Something about your comment just doesn’t seem right, let’s investigate.
Let’s start with:
A website that suspends, no bans, users for displaying contrary opinions
If you care to look around, you will find many dissenting opinions, even amongst the regulars, so; no.
A website that… complains when a property owner dis-invites people from its property.
Now your proposed entity ‘this website’ seems to become more nebulous but perhaps you just mean the initial story; the indication of a dystopian trend and not the commenters. Let’s assume you do not mean the commenters.
Your main mistake is predicated on a misassumption. As I’ve already pointed out, trying to get banned here for having a dissenting opinion is very difficult. You basically have to frame that opinion as hate speech before you can get yourself banned. A lofty goal, no doubt but not even a corollary with the misapprehension of the intent of a protest.
That (deliberate) misapprehension of intent is at the core of the criticism here. I don’t think anyone is arguing against property rights or an interpretation of the legality of the protest; that misses the point so widely, and with such a breathtaking lack of empathy and sense of civic necessity as to make your argument both redundant and obscene.
Property rights may be important but the civic necessity of allowing for (in particular this) protest far outweighs the desires of a mall to throw around their uncaring and hostile weight in an attempt to misapply intent to a group of protesters for the purpose of legitimising the mall’s inhuman, corporate behaviour.
This absolutely is an example of dystopian reality. In that the expression of protest can be so maligned by the inhuman and uncaring corporate mindset as to be described as somehow worse than trespassing.
As I’ve indicated, the breathtaking lack of empathy and evil sophistication in the face of a truly tragic moment in history is to be expected from the corporations but to see it come out of a human entity such as yourself is dumbfounding. As is your twisted and inaccurate conception of irony.
But the police have the right to arrest someone if they are trespassing. And by not leaving when they are asked to by the owners of the mall, guess what they are doing.
That it is cold outside does not entitle you to use other peoples property against their wishes.
No, but this is a privately owned public space, primarily used for shopping but regularly used as a gathering place for other sanctioned and unsanctioned activities. It’s not a private home or office. That it is cold outside just limits the options for public events and if every place suitable for public gatherings is deemed private property, then well, it is a bit dystopian.
To my knowledge the protest went exactly as expected: Protestors caused a spectacle, got some attention, raised some awareness. It would have been nice if MOA had scrolled “Black lives matter” across the screen instead, but nice don’t always happen.
The best thing MOA could have done all around is probably completely ignore the protests. They would have been but a fart in the breeze. Once sniffed, but quickly gone.
I guess you and I have differing opinions on this one then. I sorta think discrimination by law enforcement and abuse of power are things to be addressed. When Crime is low seems like a good time to do it.
I think the reaction by MOA gave protesters what they wanted, attention to an issue they want addressed. So am not shedding tears over it, but having a large entity like the mall be supportive would have been good too.
My comments were just to counter the argument that this was private property therefore the protesters were wrong to choose this location and that we shouldn’t find the reaction to the protest dystopian.
In fact, most malls openly sanction the use of their site (especially by senior citizens) as a safe indoor walk track. Some even open the mall doors early, before the shops themselves are open, to facilitate that particular public use.
Bravo for calling out Pruneyard! It helps for organizers to cite this in interactions with the authorities. Some subsequent rulings have “pruned” the decision but it still applies. As a practical matter, I try not to demean mall cops or private security but also not to acknowledge their legal authority over me. On the whole, I’d rather let them call the police who will be (again, “on the whole”) subject to greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability.
)