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
Another Example of free speech loving libbies
Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Jul 28, 2009.
Page 1 of 2
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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.
-
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
One is not equal to the other. -
One has the right to free speech but that does not mean that one has the rights to another's microphone. -
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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.
-
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.
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 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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
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.
-
If not - why not? -
targus said:
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: -
-
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
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.
-
Page 1 of 2