Another Example of free speech loving libbies

[Revmitchell]

The owner of kiosk that sells conservative merchandise in a North Carolina mall won't get to continue pushing "Impeach Obama" bumper stickers after his lease expires Friday.

The Concord Mills mall decided not to renew its contract with Loren Spivack, who fought to stay in business in the shopping center.

Spivack says his kiosk, Free Market Warrior, is being nudged out for purely political reasons.

After meeting with officials from the Concord, N.C., mall Tuesday afternoon, the two sides could not reach an agreement to keep the 8-foot-long kiosk where it was.

"Mr. Spivack has not agreed to remove the objectionable merchandise and will be moving out of Concord Mills at the end of his lease," a statement from the mall said.


More Here

 

[SeekingTruth]

It is hilarious that those who claim to desire unlimited free speech consistently try to stop any differing opinion. What can one expect from those who believe they are wiser than anyone else.

 

[targus]

IMO this is the product of competing rights. Landlord property rights vs free speech.

The landlord has the right to not renew the lease if he feels that this particular lessor is detracting from the value of his shopping mall.

Perhaps he is afraid that some shoppers that frequent the mall will be put off by this merchandise and avoid that mall and thereby reduce the business of the other lessor stores.

Would you feel the same way about this situation if the kios were selling neo-nazi items instead?

 

[Revmitchell]

IMO this is the product of competing rights. Landlord property rights vs free speech.

The landlord has the right to not renew the lease if he feels that this particular lessor is detracting from the value of his shopping mall.

Perhaps he is afraid that some shoppers that frequent the mall will be put off by this merchandise and avoid that mall and thereby reduce the business of the other lessor stores.

Would you feel the same way about this situation if the kios were selling neo-nazi items instead?

One is not equal to the other.

 

[targus]

One is not equal to the other.

How so?

One has the right to free speech but that does not mean that one has the rights to another's microphone.

 

[Revmitchell]

How so?

One has the right to free speech but that does not mean that one has the rights to another's microphone.

No one has argued for such. And this misses the point.

 

[targus]

No one has argued for such. And this misses the point.

I am just trying to understand what you mean by "One is not equal to the other."

IMO another's speech rights do not exceed my property rights and my property rights do no exceed another's speech rights.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am just trying to understand what you mean by "One is not equal to the other."

Opposition to Obama does not equal nazis

IMO another's speech rights do not exceed my property rights and my property rights do no exceed another's speech rights.

I do not disagree. But that is not the issue. In a mall where various products are being sold they pick out this one item. While they have the right to do that it is not based on decency or inappropriate material it is based on politics. And that is always a poor reason. Add to that libbies like to claim to be tolerant and this shows there is no such monster among liberals.

 

[donnA]

Liberals want us to lose all free speech rights, even obama said the constution was no good and needed to be rewriten, of course removing free speech along with other current freedoms we see illegally removed, like this case.

 

[targus]

Opposition to Obama does not equal nazis

Free speech is free speech and a right is a right.

We do not get to decide what speech should be free and what speech should not be free - so in that regard opposition to Obama and opposition for or against neo-nazis is the same.

I do not disagree. But that is not the issue. In a mall where various products are being sold they pick out this one item. While they have the right to do that it is not based on decency or inappropriate material it is based on politics. And that is always a poor reason. Add to that libbies like to claim to be tolerant and this shows there is no such monster among liberals.

To begin - we do not know the political leanings of the landlord.

He may or may not be doing this for policitcal reasons - we do not know.

But it is not anyone's place to say that the landlord cannot/should not exercise his property rights based on our personal political leanings.

If it is his right to not renew the lease - it is his right regardless of his reasons.

Denying the landlord his property rights for political reasons is no different that denying someone their speech rights for any reason.

 

[Alcott]

One is not equal to the other.

You are being critical because the mall owner does not advocate total free speech, then you show that you don't, either.

 

[Johnv]

The OP is not strictly an issue of free speech. It's two issues: The rights of an individual's free speech vs the rights of a private property owner. This has been tested numerous times at varying levels in courts, and it has been continuously held that private property owners are not required to accommodate free speech rights of a client. In short, one person's free speech rights cannot be made to infringe up another person's property rights.

It's been found that free speech does not give a person the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Free speech does not give a person the right to wear a T-shirt to a restaurant with a dress code. Free speech does not give a retailer of pornography the right to rent space at a mall. Likewise, free speech does not give a retailer the right to sell political material which the owner finds disruptive to its business.

As the previous poster said, free speech does not require a land owner to provide a tenant or client with a microphone.

 

[Revmitchell]

Free speech is free speech and a right is a right.

We do not get to decide what speech should be free and what speech should not be free - so in that regard opposition to Obama and opposition for or against neo-nazis is the same.

umm..no its not

To begin - we do not know the political leanings of the landlord.

He may or may not be doing this for policitcal reasons - we do not know.

But it is not anyone's place to say that the landlord cannot/should not exercise his property rights based on our personal political leanings.

If it is his right to not renew the lease - it is his right regardless of his reasons.

Denying the landlord his property rights for political reasons is no different that denying someone their speech rights for any reason.

The point is not about property rights.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

John V is right. I totally defend the owner's right of free speech. But the ownership of the mall is not obligated to allow it in his mall. In fact, malls typically dictate store hours, signage restrictions, etc. The man has every right to sell his stickers, but the mall owner doesn't have to allow it in the mall.

 

[targus]

umm..no its not
The point is not about property rights.

Does the landlord have the right to not renew the lease?

If not - why not?

 

[billreber]

targus said:

He may or may not be doing this for policitcal reasons - we do not know.

From the original article referenced:

Spivack told FOXNews.com that mall officials specifically asked that three bumper stickers and a T-shirt believed to be linking President Obama with terrorism be removed from the kiosk, including one that read, "Obama Wins and They Celebrate in Iran, Do You Get It?"

Yes, we DO know the motivation behind the denial of renewal for the business. The original article also said "a letter" had been received from someone complaining that the items being sold were racist. THESE TWO THINGS (the items being sold, and a complaint letter accusing racism) are the motivation to not renew the business's contract.

Please note that nobody can prove that the referenced items WERE racist, just that an accusation has been made. The same accusation has recently been made concerning a certain police sergeant in Cambridge, MA, and many supporters of Mr. Obama are now FORMER supporters because of the racist statements HE, Mr. Obama, (and his friends) have made.

BTW, I agree that the landlord has the legal right to not renew the contract. This is always true, no matter the reason. My statement is simply that there IS a political motivation (in this case) for his doing so.

Bill :godisgood:

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Liberals want us to lose all free speech rights, even obama said the constution was no good and needed to be rewriten,

Yet another lie. Unless you can post a source to prove this, you should retract. Criticise Obama on real issues...there are plenty. Lying is just ridiculous and speaks volumes about you.

 

[targus]

Yes, we DO know the motivation behind the denial of renewal for the business. The original article also said "a letter" had been received from someone complaining that the items being sold were racist. THESE TWO THINGS (the items being sold, and a complaint letter accusing racism) are the motivation to not renew the business's contract.

Please note that nobody can prove that the referenced items WERE racist, just that an accusation has been made. The same accusation has recently been made concerning a certain police sergeant in Cambridge, MA, and many supporters of Mr. Obama are now FORMER supporters because of the racist statements HE, Mr. Obama, (and his friends) have made.

BTW, I agree that the landlord has the legal right to not renew the contract. This is always true, no matter the reason. My statement is simply that there IS a political motivation (in this case) for his doing so.

Bill :godisgood:

Or perhaps the landlord agrees with the bumperstickers but is more immediately concerned with their impact on mall traffic which could ultimately result in the loss of some of his tenants.

 

[Revmitchell]

No one has suggested that the owner does not have the right to not renew the lease. It is not the issue. The issue is why they refused to regardless of their right not to. Libbies talk about being tolerant but do not really exhibit that when it comes down to it.

 

[targus]

No one has suggested that the owner does not have the right to not renew the lease. It is not the issue. The issue is why they refused to regardless of their right not to. Libbies talk about being tolerant but do not really exhibit that when it comes down to it.

Why are you certain that the landlord is a liberal?