The vast majority of American's became timid and lined up in support of an immoral and illegal war. It's been a refining of the takeover ever since then. One by one we are being told it's necessary to shut down acts of freedom of expresison.

Malls are PRIVATE PROPERTY unlike the STREETS of DOWNTOWN which were OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Everything afterward was CAUSED by that Action.

Now, your larger protests can still be seen by a large group of people, if TV covers the protest, in WAshington DC or Manhattan, but where do you protest and get most people in your area to see it, other then on TV. In my area we use to have a saying "Kiss my ass under the Kaufmann Clock during Rush Hour" to mean the action would be seen by the most people for it was the busiest pedestrian crossing in the Pittsburgh PA Area. Anything done there (or in the area) would be seen by the most people in the least amount of time. The protests would be seen by business executives AND shoppers.

Malls, starting in the 1960s, replaced downtowns and separated Shoppers from the rest of the business community. Worse, given the malls were 100% privately owned protesters could be prohibited, unlike public streets where protests could be restricted to sidewalks, but still be permitted (In the 1970s we had a lot of Iranian Students protests against the Shah, such protests were routinely denied protest permits by the local police, but the right to march on the sidewalks remained and that is what the protesters did, you can NOT do a moving protests in a mall without the mall's permission. On public streets, you can do a moving protest for you are NOT blocking pedestrian traffic for you are moving, thus no permit to protest is needed.

Fascism works on controlling formation of opposition to fascism. If people do not know that there is opposition, they can not join in that opposition. Malls facilitate keeping such opposition unknown by restricting information flow. A protest people see is one way to get the message out that there is opposition, but if the protests are unseen it is meaningless. Like the concentration of the media into just a few hands and the ongoing efforts to control information on the net, Malls act to prevent people from getting together on a political issue. Malls permit people to get together to shop but NOT to join together for a common good.

Recent protests are a clear example of this. Unless the protest is violently suppressed (and the purpose of such use of violence is to get a message out NOT to protest, so such suppression is put on TV, with blame on the protesters for "Forcing" the police to suppress the protesters) it is hard for people to see such protests. The use of "Free Speech" zones is just an adoption of this policy, to make sure the protesters are NOT seen. With malls it became almost impossible to have a protest most people will see with their own eyes as opposed to via TV. Protests are a way to get your message to people who do not even know there are people who think as you do (and to get that message to people who do think that way, but do not know how to join up with people with similar views).

Yes, people will see a lot of protests they disagree with and may even find such protest a pain, but they have at least been exposed to such ideas, ideas they would have have been exposed to without the protests. Malls prevent such interaction, unlike downtowns where such interactions could and did occur. Thus the malling of American (And today the Super stores like Walmart that by their size and locations on roads without sidewalks act much like malls) where a huge step on the way to Fascism, which has always been a force to protect corporations from democracy and other opposition.

There is no right for a group to choose my lawn as a protest site. If they did, I should have the right to have them removed.

Personal property rights do not take a backseat to a protest cause.

I have to side with the mall here.

Last edited Sun Dec 27, 2015, 02:41 AM - Edit history (3)

I am NOT objecting to the right to exclude such protesters from private property, I am pointing out that such exclusion are one way to suppress protests against the ruling elite by separating protesters from people who may see such protesters.

When it comes to Public Sidewalks and Streets, the rules are quite clear what the Government can and can not do. Protests are legal on such sidewalks and streets and unless they block traffic must be permitted. Permits to protests are only constitutional if the purpose of the permit is to minimize problems with traffic. If the protesters keep on moving on the sidewalks, no permits are needed and such moving protests are NOT illegal even if no permit is requested.

On private property, a private property owner can EXCLUDE anyone from that property. No one is disputing that right. The problem is when such property owners opens part of the property to the general public. Private property owners, unlike the Government and its public property, retain the right to exclude some people but not other people from the areas OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

That power is what I am pointing out was another step to dictatorship for that power can be used to prevent dissent from spreading. The inability of protesters from getting their protests heard by the general public is the problem. It is a problem caused by the replacement of downtowns by shopping malls. I am NOT protesting against the right of private property owners to prevent people they do not want on their property from being on their property. I am just pointing out that such rights do interfere with getting messages to others by the means of protests.

This problem with private property is not new, it is very old but the "Modern" Concept of the right to exclude people from private property is post 1890, that right did not exist before then.

Prior to the 1890s, it was perfectly legal to go onto private property and hold a protest. Certain restrictions applied:

1. The protesters were liable for any damage to the private property done by the protest AND
2. Entrance onto the property could NOT be done by breaking and entry (No Breaking of locks, windows or doors to enter the Property but if all that was needed by lifting a latch or turning a knob that was legal) and
3. People could NOT enter by the use of Force (i.e. peaceful entry ONLY).

Union organizers used this right to enter factories and mines to talk to workers about forming a union. Only in the 1890s did the modern law of Criminal Trespass become the law and then only as a matter of statute passed by state legislatures. These Criminal Trespass acts where aimed at union organizers (Mostly Mother Jones).

One exception to the above was that people could NOT enter the "Close" of a home, what we would call the yard around a house. Most people in the 1890s still lived in rural America and thus the Close of the House was understood NOT to include the barn and if the barn was NOT locked, you could enter it and spend the night (A common practice at that time).

I bring up the Common Law Rule for in the 1890s the modern law on Trespassing was adopted. This change meant that areas open to the public but where private property could be "closed" to members of the Public the private property owner wanted excluded. Thus Trespassing laws started out as an Anti-Union Law.

Now even before the 1890s you could exclude people from your lawn (unless your lawn is so large it can not be within the "Close" of the house). You could exclude people by installing a fence around your property, but if the general public was permitted onto the property, that permitted ANYONE to enter onto those property.

A secondary factor in the adoption of No Trespassing laws in the 1890s was segregation, which was on the march in the 1890s, Plessy vs Ferguson is the classic case of someone being PROHIBITED from using PRIVATE PROPERTY that was OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. Plessy involved the right to ride in a railroad passenger car owned by a privately owned railroad. Plessy said it was perfectly legal for such railroad to segregate whites from blacks when it came to use of the railroad passenger cars. If we ignore the racial parts of Plessy, the same rationale can be used to justify keeping protesters from the private property open to the public. i.e. the right to exclude some people but not others from private property open to the general public.

In fact in Plessy, the Railroad involved actually OPPOSED segregation for it forced them to add additional cars to their trains. The law actually FORCED the Railroad to separate the races so that you had GOVERNMENT restrictions on who could use what PRIVATE PROPERTY OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. Remember the power to exclude includes the power to include people, so that Plessy represented the concept that the government can FORCE people to use their own property as the GOVERNMENT WANTS THEM TO. Thus Plessy can be cited as a case where the Government told Private Property owner open to the public who can use that open to the public private property (the right to get on the train after buying a ticket was the act of Common Carrier, a term of art within the law. A Common Carrier can require payment for someone to use its services, but can NOT refuse anyone who can pay for the service unless it causes harm to other users of the Common Carrier, thus Common Carriers are much like private property open to the general public).

This POWER to exclude messages the property owners do NOT want to be heard by the public, but permit messages the property owner wants heard, is what can NOT be done when it comes to PUBLIC SIDEWALKS and STREETS. I was NOT protesting that power, but that such power is one of the weapons being used to suppress dissent.

Malls with their privately owned but open to the public hallways, are a means to suppress dissent. This suppression is that in the past the same people who today are in those hallways in the Malls were on the publicly owned sidewalks and streets of downtown shopping districts. When such shoppers were on those publicly owned sidewalks and streets, they could SEE protesters who can not be excluded from such sidewalks and streets, but can be excluded from hallways of the malls, thus cutting off one way to get the general public to at least see what you are arguing for (or against).

I am informing you of that change for I do not what people to think you agreed with the changes for I made the changes AFTER you had added your post.

I made changes to make it clearer that under the Common Law you could NOT use force OR break and enter into any property. Even under the Common Law that was illegal, but came under Breaking and Entry as oppose to Trespassing.

I also made changes as to my comments on Plessy vs Ferguson. Plessy was a complex case and was a test case from day one. The Defendant had worked with the Railroad to arrange for his arrest for violating the State Law requiring separate trains for Blacks and Whites. That made it a clear case of violating that law requiring segregation as oppose to refusing to obey a conductor or other charge. That was important for one tactic used by supporters of the law was to drop the charge as to violating the Segregation law but then try the Defendant on those other charges NOT directly related to race. In such a case the issue of race becomes moot and the Federal Court would NOT hear the case. Thus no charge of violence or other issue were made in the case, thus it was a simple case of whether segregation was constitutional. I bring it up ONLY to show the Logic that was used to justify segregation can also be used in other cases involving private property and what the Government can permit or REQUIRE when someone opens private property to the General Public.

I made some changes and I do not want to leave people think you agreed with my statements as they are written NOW, when you only agreed with them when I wrote them.

provides enormous areas for gathering. Let protestors gather on the public approaches. I actually feel disrupting peoples' shopping is not the way to win them over. This way very large numbers of mallgoers would see them coming and/or going without being aggravated. Spread them out along roads so multiple chances for slow readers are presented.

I worry about fascism too, but that's because although we still hold most power we don't use it. And that's the problem. Every two and four years we're practically begged to briefly detour from our shopping to the voting booths and endorse or toss out (in fact, have ourselves a revolution), and most don't bother. Let alone all opportunities for referenda, recalls, etc., we ignore.

The problem's with us, and the solutions have to be also.

I was reading a report on the first women to drive an automobile across the US around 1905. They report having to stop at the edge of every farm in Western Kansas, to open and close the gates across what is now US 40. Even then it was a PUBLIC ROAD and farmers had fenced in their properties to keep their cattle on their property. The problem was when a Farmer owned land on both sides of the road. In such cases when such farmers fenced in their farms, they fenced in entire land, including putting a gate on what is now US 40 instead of fencing along the road itself. Thus their cattle could cross the road from each side of the road for their was NO fence separating the land from the road, but the gates across US 40 at the edge of their farms kept the cattle on the farmer's land.

This putting a gate across a public road appears to have been common practice around 1900. The fence was NOT intended to keep people out, but cattle in. If someone was traveling on that public road, when they came to such a gate, they would open it up, go through and close the gate behind them. Again this was common practice. In the days of horse and buggy, teamsters using horses, could jump off their wagon, run pass their horses, open the gate as the horse kept pulling the wagon through the gate, and then race to get back on the wagon before the horses went to far. With automobiles you could NOT do that, so the state started to force farmers to take such gates down after about 1920 but in the early days of motoring such gates were mentioned as a main implement to driving a motor vehicle in the western states.

Today a gate across a public road is unthinkable, but it appears to have been common practice in the western states before WWI (and died out in the 1920s as rural America embraced the Automobile). It is an example of a change no one actually wrote about for it was done gradually and had massive support (as people in Rural American embraced the Automobile).

Another example of such a change is in the 1947 Pennsylvania case. In that case the Judge ruled that a tenant was peacefully removed by his landlord when the landlord locked him out of his apartment while he was taking a bath. Today, it is hard to see how such an eviction could be "Peaceful" for it implies the tenant was in the apartment as the landlord changed the locks. In reality the tenant was using a common bathroom down the hall from his apartment, a common practice as late as the post WWII era. In fact in 1948 the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law requiring all NEWLY BUILT Hotels, Inns, and Motels, to have 1/3 of their rooms with washroom facilities, i.e, baths or showers and toilets, but older hotels, inns and motels did NOT have to comply. Today, you can NOT find a Hotel or Motel where any of the rooms do NOT have an attached wash area, but it was still rare enough in 1948 for the state to Mandate such washing areas in Hotel/Motel rooms (Older Bars/Inns often have rooms over the bar, but most have NOT been rented out since the 1950s for such rooms were build in the days of the common restroom, a concept that most people reject nowadays).

Times do change and some of the silly rules you hear about in yesteryears reflect things that no longer exists or have been radically changed since those "Silly Rules" were in place. Thus you often to have to put yourself into that time period, something some people have a difficult time to do.

If we use the collective actions taken against POC on a daily basis, compare that to a piece of commercial property and ask ourselves (sincerely) which is more important, which takes a high ethical priority, and which will be remembered as history rather than puff news, I'll side with BLM.

"Personal property rights do not take a backseat to a protest cause"
You may wish to read more of the early twentieth century protests and strikes against Ford Motor Company, the Stone Mountain Coal Dump, The Pullman Strike, the wholly legal actions taken against civil rights marches at the Edmund Pettis Bridge (predicated on-- yup: property rights), I'll reverse your statement that civil rights do not take backseat to commercial property rights.

You are willing to concede private property rights over protests just because you agree with the protesters.

What if it were a anti-abortion rally on your commercial property? Would you be so quick to defend the protesters?

with bail money etc. Does BLM have that protection? I hope so - if not that is something that others could help with.

It is probably being conducted by Allen West. It is not meant to further progress, it is meant to create anger.
It is the dirtiest political trick currently in operation in this campaign.

one could argue that it's not private property any more.

I see our courts rejecting such a concept, for most Judges tend to be very pro corporate, especially the Supreme Court (and that includes not only the "Conservative" Justices but the "Liberal" justices, BREYER, J wrote the opinion that upheld the right for a corporation to have a case heard in Arbitration as opposed to the court system, if that was part of any contract, and many a credit card contract has such language).

In the case involving Arbitration Ginsburg, SOTOMAYOR AND Thomas wrote dissents:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-462_2co3.pdf

On the other hand Corporations are creations of the states and the states can end such corporations (with some exceptions).

The biggest exception involved Article 1, Section 10 of the US COnstitution

Article 1, Section 10:

In Trustees of Dartmouth Coll. v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 4 Wheat. 518 518 (1819) the US Supreme Court ruled a state could NOT change the terms of incorporations of a corporation for that would mean impairing the obligation of contracts.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/17/518.html

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/17/518/

But since that decision, when states created new corporations or passed a law giving a state agency the power to make new corporations, the states have all adopted into the terms of the incorporation OR the actual law governing incorporation. Thus Dartmonth college does NOT stay in the way of abolishing corporations. In most states only a handful of Corporations can rely on Dartmonth (And most tend to be Cemeteries, Churches and other similar very old and small corporations) for the corporations were formed under laws that gave the state the right to modify the Corporate Charters, and the US Supreme Court have upheld such restrictions.

Now, the court have ruled Corporations have the same rights as people for they are legal entities. The Court will consider any take over of a corporations as a taking of property without compensation (which means it can still occur, but the state will have to buy off the Stockholders). On the other hand what you are suggesting is that if a Corporation opens up some part of its property to the general public the State COULD say that is a public forum and thus the Corporate owner can NOT exclude ANYONE from that area. That is NOT a taking, as that term has been used by the US Supreme Court, but a defining of property rights within the Police Power of the State.

Notice I did NOT say open up private areas that is used ONLY by employees (and other people tied in with the Corporations, such as contractors and even customers) but areas open up to the general public. I.e. the hallways in a mall as oppose to the actual stores within the mall.

I see no CONSTITUTIONAL restrictions on such a redefinition of who can go to and use areas open to the General Public but are technically private property. On the other hand I do see the States and the Federal Government REFUSING to do such a redefinition, thus the Constitutional issue is moot. i.e such a law may be Constitutional, but it is NOT the law today.

Under the LAW today (which is also Constitutional for we are discussing PRIVATE PROPERTY rights) owners of private property can exclude anyone from their property except if such exclusion is prohibited by law (i.e. to use race, sex, national origin, disability, if you have children, etc as the reason to exclude someone from an area open to the General Public).

Remember we are discussing Private Property that is open to the General Public. We are NOT discussing opening up Corporate property open only to people dealing with that corporation. We are NOT discussing property the Corporation keeps behind locked doors. In such cases any redefinition of private property can get into the area of a taking of property without compensation. i.e one aspect of private property is keeping people out, and if corporation does NOT want some property open to the General Public, it should be permitted to exclude the general public and if it can NOT, it is a taking of that property.

Thus it is possible to get what you want, but I just do NOT see a Judge and any appellate judges ruling private property open to the General Public is also open to protesters. Without some act by the State Legislature, I see Judges saying the private property right includes the right to exclude anyone the corporate owners wants excluded, even if the property is open to the general public. Thus it is a nice dream, but do not count on it occurring in out lifetime.

of an organization with that name anywhere. It is a dirty trick political operation, just like ones from the Nixon years.

Mail Message
On Wed Dec 23, 2015, 02:35 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

There is no organization named Black Lives Matter anywhere, no leaders names, no address, no record
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1295542

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

bigoted post

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Dec 23, 2015, 02:47 PM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: People need to be allowed to have their viewpoints even if you disagree. It's an education. Offends me too but I'd rather hear this and know about it than hide it. It just not too far over the top to hide.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Interesting remark, let's hear them defend it instead of hiding it.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

What do you posit their aims to be? You reference Noxonian type shenanigans, care to elaborate?

Black Lives Matter folks want to draw attention to the fact that they are getting gunned down at an incredible rate - how is this harming anyone?

Cheers.

opinions, since I am not seeking agreement or to sell my ideas, I have no obligation to provide lengthy explanations, unless I happen to be in the mood.

https://www.facebook.comht/BlackLivesMatterMinneapolis/info/?tab=page_info