OH mall store displays teabagger shirts, implicit calls for violence.

[Deep13]

My wife and I were at the local mall and walked past a pet shop called Pick of the Litter. At the entrance to their store, they have some wooden lattice. On it were four T-shirts on hangers. One had a graphic on it that I couldn't figure out, but the others had words.

They read:

Obama is the enemy of the American people.

Protect the Constitution by any means necessary.

Thank God for Fox News.



Obviously, in teabagger parlance, this is a request for someone to assasignate the president and his allies. They insist Obama is against the Constitution (having never read it). If he is the enemy, then what does one do to enemies? And of course Murdock Inc. is the one stirring up the slime from the bottom of the cesspool. It is plainly subversive. Needless to say, I've never seen a mall store with items calling Bush a war criminal or a terrorist when he was in office.

The mall is a regular, commercial mall called South Park. For some reason the mall calls itself Westfield even though all the locals know it is South Park. It's located in Strongsville, OH, in Cuyahoga Co., on the county line next to Medina Co.

If you are interested in expressing yourself on this in an articulate, reasonable manner (please don't just call them freeptards or whatever) you may e-mail the mall management at [e-mail]. This email is posted on the mall's website. Pick of the Litter does not appear to have a published e-mail. Anyway, I doubt you will get far with anyone already brainwashed to that degree.

I'm going to send the mall management an email complaining about subversive messages from their stores.

[liberal N proud]

1. We will have to do the same

We shop south park occasionally.

[intheflow]

2. Did you walk in and make sure they knew

you wouldn't be buying anything from them, ever, and that you'd make sure all your friends knew about their divisive and unpatriotic choice of displays to make sure they never shopped there, either? I would have!

[Deep13]

6. No. I'd rather go over their heads and complain to the land lord.

There's no point arguing with idiots on their turf.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Are they part of a chain or single operation?

If chain then complain to them so they put the heat on them.


Personally, I would hit them for selling dogs. If they do I would piece on them being a puppy mill supporter.

[Deep13]

8. I have no idea.

It doesn't look like a chain, if you know what I mean, but I really don't know. And yeah, they sell dogs and that really pisses off my wife.

[DebbieCDC]

4. Westfield is the owner

They own malls throughout the country. They are lowlifes. When they go into an area to buy out a mall or buy land to build a new mall, they put up $$ to "local citizens" groups to flood the newspapers, etc. with glowing testimonials as to how WONDERFUL a Westfield mall would be for area XYZ. They generally end up pushing out the more high-end retailers and retaining lower value retailers. Fux news all the way.

[Deep13]

5. That's what's happened. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

7. Westfield is a British company

..

[Deep13]

10. Explains why when they started using that name...

...they had pictures of the Duchess of York everywhere.

[Nikki Stone1]

12. Charming....

Didn't we fight a war with these people long ago?

[truebrit71]

13. Yup..and now, thanks to the French, y'all talk 'Murrkanese....

..and eat burgers...

:evilgrin:

[Deep13]

14. I guess I don't really care which country's capitalist elite is in charge.

I've got more in common with UK working stiffs than I do with the super rich of this country.

[FLAprogressive]

20. Westfield has bought out like all of the local malls down here.

[proud2BlibKansan]

9. You should call the SS as well

And the FBI.

[NoNothing]

11. What for?

Subversion is not a crime.

[Deep13]

16. ?????????? Yeah it is.

Advocating the violent overthrow of the Federal government? Yeah, that's kind of a no-no. The real problem is that it is not an explicit call for violence, but is a coded message for teabaggers.

[NoNothing]

21. No, it isn't

Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is not against the law! Incitement is against the law, but it has to be a "clear and present danger" to cause "imminent" lawlessness that the speaker knows or should know is reasonably likely to cause it.

First Amendment rights are too precious to fritter away on ranting nut jobs, no matter how crazy they are.

[Deep13]

24. "Advocating the violent overthrow of the government is not against the law!"

I'm just going to let that statement speak for itself.

[NoNothing]

27. Sad that supposed progressive need to be reminded

U.S. Supreme Court
BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
395 U.S. 444
BRANDENBURG v. OHIO.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 492.
Argued February 27, 1969.
Decided June 9, 1969.



Appellant, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for "advocat . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform" and for "voluntarily assembl with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions refined the statute's definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action. Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , overruled.

Reversed.

[Deep13]

33. I'll take a closer look tomorrow.

Nevertheless, the "progressive" thing to have done would have been to come down on the Klan like a ton of bricks and not let the leader of the original domestic terrorists escape on the artificial distinction SCOTUS appears to rely on.

[NoNothing]

36. It wouldn't be worth the cost in civil liberty

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!

[Robb]

18. Aren't you the uncharacteristically busy little contrarian. nt

[NoNothing]

23. I don't generally post to say "me too"

I'll grant I'm a stickler for rational thinking and accurate representation of the facts, and this applies without regard to politics.

[proud2BlibKansan]

28. Calls for violence against the sitting POTUS?

[NoNothing]

29. Could certainly warrant an investigation

But absent any indication of actual physical threat, nothing will be done. Mere advocacy is not against the law.

[FLDCVADem]

31. Exactly

Free speech and all.

[Better Today]

15. Here's the phone # for those pigs. Bury them having to answer real people [phone]

Landlords are not usually entitled to manage a shop's inventory or sales products so long as they are not illegal. You are foolish to think that is the best choice of action

I think we should post the phone number and keep them busy all day listening to outraged potential customers.

[Deep13]

17. Why is that foolish?

And I'm pretty sure the mall has some say over how tenants act. The mall I worked for in the 80s sure as hell did.

[Better Today]

19. Acts, yes, products, no. . . not if they are not illegal. And actions only if

they are disruptive. You walked away and did nothing, so I guess there's been no disruption.

The landlords only care if their rent is paid up and they aren't causing problems for other vendors or the thoroughfares throughout the mall.

[Deep13]

22. And you know this how?

Pretty sure the Mall seeks a tenant base with a specific variety of products to attract customers. Sears can't suddenly decide to start selling used cars. Likewise, if customers are disgusted, they won't go there. It's not like there aren't other malls around here. And rather than making the owner feel great about the liberal commie asshole he told off, a note from the mall management is not something he can ignore. I'm not trying to change the store owners mind or make him lash out with even more RW crap. I just want to keep subversive RW messages out of mainstream life.

[Better Today]

25. As an accountant who at times has been in the employ of commercial

property owners.

[here_is_to_hope]

34. No answer...n/t

[Better Today]

37. Keep calling anyway, it will be really annoying to their customers if they

have phones ringing that they aren't answering, and/or customers try to call in and get no answer. Either way it is civil disobedience that should cut into their bottom line.

[jimshoes]

26. Whoa, thats just a stone's throw down the road

from me and Strongsville also known as "Strange-ville" to the some of the locals that live there. It is a very repuke leaning city. I might have to take a drive to the mall and let the dopes that are displaying this trash know that their "patriotic" display is actually bordering on sedition if not treason, and the secret service might be getting a call to give them a lot of attention.

[gizmonic]

30. You can't miss the store...

2nd level, not far from Dick's Sporting Goods.

Jus' sayin'

[Deep13]

32. my email

Dec. 28, 2009



<1234 Something St>


Dear Sir or Madam:

May this note find you in good health.

I am writing to complain about subversive merchandise being displayed by one of your tenants, specifically Pick of the Litter. Yesterday, my wife and I parked behind the mall near Dick's as we always do and began to walk through it on our way to Hoolihan's. As we passed Pick of the Litter, we observed four blue tee-shirts on hangers on the lattice at their entrance. Three of those shirts contained one each of the following slogans:

-Obama is the enemy of the American people.
-Protect the Constitution by all means necessary.
-Thank God for Fox News.

What makes these messages subversive, of course, is their context. The tea party movement and their spokesmen have been making veiled threats of violence and assassignation and their friends at the Fox News network have been active in spreading that message. Read in this context, these slogans, especially the first two, are coded messages calling for the assassination of the lawfully elected President of the United States. The one about Fox of course is in support of the medium that encourages this kind of subversive fringe thinking.

We think it is fair to say that no one would have tolerated retail stores proclaiming that G.W. Bush was a war criminal or a terrorist when he was president. Efforts of subversive, fringe groups to inject themselves into the commercial mainstream should be met with the same kind of resistance. We come to your mall to buy food and products from your tenants, not to be subjected to un-American rants. We are sure we are not the only ones. I hope you will talk to the owner of Pick of the Litter to discourage this kind of provocative material in the future.

Very Truly Yours,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Quantess]

35. It's free speech.

Let them sell their dumb t-shirts.

[here_is_to_hope]

38. "Tom" called me back from the store...

Said I was a 'stupid liberal' and I should mind my own business...
I had spoken earlier to an employee (who didn't care for the shirts), she told me they were Tom's, the owner.
He called maybe five minutes ago, I told him since he was a Fox News viewer I didn't see any point to having a conversation with him but that he may be driving more than half of his customers away.
I was civil but for the Fox News part.

[Initech]

39. Remember when the opposition party actually admitted defeat?