By Corey Friedman

A suburban Dallas mall trampled a T-shirt vendor’s free speech rights when it seized shirts that bore an unflattering depiction of a crime-plagued city neighborhood.

The shirts show a silhouetted figure stuffing a body into a car trunk above the message, “Welcome to Pleasant Grove.” Management and security guards at the Town East Mall in Mesquite, Texas, surrounded the kiosk and took the shirts Thursday, the Dallas Morning News reported.

Local business executives and chamber of commerce members took umbrage at the tees, which they say perpetuates negative stereotypes about the neighborhood. The newspaper descrbed Pleasant Grove as a blue-collar community in southeast Dallas.

Mall officials had previously warned the kiosk to stop selling the shirts. The confiscated clothing was brought to the local chamber of commerce, where business leaders gloated openly about suppressing the shirtmakers’ message.

While private businesses are not bound by the First Amendment, which prevents government from squelching unpopular but legal speech, it’s likely that the mall overstepped its limited authority to regulate which products a tenant can sell.

Most malls have a contract with vendors that outlines any rules and regulations merchants must follow. It’s doubtful that a boilerplate lease agreement would specify which T-shirt designs are permissible, though the Morning News‘ superficial story failed to examine the legality of the mall’s jackbooted antics.

Perhaps the mall could evict a vendor if customers complained about the products it sold, but such a move would require due process — a formal notice of eviction and a reasonable amount of time to vacate the premises. Simply seizing objectionable merchandise is indefensible and might warrant criminal charges for theft or conversion.

Even if a lopsided lease allows the Town East Mall to ban merchandise that some find offensive, that’s a slippery slope that no reasonable property manager would want to descend. If you screen the products your vendors sell and prohibit those you don’t like, you are essentially endorsing every product that remains on store shelves.

The Town East Mall has a Spencer Gifts store, and that chain is known for snarky tees and adult-themed merchandise. If there’s a decency or community standards clause in the mall’s merchant agreement, the vendor selling the seized Pleasant Grove shirts could make a strong case of selective enforcement.

It seems as if mall management buckled to the whims of business boosters who don’t like seeing their neighborhood made the butt of a wearable joke.

A victory for Pleasant Grove’s sensitive self-image, perhaps, but a resounding defeat for freedom of expression.

Smokers at Craven Community College can once again light up…for now.

The CCC Board of Trustees voted to gave President Catherine Chew the authority to designate one smoking area for each campus, according to Sandy Wall, the college’s public information officer.

The lone “smoking hut” on the New Bern campus sits between two buildings at the back of campus in a dark, partially wooded area. Some students have expressed concern about safety at night.

Wall told the Independent Register that the policy will be sent back to the facilities committee, which will make a recommendation to the board on Jan. 19.

Several staff and faculty members as well as students have told the I.R. that they did not support the tobacco ban which went into effect Aug. 19. Most of the dissenters we spoke with were non-smokers.

One source told the I.R. that barriers were put up along the roadside to keep smoking students away. We were also told that students had ventured across the road near the parking lot of a nearby law office.

Maybe the board will see the error of its nearsightedness next month.

By William R. Toler

Nearly one semester after a campus-wide smoking ban, the Board of Trustees at Craven Community College may soon be changing its tobacco-free policy, according to several local news sources. Both the New Bern Sun Journal and NewsChannel 12 reported Monday that the college is receiving complaints and concerns from nearby residents about the displaced smokers’ new hangouts.

CCC spokesman Sandy Wall told the Sun Journal that students are gathering along a nearby public road and even hiking into the woods to light up. “It’s creating a hazard or [sic] them and for motorists.”

John Harding, who lives near CCC,  told NewsChannel 12 that he is concerned about the possibility of a fire being started in the thin strip of woods behind the college. “We don’t know what will happen if they continue to gather here,” he said. “We’re concerned with that, as the whole street should be.”

Student smokers say they would be satisfied with a designated smoking area.

The trustees decided last spring to make the college tobacco-free effective starting the fall semester based on a questionable questionnaire.

Hopefully the trustees will make a non-asinine, compromising decision with this issue, so I can burn one the next time I visit.

By Corey Friedman

Maybe R.C. Basford’s just camera-shy. Perhaps he’s an adherent of some obscure aboriginal faith that teaches that a snapshot snatches away the soul.

Either would be preferable to the more likely alternative — that Basford is a bully who doesn’t think the law he’s sworn to enforce applies to him personally.

A Charleston, W.Va. police officer, Basford arrested a professional photographer who tried to take his picture inside a mall Tuesday, according to the Charleston Gazette. Scott Rensberger had previously been seen snapping photos of children with Santa Claus.

Parents approached Rensberger and expressed concern that he had taken pictures of their children. As a courtesy, Rensberger deleted the images, but Basford later approached him and asked why he’d photographed the kids.

“I can’t believe you are asking me that,” Rensberger said to Basford. “Do you mind if I take a picture of you?”

The 47-year-old retrieved a digital camera from his pocket and trained its lens on the police officer. Basford “grabbed the camera to prevent him from taking a picture,” according to the Gazette, and Rensberger used his other hand to steady the camera, which he thought might be pushed to the ground.

Basford, a corporal for the Charleston Police Department who was providing off-duty police protection for the Town Center Mall, warned Rensford not to touch him. Rensberger retorted that he wasn’t touching the cop.

Moments later, the award-winning television videographer was in handcuffs. Rensberger was charged with battery on a police officer and resisting arrest, both of which he vehemently denies. He told the Charleston Gazette that Basford later said photography is a police prerogative.

“I said, ‘I didn’t know it was against the law to take a picture of an officer in uniform.’” Rensberger recalled. “He said,  ‘It’s not against the law to take a picture of a police officer unless they don’t want you to.’”

Wrong. Our men and women in blue are paid with taxpayer money to serve and protect the public, and they have no legal authority to tell you not to take their picture. If you’re standing too close or otherwise preventing an officer from doing his job,  he can order you to back away, attorney Bert P. Krages II writes in his legal pamphlet, “The Photographer’s Right.”

“On occasion, law enforcement officers may object to photography, but most understand that people have the right to take photographs and do not interfere with photographers,” Krages states. “They do have the right to keep you away from areas where you may impede their activities or endanger safety. However, they do not have the legal right to prohibit you from taking photographs from other locations.”

If his account is truthful, Rensberger broke no laws. It was courtesy, not statute, that made him erase the kids’ photographs. Krages notes that “despite misconceptions to the contrary,” children “can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places.”

Is a mall a public place? Not necessarily — Krages points out that “property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises.” But, this wasn’t the case at the Town Center Mall.

Marketing director Lisa McCracken told the Charleston Gazette that mall customers are free to take pictures inside, but working journalists are supposed to notify the management.

Though Rensberger is an Internal Revenue Service subcontractor who takes photos of government buildings and a freelance videographer with awards from the National Press Photographers Association and Investigative Reporters and Editors, he wasn’t on assignment at the mall Tuesday.

He was simply there to shop.

Police and prosecutors should dismiss all charges against Scott Rensberger and issue a formal apology. Anything less would be a tacit endorsement of Basford’s shameful and frightening abuse of authority.

By Richard C. Evey
Libertarian/Patriot

A challenge was made on a number of questions on the subject of Libertarians getting serious, and I would like to rant. Correction: I am going to rant.

There will always be government, so how do we improve it?

We make it smaller. We make it accountable. The United States government is mandated to do only four things, according to the U.S. Constitution. State government is mandated to do what? Maybe build highways. County government: Enforce just laws, keep order and maybe run schools. City government: Enforce just laws and keep order.

I am not sure who said it: “The government that governs less governs best.” Government must be reminded that they work for “We the People“!

There will be taxes, so how can we make them beneficial rather than draconian?

There will be just enough to facilitate government. The taxing of products: Sales tax, import tax. Tax money will be used for running government and not welfare, roads, grants for whatever, loans and the list is endless. You do not tax necessities: Income, food, transportation, housing, booze.

A movement cannot succeed simply by being against things, so what are we for?

The protection and guarantee of the rights that were given to us by our Creator: Liberty, freedom – and with these comes personal responsibility. The ability to speak as we please without restriction. The ability to move about without restriction. The ability to publish with out restriction. The ability to defend ourselves, the ones we love and those in need without restriction. The ability to show our devotion to whatever being we wish to acknowledge. All this and more, but we cannot infringe on others’ ability, and we must not force our beliefs on others or condemn others for their beliefs.

As stated in the Declaration of Independence: We have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We want the government out of our lives, our wallets and our bedrooms.

What is the role of government?

The U.S. government has four mandates: Defend the county from foreign invasion, run a justice system, run a postal system and coin -not print – coin money. Local government: Enforce just laws, keep order, maybe run a school, maybe build a highway.

What is the purpose of law?

To prevent complete anarchy, keep some semblance of order and to prevent complete chaos. Law is not there to infringe on or curtail our rights given to us by our Creator.

For whom do we speak?

We speak for those who want the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We speak for those who cry out for justice. We speak for those who suffer from unjust government.

To whom do we speak?

To those who will listen. To those who want, to those who need, to those who desire, those who thirst for liberty, freedom and happiness without government telling us what, how, when, where and why to do things.

How do we become perceived as being inclusive and not exclusive?

If you desire freedom, liberty and happiness without the government involved in your life. We want you to be a part of what we stand for and what we as human beings deserve, what we desire, what we demand. This is not just for a select few; this is for all who want it, without change, without restriction, without intrusion and without charge. With all this, one thing is most important: “We the People” must take responsibility for all our actions.

Food for thought.

Richard C. Evey is a member of the North Carolina Libertarian Party and a former Libertarian candidate for the General Assembly.

By William R. Toler

What would you think if your child got suspended from school because of what you brought them for lunch?

Parents of Reidsville Middle School students had to deal with that last week, according to WHGP-TV.

When Charles Finney brought his daughter Brittney a hamburger from McDonald’s, the school sent a letter home warning against it. The next day, when he did it again, she was suspended for three days.

The same day, Destiny Mullins was given an in-school suspension and made to work as a school janitor after her mother brought her lunch from Wendy’s. That was the first…and last time the mother said she would bring fast food.

While Destiny returned to school Tuesday, Destiny said her suspension would be changed to two excused absences and will return with a clean slate.

While both parents brought their children’s lunch to them in a plain, brown bag, they view the situation differently.

Kanita Mullins, Destiny’s mother, said that she would heed the school’s wishes in the future. “I hope they would change something in the rule book,” she said. “If they don’t want the parents bringing food, they need to address it.”

Finney said he was told by the principal that “school policy does not allow outside food because it competes with child nutrition standards.”

“They can’t tell you what to feed your child,” Finney said. “It ain’t no contest. As long as you feed your child, what’s the point?”

Bravo Mr. Finney. You obviously don’t like your parental rights being trampled on by the state. Unlike Ms. Mullins who is just rolling over to the overzealous indoctrination center, not wanting to make waves.

I’m not opposed to children eating a healthy, balanced meal, but a parent should be able to choose what they give their child to eat if not provided by the school. Plus, the student’s should not be punished for what the parents provide.

As we’ve pointed out before on this blog, for being “public” institutions schools have one of the worst records when it comes to individual liberty, both on and off campus…where the should have no jusidiction whatsoever.

Again, I’d like to paraphrase Beaufort County Commissioner Hood Richardson: How do we teach students about their rights when they’re not allowed to use them?

By William R. Toler

A school district in Ohio has suspended a student for showing support for his favorite NFL team…on his head.

Dustin Reader, an eighth-grader at Garfield Middle School in Halmiton, Ohio was given in-school suspension by the principal for having stripes and a “B” shaved into his head in support of the Cincinnati Bengals, according to the News Journal.

The newspaper reports that Reader had barely gotten off of his bike when he was sent to the office. School officials say Reader violated the school’s code of conduct which bans “unnaturally colored hair, extreme/distracting makeup, haircuts and hairstyles.”

 His parents don’t see what the fuss is about. James Reader, the boy’s father, says it’s about his son’s pride in the team’s 6-2 season. “It’s not racist, not drug-related, not gang-related or anything like that. It’s about football.”

Reader’s mother, Tina Wanamaker, said, “He’s had designs on his head before and no one said anything.” His parents told the News Journal that once he had the word “Lost” buzzed on his head and was told by the school to fix it, but didn’t get into trouble.

His barber, Chris Campbell, said he’s shaved designs for students who attend several schools in Halmiton, but “never has anyone come back to me and said they needed it cut out because they were being harassed in school.”

School officials say he will stay on in-school suspension until it grows back or is fixed.

Reader’s parents are behind him “100 percent” and say they’re not going to fix it.

I think the barber has the situation pegged. The young man is being harrassed. Not by other students picking on him thinking he has a stupid haircut, but by those in charge of educating him for not looking like everyone else.

According to the precedent set in Tinker v. Des Moines, the form of expression must be proven to be a distraction before diciplinary action can be taken. Reader wasn’t even given a chance.

When are the indoctrination centers going to accept that the Constitution applies to everyone, children included?

By William R. Toler

I wouldn’t classify myself as a cop-hater…but several run-ins with law enforcement officials have left me with a less-than-favorable opinion. Two of those occasions happened to be with Jerry’s Brownshirts*. It may be due to my knack for being at the wrong place at the wrong time. Just that circumstance seems to infer guilty until proven innocent.

(* A less than flattering term I coined for Craven County deputies under Sheriff Jerry Monette….akin to Jerry Monette and his secret police as described by former Vanceboro Voice publisher Art Manning)

Back in the winter of 2004, I was feeling a little down and decided to take a drive. While meandering through the backroads of northeastern Craven County I felt like being by the water, which usually has a soothing effect on me. Since I didn’t want to go into New Bern, I opted for the Wildlife boat landing just north of Bridgeton. It has a nice open view of the river with a few lights sprinkled about on the other side.

As I drove up I noticed a burgundy Chevy Blazer bearing the markings of the Craven County Sheriff ’s Office. “Hmmm…,” I thought. “I wonder what he’s doing down here.” I decided to stay because I figured turning around would raise suspicion. Since I was doing nothing wrong I pulled up and parked. The view was dark, but nice on the dark December night.

Several minutes later, I saw the Blazer start to move. I figured the deputy was heading to another location. That location, was directly behind my car.

The young deputy, who appeared younger than me, approached my window and we went through the normal drill. When asked why I was at the landing in the late evening, I told him I just wanted to sit by the water and relax. He informed me that the landing was a popular drug spot in the area and asked me if I did drugs. “Just nicotine, caffeine and the occasional alcohol,” I responded. Apparently he didn’t believe me because he repeated the question several times before asking me to step out of the vehicle.

Not being one to start too much trouble I obliged. He then padded me down, reaching in one of my pockets and pulling out an ink pen. One thing I thought was odd was that he didn’t check my boots. Following the search he then asked to search my car. Being ignorant of the Fourth Amendment provisions, I once again allowed a warrantless search. Of course, my thought was, “What’s the big deal? I’ve got nothing to hide.”

After the vehicle search, I was allowed to leave. Although by this point my nerves were shot and I had no chance of getting the peace of mind I had gone there for.

The second incident happened a few months ago when Corey was in town. We had just left a local bar and I was taking him back to his mom’s house. Not being too familiar with the side streets in the neighborhood, I turned too early and then turned the wrong way once I got on the road she lives on. When I turned left I noticed a New Bern Police car down the street on the right.

As I drove back out to Simmons Street, I decided that I would just make a big circle back. The police car followed me onto Simmons and then when I turned right onto MLK Blvd. After staying behind me for about a quarter-mile, the car went around and pulled in front of me. It just so happened that as I decided to turn down Fort Totten Road, so did the cops. I joked that they probably thought I was trying to be a jackass.

Not to raise suspicion, I gave my signal to turn right before they did. I followed them with a right turn onto Trent Road where they eventually pulled off to the side. I kept going, keeping sight of them in my mirror until they were out of sight.

Not wanting to make the same mistake twice, I waited and turned right onto Simmons before turning onto the correct side street. I noticed the cops were behind me again. I was careful to stop at all stop signs. When I pulled up by the willow tree at his mom’s house, the blue lights came on. “Oh great,” I said as I turned to Corey.

The two police officers got out and came to the passenger-side door, shining their Mag lights in our faces. Again, I went through the usual rigamarole. This time, they asked to see Corey’s license. He politely asked why, since because he was a passenger doesn’t have to carry one. They informed us that there had been some vehicle break-ins in the area. Since they were investigated, he played along.

About that time, backup arrived. We probably would have been there longer if not for the backup officer, who had been campus police at Craven Community College while we were there. She recognized and vouched for us and the area was soon clear. Thanks Trish.

The most recent encounter happened Nov. 10 between 1:30 and 2 a.m. while on my way back home from getting groceries after work. I was driving through Bridgeton when I noticed a deputy up ahead checking out a parking lot of a local business. I wondered what was going on. I kept driving and noticed the deputy pull behind me.

He was keeping a close distance as cops usually do when they drive behind you. I tried to stay unintimidated thinking he would just keep north on the highway after I turned off to take the backroads home. I assumed wrong, as I usually do. Immediately following my turn, he turned behind me and put on his lights. “Is my turn signal out,” I wondered.

I pulled over, shifted to park and turned off my car. About a minute later he came walking up to the window. “Hey William, how ya doin’,” he asked. “Pretty good,” I replied, shocked that he knew my name already. Apparently he had already ran my plates.

“Got your license on ya?”

“Sure do.” I handed it over.

“You live right up the road here, don’t ya?”

“Yeah…” I started looking at him trying to read his badge, which was impossible from the glare. “I’m tryin’ to figure out who you are since you know so much about me.”

“You don’t know me.”

He then said there had been a report of someone driving careless and reckless through Bridgeton, and I was the only one around. After that he took my license back with him to his car, leaving me to sit and think for several minutes. “Did you see me driving careless and reckless?”

He then came back and half-heartedly apoligized and said a car the “looked just like this one” had been called in, and let me go.

To quote the band Corporate Avenger, “I don’t fault the police.”  I know they’re just “trying to do their job.” But it does upset me when I’m involved in an altercation for being completely innocent.

By William R. Toler

A North Carolina congressman is writing a book about his regret in a controversial decision.

Walter B. Jones Jr. (R) is penning a book called “My Daddy’s Not Dead Yet” chronicaling his remorse for casting his vote giving former President George W. Bush the go-ahead to invade Iraq in, according to NationalJournal.com.

The title of  the book comes from the quote of a little boy in a school at Camp Lejeune whose father was a Marine serving in Iraq in 2007. “My daddy’s not dead yet,” the boy repeated, which made Jones even more uneasy about the decision he came out against in 2006. “I didn’t vote my conscience,” Jones said.

“We’re trying to police the world,” Jones said. “Every great nation prior to America that tried to police the world has failed economically. That’s why I tell people that I’m a Pat Buchanan American. I want to stop trying to take care of the world and fix this country. Our problems are so deep that there is no easy way to fix them.”

Jones has been a huge supporter of the military, rightfully so with several bases in his district.  

“The American people have no idea of what’s coming as it relates to taking care of those veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan with traumatic brain injuries and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” Jones said.

Any proceeds from his book will go toward those helping the wounded soldiers in the current war zones.

By Richard C. Evey
Libertarian/Patriot

The platform of the Libertarian Party states “We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrong doer.”

To this end, if someone takes, damages, harms or destroys my property, they, the wrong doer, owes me restitution. That restitution would be payment, return of property or making the property whole again, if possible.

That being said: someone takes my life, my property, that person owes me restitution. I may be dead but do I not deserve restitution for loss of my property, my life, my right to live? It will not return me to life but they took my life, should they not give up their life?

People take property, destroy property to the point that it could never be returned to it’s original state. Restitution must be paid, one way or the other.

If the wrong doer is slam dunk guilty of the crime of depriving me of my property, my life, does not that person owe me restitution, their life? When that form of restitution is made then the guilty should and must suffer the same fate that their victim suffered. To call it state-sanctioned revenge, is like calling a drug dealer an unlicensed pharmacist. Confusing the issue with double speak is not facing the issue of restitution to the victim.

There are people who’s conviction can, should, could and must be looked into for the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. The justice system is very flawed. The people who committed the crime and those who facilitate the justice system must be held accountable.

I have always though that if there is a miscarriage of justice, the person or persons who took part or had dealings in that miscarriage, should have to make restitution to the victim and be held accountable. That restitution could be the same fate that the accused faced.

If a person is slam dunk guilty of a crime they must give restitution to their victim. That includes their life if they took a life.

The United States Constitution states in the Eighth Amendment: “nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The type of punishment inflicted on people back when our founders set up the constitution was unforgivable. Compare the criminals of today, they are having a church social. The opinion that the criminal should not have to suffer (prison or death) is bleeding heart CRAP.

Those that preach that criminals should not be in prison, we should not have the death penalty or prison should be a place of reeducation/ relearning are you identifying with the criminal element. Many people in prison are better off than most people on the outside.

People must look inside of themselves and look to the victim. Make themselves the victim. In short make the crime personal. Would you want the person who killed your spouse/ child walking the street, living near your home so you can help them? Would you want a rapist, one who raped you, your spouse, your child, walking the street, living next to you?

These criminals are lower than snake spit. There is little to nothing that can help them. They are just plain evil and they deserve nothing except prison or giving of their life for what they took.

If you are in favor of restitution but against the death penalty than you are very hypocritical.

Restitution must be paid!