In a Poughkeepsie, NY shopping mall, two men were stopped by security guards while wearing T-shirts that said "Give peace a chance." One removed his shirt (which had just been bought in the mall, so I assume he had another shirt on under it), the other refused. The security guards called the cops and had him arrested for trespassing. The police used the analogy of a mall to a private house, which the man (who is a lawyer-- not sure what kind) said was false. I'm putting a question out there in the hope that someone who knows far more about this than I do (Will? Amanda?) would answer it. There's some fundamental difference between a home and a mall, right? For example, if I decide not to let any black people in my house, the law can't stop me. But if the proprietor of a shopping mall barred black people from entering, there would be a legal problem. The distinction seems to me to be between public and private space. So what is the justification for arresting this man for trespassing in the mall? He wasn't causing a disturbance. The shirt wasn't obscene. Why wasn't this protected free speech? I feel like the mall (and the police) must have a stronger leg to stand on than "It's like a house-- I can tell you to leave if I want" but I don't know what it is.

In other news, it's snowing, I'm at the Reg, and I'm hungry. If you cared.