything very cool while we called the local police and awaited their arrival. They were every bit as professional as the police officers.

i'd like to read more about this. would it help if I said please?

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[dorbie 0]

“None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free.” Goethe

[2shay 0]

Highly inconvinient for everyone. I know when I was 15,16, and on up I had my own car and i went to the mall a lot and if I was told that i needed my parents with me to go in. WOW how stupid is that. I believe the country is rotting from the inside out little by little cause of shit like this. pretty soon there is going to have to be someone there telling me how to wipe my butt. I am also a veteran so i love this country but JESUS come on lets use our damn brains people. Laws are like a big belt while good to hold your pants up if gerded to tight we will all barley be able to breathe. So whats this say? We our losing our freedom little by little and it will all slip away if we don't watch it. Bad stuff is gonna happen we can't stop it all that is impossible. If they want that lets all just lock ourselves up in our houses and stare at the wall so we can do no harm. This reminds me of people who hook it in and then sue all the manufacturers even thought it was a pilot error. Thats like here, let me drive my chevy truck into this wall and then sue the manufacturer. Ludacris absolute crazy bs these days.

don't try your bullshit with me!!!