There was a news story that developed over the past few days that causes a great deal of conflict among those who think "free speech" is actually license. See what you think. Here are the facts:

Crossgates Mall is located in a community named Guilderland near Albany, New York. It is a privately owned property where merchants have retail outlets to serve the public. At every entrance to the mall the owners have posted highly visibly and legible signs that state, "wearing of apparel... likely to provoke disturbances... is prohibited"

On Monday, March 3, 2003, 60-year old Stephen Downs and his 31-year old son, Roger Downs, went shopping in the mall. They each purchased custom made T-shirts at a mall merchant's store. They then donned the T-shirts over their other clothing and began walking around the mall, ostensibly shopping. Roger Downs' shirt reportedly stated on its front, "Let Inspections Work and, on is back, "No War With Iraq." His father's shirt allegedly said on its front, "Give Peace a Chance" and "Peace On Earth" on the back.

An employee of Macy's store in the mall called Mall Security saying that the two men were creating a disturbance. Security oficers for the mall approached the two men and requested they remove the shirts until they left the mall. Roger, the son, complied. Not so his father. Stephen Downs refused, claiming his right to "free speech" and denying that the shirts constituted a disturbance. If they offended anyone, he claimed, that was not his problem. When he refused to remove the shirt, security officers asked him to leave the mall with his shirt. He refused to leave the mall and local police were called. He refused the order of the police officers to leave the mall as well. He was charged with criminal trespass, a misdemeanor, and arrested. He was scheduled to appear in Guilderland municipal court on the charges on March 17, but mall officials today asked local authorities to drop the charges against Downs after about 100 anti-war supporters of the man showed up today in shirts bearing anti-war, anti-American slogans and staged a loud, disruptive and boisterous sit-in at the mall's food court.

Those are the facts, not someone's unsupported opinion. Should you wish to verify these facts for yourself, you may do so via AP, Reuters, MSNBC and the web site of WNYT-TV in Albany, NY.

Now, the questions...

Crossroads Mall is a private business on private property. They have a legal right to establish rules of behavior and dress for shoppers who go there. That is a legal right they hold and one that our courts must protect. The Mall management posted signs at every entrance spelling out those standards of dress and comportment so that anyone entering the mall cannot claim they were not aware of those rules or standards beofre entering.

Roger and Stephen Downs are U. S. citizens and have certain Constitutionally guaranteed rights, among these the freedom to speak (whether by spoken word or by slogans on a T-shirt) out on their opinions. They argue that the First Amendment guarantees them the right to this freedom unfettered by government acts to limit or deny them this right.... even on private property.

Does it?

What do you folks think? Is the mall, as a private entity permitted to establish rules of conduct and dress for those who shop in their mall? Or do they lose their rights because someone wishes to make a political statement? Does the Constitution guarantee this "free speech" right in private businesses simply because members of the public come there to shop? Should that justify stealing the rights of the mall owners/operators from them and granting them to Mr. Downs and his supporters instead?

This is FREEDOM 101, folks. It doesn't get any more plain vanilla than this. Many legal scholars would point out - and rightly so - that the Constitution applies only to prohibitions on government abuses of citizens' rights of speech, religion, association, petition and press. The First Amendment clearly says "Congress shall make no law respecting..."

Beginning with the FDR stacked activist liberal leaning Supreme Court and other courts that have followed, the Supreme Court extended federal jurisdiction over private businesses and institutions under the theory of "the interstate commerce clause." Under that theory, a restaurant owner who owns a four table, back water snack shop in the most run down section of a rural community is a "public facility" because they sell to the public and more insidiously, they might have a single product of any sort in their place of business, not necessarily for sale even, that "may have, at one time or another" been shipped via interstate commerce - even if it is so much as a single napkin, a toothpick, a packet of catsup, a jar of salad dressing, a pen or pencil or ANYTHING WHATSOEVER. Private property means nothing to liberal judges if they can find a way to impose their demands upon its owners.

The case is no longer cut and dried, as it would appear to be on first inspection and using simple human logic. As I have stated often here, simple logic and reason are no longer what they once were. We have managed to distill and diminish and bargain away our personal freedoms bit by bit over the years in a quest for a utopian liberal daydream world to the point that our citizens today don't even recognize logic or realize their loss of freedom.

Take today's protestors who took over the mall's food court, not buying anything, wearing shirts with similar anti-war, anti-America messages and causing a massive disruption including shouted obscenities. Here's how these people think about our right to rivate property... (from WNYT-TV)

"Organizers say they still consider the day a success, and that they got their message across: that everyone should be able to exercise their first amendment rights, even on mall grounds.

'There are a lot of people who are perfectly okay with coming here and shopping here but are totally opposed to the idea that this mall can censor people's opinions,' Craig Willis of Troy said."

Perhaps Craig doesn't believe in the right to private ownership of property or the right of a property owner to determine the behavior of others while on that property. Wait until he gets a bit older and buys some. Is he so blinded by his belief that anyone should have the right to say or do anything anywhere they please, no matter how obnoxious or offensive that speech or behavior may be to others that he forgot the other EQUALLY IMPORTANT FREEDOM they deny to the owners of the mall.

Do you folks think the likes of the 100 disruptive protesters today and the refusal of Stephen Downs on Monday should be "protected" from mall rules simply because they wish to express their opinions and to Hell with anyone who doesn't like it?

Is that your idea of freedom?

Do you think the mall has an obligation to permit anyone to wear anything they wish, saying anything they wish to say, because they open their doors to shoppers? If so, what happened to their Constitutional guarantees to be free of government intrusion into their persons, property and personal effects without due process? Does the government really have a right to take over your private property and tell you what you can or cannot do on it without compensating you for the property it effectively removes from your control? Isn't there another Amendment that covers that as well (hint, check out Number V)?

What do you folks think? Whose side do you take in this situation? Why?

We're not talking POLITICS here, folks. This is pure and simple, basic FREEDOM being discussed. If being free or discussing it bores you, then perhaps bin Laden ought to take over here and instill his brand of one-way-think. You won't be bored, but you will be damned well assured they will tell you what to think, how to think, when to think and beat you mercilessly if you don't adhere to their rules. You won't have to worry about folks talking about "boring old politics" here. That freedom won't exist either.