Woman Arrested at Fahrenheit 9/11 Showing...
 

http://www.allaroundphilly.com/site/news.c..._id=17782&rfi=6

Woman cited for passing out voter registration forms
GINA ZOTTI, Staff Writer 06/29/2004

EAST CALN -- She said she didn’t scream fire in a crowded theater.

All she did was hand out voter registration forms to movie patrons on their way out of the controversial film "Fahrenheit 9/11" on Saturday night.

Because of that, Lani Frank, of Easttown, doesn’t understand why -- or feel it was right -- that she was handcuffed and cited at the Regal Cinemas by police.

State police said Frank was in a place of business and causing a disturbance. They said she refused to leave and, for that, was cited for disorderly conduct. The citation, much like one a person would receive for a traffic violation, is a summary offense.

But, Frank contends that she was not making a disturbance and was on her way to her car before police motioned her back to ask her questions.

The police arrived after Frank had a discussion with a manager and security guard at the theater, she said.

Frank was inside handing out the forms to movie-goers on their way out of the sold-out 7:50 p.m. shows Saturday night.

"I was handing out the forms in the theater, but I was not making any mention of party affiliation or candidates," she said. "I never said anything negative to anyone."

Frank said there were many people who took the forms and many who thanked her for making them available.

She said that on her way into the theater, she saw another woman who was handing out the forms but had run out.

"Everybody’s been doing it all over the place," Frank said. "For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave."

From California to Florida, there were reports of other voter registration drives during the opening weekend of the Michael Moore film.

The movie, which gives Moore’s take on what happened to the country after the events of Sept. 11, 2001, and how the Bush administration used the event to push what he said was its agenda to go to war with Iraq, brought in $21.6 million in the box office this weekend, despite only playing at 848 theaters nationwide.

Still in the theater lobby, as the crowds were making their way outside, Frank said she was approached by the theater manager and told she wasn’t allowed to be doing what she was doing because she was on private property.

She said she told the man that she was not handing out any campaign literature, and the group, including Frank’s husband, walked out together -- she contends she was not escorted out but was leaving regardless.

She said she continued outside with her husband and chatted with friends on the way to the car when troopers called her over to speak.

They took her license and information and she said she asked why she was not allowed to hand out the forms if she was outside on public property.

"I might have been raising my voice, but I wasn’t screaming and yelling and waiving," she said.

On the contrary, she said she believed the "very nature" of the police being at the theater is what caused the disruption.

"Now they (bystanders) were paying attention, before they were just chit-chatting with friends," she said. "They started to get curious."

Frank was handcuffed and brought to the Embreeville barracks where she was given a citation for disorderly conduct with the intent to create a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm.

"They didn’t need to take me into custody. I wasn’t inciting a riot," she said.

Frank said that she intends to fight the citation on principle that she should not have been required to leave at all because of her actions in handing out the forms.

"My assumption is that what I did was not legally wrong," she said. "If I’m found to be incorrect, I’ll pay the fine and say I’m sorry. But, I don’t believe I’m wrong ..I think they overreacted."

Acting alone in handing out the forms, not with Democratic committee, Frank said she was enjoying the night out with her husband and friends.

While she assumed those who attended the movie would be sympathetic to her political viewsand the way she would vote, Frank said her main objective was to encourage people to vote regardless of their party affiliation.

Frank said she is against the war in Iraq and felt the citizens of the country have been misled on the government’s reasons for going to war.

Think what you will about this (I personally think it's rather high-handed myself and, admittedly without the benfit of having been there, the theater manager could probably have done a lot better job of handling it). But I'm sorry, when you're in the parking lot of a movie theater, you're not on "public property." And there is fairly well-established case law that the owners of a privately-owned space that is open to the public, such as a mall or shopping center, DO NOT have to allow political protests or other activities on their property if they don't wish to.

Sure, but then the charge should be "trespassing" not "disorderly conduct with the intent to create a public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm."

The second one sounds more like a picket line. She was just passing out papers. Not blocking anyone.

She wasn't causing a disturbance and wasn't harming anyone. The theater manager asked her to leave and she was doing that right after she finished.

She didn't even suggest which party people should register under. How is handing out voter registration forms a political protest? How is it a disturbance? How is it anything that could be construed as disorderly conduct?

If anything the theater manager should have thanked her for providing a service to his patrons.

If she waited until she finished to leave and he had asked her to leave before that then she was in the act of trespassing.

The rest was a bit much though.

She wasn't charge with trespass and it's doubtful she could have been since she left right after she was asked to leave. She continued handing out registration forms while explaining to the manager that she wasn't handing out campaign literature, and wasn't promoting any candidates or political parties, etc. By the time the conversation was over, she left of her own accord.

Fine. I'll start passing out gun permit applications after the showing of Bowling for Columbine. I won't even tell folks which type of gun they should acquire as I feel it is a deeply personal decision.

I kind of like that idea.

I'd have no problem with that at all, although I don't know of many theaters still showing that movie.

If you wish. I hope you weren't trying to point out a way this could "backfire".

"I might have been raising my voice, but I wasn’t screaming and yelling and waiving," she said... Now they (bystanders) were paying attention,

It sounds like this is where the "disorderly conduct" came into play. I suspect she was making a scene once the cops started questioning her, and was ultimately arrested for being belligerent, but wants to make it seem like she was arrested for what she was originally doing.

Good point. But is talking loudly to cops disorderly conduct?

Well, if people can be arrested for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts, backtalk could be a felony.

So Radar, you really think the free speech right of a random individual off the street trumps the property rights of the owner? Doesn't this constitute an unjust taking of the owner's property (albeit temporarily) for a use of which he doesn't approve? Does the answer change if a) the location is different (let's say a supermarket, or a gas station, or a private residence) rather than a movie theater? Does it change if the "speech" involved is different? (we already tossed out gun permits.. what about gym memberships? library card applications? A blood pressure screening?)

Our rights don't change depending on whose property we're on. We have the right to free speech anyplace we are. If the owner of the property you're on dislikes what you're saying, they may ask you to leave their property and in this case that's what happened and the lady complied with the request and left.

Nobody had thier rights violated.

Did the theater managament overreact in calling the police? From the story as presented, I'd say Yes. But it sounds an awful lot like she was resistant when initially asked to leave the lobby ("For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave"), and then it sounds like she continued handing out flyers in the parking lot, which is NOT public property, after being asked to stop. And she continued long enough for the theater management to phone police, and for the police to arrive.

If that's true, she was violating the rights of the theater owners by continuing the unwanted action on their property despite their having asked her to leave. She probably should have been charged with tresspassing.

This story is very one-sided, and I'd wager the theater management's version is decidedly different, and the truth somewhere in between.

She was originally standing outside the actual theater as people were exiting the movie. As people were leaving the theater she was giving them voter registration forms. The theater manager asked her to stop and while she was handing out the forms she tried to argue her case and explain that she wasn't handing out campaign literature, or endorsing any political party or candidate, and she wasn't causing a disturbance.

I don't know about you, but I attend a lot of movies and it takes about 5 minutes to clear a theater out completely. She most likely finished handing out the voter registration forms while they were still debating the issue and then she left without even being asked to leave by the manager. The manager had not asked her to leave, but had asked her to stop handing out voter registration forms.

She then left the theater and was in the parking lot on her way to her car. Some time after she left the theater but before she reached her car the cops arrived and motioned her to come over. Then she was arrested. She hadn't violated anyone's rights, created a disturbance, or violated any laws but she was arrested.

The article contradicts your assumptions:

She WAS asked to leave, and refused. The theater management was within their rights regarding their property. I think they reacted poorly, and if I were in the woman's place I'd have likely done the same thing, but that doesn't make the behavior legal. She paid the consequences for disregarding the property owner's order to leave the premises.

It really sounds, not unlike the film itself, that a lot of information is being withheld.

If it only takes 5 minutes to clear out a theatre then it only takes 30 seconds to walk to one's car yet the police were called and responded between the time she was asked to leave and when she actually left. No way that whole exchange was inside of a minute or two.

But, all that aside, no one has the right to a captive audience on private property without the permission of the owner. Heck, I bet you'd be pretty hacked if that same person showed up on your front porch after all your friends were leaving from a party and handed a flyers of one sort or another. Imagine how you would feel if she didn't leave until long after you called the police and gave you lip the whole time.

The article portrays the woman as the victim. Maybe its the other way around. The police sure thought so and while some police are jackboots, others just want to keep the peace.

She didn't refuse to leave, she just didn't leave as fast as someone thought she should have. I would love to know how long all of this took.

She DID leave the property owners premises and wasn't even forced to do so. Nobody escorted her out.

I'll have to look up the location of the theater, but I'm pretty sure it was at a mall somewhere as most theaters are nowadays. That means they probably had a police station within 60 seconds of them within the mall itself.

It's the one at the Wegman's strip mall in Downingtown right?

I don't know the area, so I couldn't answer. I was trying to figure that out from the story. I've found 8 Regal theaters in the Philly area, and I'm only assuming it's the Philly area since it's a Philly newspaper. Where is Easttown?

I've never been to Philadelphia.

But she didn't leave when she was asked. She did eventually, in her own sweet time, but not right away. I find it interesting how your value system seems to be dynamic. You have spent a lot of keystrokes describing how one's physical property is sacred, and that any crime against one's property is a crime against the individual. Example:

Yet here, you support this woman... a person who tries to play the victim card while admitting that she didn't leave the property when she was asked to. I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm genuinely curious where the distinction is in your mind. Why is the theater's legitimately-owned property NOT sacred? Why the apparent inconsistency in your principles?

What if she had been handing out something else,....like Watchtowers? Does it make a difference that she was doing a "public service"?

Unless the parking lot itself was donated by the local government or something equally unlikely, then the parking lot is private property, and she had actually NOT left the property while she was still in the parking lot.

jinx, as far as I can tell from the article, it's the one on West Chester Pike (Rt. 3) about halfway or so between Newtown Square and West Chester. It's a relatively large strip mall with the theater, a Genuardi's, Al E. Gator's, and a number of other smaller stores & restaurants. And the shopping center is off by itself--there are no residential or commercial buildings immediately bordering it.

Steve, I don't think so, here's a good link. It's the one in Downingtown. And there's a link to a picture if you scroll down.




As an aside...
It's weird how much this area has been in the news lately isn't it? Smarty, Nick Berg... other stuff I can't think of now...

Nice Legal Summary from Slate
 

Why Can Shopping Malls Limit Free Speech

In summary, sometimes they can and sometimes they can't. The Supreme Court deferred to state law on the issue.

If it's a strip mall, and the parking lot isn't exclusive to the theater, then the owner of the lot is whoever the theater leases the mall space from.

"I was handing out the forms IN the theater, but I was not making any mention of party affiliation or candidates," she said. "I never said anything negative to anyone."

She said that on her way INTO the theater, she saw another woman who was handing out the forms but had run out.

"Everybody’s been doing it all over the place," Frank said. "For them to have stopped me from doing it seemed improper and that’s why I didn’t leave."

The woman was on private property, pure and simple. A property owner has every right to decide what takes place on his/her own property. I'm having a garden party. A man shows up with Micky Mouse fliers, possibly with/without my permission. The first man runs out of fliers and a second man arrives. I tell the second man that he does not have my permission to distribute Micky Mouse fliers on my property and ask him to leave. Instead, this man enters my garden, distributes fliers against my permission, and then walks back to his car. The police arrive and the man plays innocent: "Well, here I am at my car, ossifer. And besides, everyone else was doing it!" Is the man innocent? NO! Have my rights as an owner of private property been disregarded? YES! I am highly surprised that a Libertarian such as Radar would suddenly welcome government intervention over the rights of a property owner in this instance. The woman must have been handing out Libertarian party propaganda along with her voter registration forms. :headshake

East Caln Township is near Coatesville, IIRC.

Easttown is near West Chester. While they aren't at separate ends of the world, they aren't especially close to each other.

Since the police response was PSP (PA State Police) from the Embreeville Barracks, the response time is NOT quick. The distance to the station is at least 20 minutes. That assumes that the Troopers were not out dealing with something else at the same time.

Also, movie theater managers HATE hassles. The last thing they want to do is call the police, because that information then shows up in the local newspapers. If folks get a bad impression of that particular theater, they'll go elsewhere. If they called the cops, she more than likely had become a bitch on wheels.

Also, if she were set up in front of the exit doors handing out voter registration forms (or any other kind of literature) she was representing a hazard or nuissance. This would also be the case if she had posted herself in the lobby.

I'm reminded of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail ... "Help, help! I'm being oppressed!!"

I think it may have something to do with the fact that you can't swing a dead cat in Chester County without hitting a large, active Quaker Meeting House.

Not likely seeing as how Lani Frank (2nd to the right -in the pink shirt) is the Vice President of the National Women's Political Caucus of PA. Here's a pic lifted from the Chester County Democratic Committee.

http://www.chescodems.org/graphics/swingthurs04.jpg

She is quite active in local politics (not that there's a thing wrong with that - just making the point that she's no wet-behind-the-ears volunteer).

My bad ... I was looking at the town the woman is from, Easttown, and transposed that to Westtown, which is where the Regal I described is. Never mind.

She was asked to stop distributing the voter registration forms. I see no information showing that the theater manager asked to leave the property (And the theater manager most likely doesn't own the property). She had a discussion while still handing out the forms about why she shouldn't be prevented from handing them out, and by that time the theater was empty, and she left without being forced to leave. Assuming the guy even did ask her to leave, she did comply and she left within a matter of minutes. What do you think she should do, drop all her belongings and run out of the theater screaming so she doesn't get shot?

My principles are always consistant. If I ask someone to leave my property and they leave, I have no complaint. The woman didn't hang around for 12 hours before going. She left within a matter of minutes which is acceptable for any reasonable person.

She probably wouldn't have found the audience as receptive, but why not?

If she was in the MALL parking lot, the theater owner has no authority to force her to leave the parking lot. Only the owners/operators of the mall could do that. And even if she was still in the theater's parking lot, she was on her way out. If someone is asked to leave do they have a 1 minute time limit? What if they've got a bad hip or are in a wheelchair? Do they get more time? I say as long as they are moving in the direction opposite the theater, they are leaving. We're talking about a matter of minutes, not hours.

Given that it takes no more than 5-10 minutes to hand out the forms to every single person exiting a theater, it's not likely that they were 20 minutes away. In fact it's more likely that they were in the immediate area and responded in 1-2 minutes.

Having worked in theaters when I was a kid, I can tell you that is absolutely and utterly false. Theater managers often create hassles where there are none and treat patrons like shit.

A person standing in a lobby our outside of a theater exit handing out forms is not a hazard, or a nuissance in any way, shape, or form. If someone wants a form, they take one, if they don't they don't. No nuissance, and certainly no hazard. Nobody said she was standing in the middle of the doorway blocking people.

Funny, it reminded me of the scene in the Rodney King beating video.


Here's a clue for you people. You have free speech no matter where you are. If you're on someone elses property who doesn't like what you're saying, they can ask you to leave. If you are asked to leave and you comply, you haven't trespassed. No matter what property you own, you do NOT have the right to tell anyone what they may or may not say. You may only ask them to leave if they do, or tell them your house rules so they'll know what to avoid saying so you don't ask them to leave.

This woman had no way of knowing the theater manager would act the way he did. After all she was just handing out government voter registration forms, which is normally considered a civic duty and a service to the community. When asked to stop handing them out, she pleaded her case with the guy and then she left. She did absolutely nothing wrong at any point what-so-ever.

People, stop. Look at the story journalistically. It is practically a TOTAL FABRICATION. Read it again with this thought in mind:

Apparently the "reporter" only talked to one person: FRANK.

The reporter got one quote from the state police - not an individual officer, such as the one making the arrest. Here's guessing she got it from an ordinary press release or something, not from an individual. And where is the quote from the theater manager? Wouldn't that point of view be not only important, but critical to the reader's understanding of the event?

There is no quote, because this "reporter" got the entire story from Frank and wrote the story almost entirely from her point of view. (A point of view which we can now assume the "reporter" shares.)

Which is typical of the Daily Lack O' News, as vsp can confirm. You read that paper long enough, you start being able to translate the "news" into the "real story" pretty quickly.

I doubt that much that is closer to the truth will be revealed ... but our speculations are closer to it than what was printed.

EDIT TO ADD: I'm sure the reported actually had several sources. Ms. Frank's friends were there too, and they saw the WHOLE thing.

Here's the Philly Inquirer version written by someone other than a Bush-hatin' ho :)
Woman arrested at '9/11' film

http://www.philly.com/images/common/spacer.gif
By Jennifer Moroz
http://www.philly.com/images/common/spacer.gif
Inquirer Staff Writer
http://www.philly.com/images/common/spacer.gif
<!-- begin body-content --> A Chester County Democratic committee woman was arrested Saturday night for allegedly causing a disturbance while handing out voter registration cards at a local showing of the movie Fahrenheit 9/11.

Lani Frank, 49, of Berwyn, was handing out the cards about 10:15 p.m., as moviegoers at the Downingtown Regal Cinema Stadium 16 poured out of the documentary that slams President Bush and his decision to go to war in Iraq.

State police said they got a call reporting a disturbance. When troopers showed up at the cinema, just off Route 30 in East Caln Township, Frank had moved from the theater lobby to the parking lot.

"She continuously refused to leave the area and continued to cause a disturbance and left the troopers no choice but to arrest her," Cpl. Lawrence Wallick said.

Police charged Frank with disorderly conduct, a summary violation akin to a traffic citation.

Last night, Frank said she would fight the citation. Frank, who said she was acting as an individual and not as a representative of the Democratic Party, denied causing any disturbance.

"All I was doing was offering a convenient way to acquire a government voter registration form," she said. "I made no mention of candidate, of party, of how they should vote."

She said she had questioned the troopers' authority to stop her from handing out the cards in a public parking lot and refused to leave when asked because she believed she had the right to be there.

A theater manager declined to comment when contacted last night.

Did you read the article you posted? Or any of the replies? This reply, for instance, where I cited two phrases in the article indicating that she was asked to leave, and refused. Yes, she eventually left, but by all indications she didn't leave until about 20 minutes later, after a prolonged, disruptive scene. This woman is no victim, she's bitchy and self-important, and had no respect for the theater's property rights. She was then belligerent with the police officers, who were lawfully acting on behalf of the theater to remove her from the property.

I know, it's tempting to buy into this lady's bullshit "woe is me" story, and to make the cops out to be bad guys, but let's not be gullible. Even the newspaper's one-sided account of the "victim" can't hide the fact that she was in the wrong.

Interesting: The movie seems to have been playing at no fewer than FOUR theaters closer to Ms. Frank's home.

edit: 'scuse me. Make that FIVE theaters. Four of the five are outside of Chester County, however, which was likely important to Ms. Frank's press coverage.

All indications show that? How about you show me a single indication that it was 20 minutes. Just one will do since there are none to be found in the story. And she was also not disruptive when handing out the forms. She was quietly handing them out without disturbing anyone. Nobody but the manager had a problem with it and it was the manager who started the whole disruption by telling her to stop. If he had just allowed her to finish and leave as she was doing, there wouldn't have been a disruption.

This woman is absolutely a victim and the theater manager does not have any property rights, but if he did have property rights, they would not include telling anyone what they could or couldn't say and as was proven in someone else's post, they coudn't even prevent the handing out of political flyers if PA state law allowed it. All they can do is ask the woman to leave. Whether or not she was asked to leave, she did leave and that is the point. She left. And she was arrested for exercising her rights. Property rights don't mean you have the right to silence those on your property.

And of course she questioned the officer's right to stop her. She was exercising her rights, and wasn't creating a disturbance and now she had two cops in her face while she was peacefully on the way back to her car.

Yeah? How do we know this? Probably in the wrong I'll give ya, but bitchy and self important? Is Hiibel bitchy and self important too?

Granted, perhaps that was an unfair assumption on my part. I came to that conclusion based on the fact that she was being argumentative, disruptive and refused to leave, all on Private Property, and then gives an account which is so obviously self-biased and full of half truths. I know people like that, and THEY are bitchy and self-important, so I projected those qualities onto her.

Not to mention that comments like "She continuously refused to leave the area and continued to cause a disturbance and left the troopers no choice but to arrest her," aren't usually made about people who are friendly, cooperative and polite. But I wasn't there, maybe the cops and theater manager were being assholes first. But the fact of the matter is that she was on private property, asked to leave, refused, and created a scene.

The Hiibel situation is different... the theater managers and police were not in the wrong when insisting that Lani Frank leave the property. By law, they could ask her to leave if they disagree with her actions, if they didn't like the blouse she was wearing, or the way she had her hair styled. Whereas the officer questioning Hiibel was trying to use authority which (at that time) he didn't legally possess.

On the flip side, the Regal Downingtown's probably the nicest of those (and likely the newest), and makes an attractive target for encountering crowds due to its size. That's where _I_ saw Fahrenheit 9/11 the following day, oblivious to all of this hubbub, even though there were probably theaters closer to where _I_ live showing the film.

I do agree that the Daily Lack'o News is barely suitable for fishwrapping.

No, the truth is she didn't refuse to leave because she left. Only AFTER she left did the cops call her back and arrest her. The cops weren't "forced" to arrest anyone.

You're clearly in the wrong on this and so were the cops and theater manager.

Property rights do not trump individual rights and the lady did leave. If you think she didn't leave in an appropriate amount of time, what amount of time is appropriate? Should she have run for her life out of the building? Is 30 seconds appropriate? How about 10 minutes? Who makes that determination and by what standards? Certainly not the theater manager. So who?

When asked to stop the unwanted actions on private property, she should have stopped immediately. She did not do that. When asked to leave, she should have started to leave immediately, and she should have continued until she was off the property. She did not do that. She argued, she caused a scene, she continued the unwanted behavior. She then moved that unwanted behavior to another part of the private property for a time before leaving.

The simple and undeniable truth is that she violated the rights of the property owner. Clearly you lack the necessary grasp of the obvious to realize this. She undermined the very foundation of Libertarianism, and you-- an outspoken Libertarian-- are defending her. You could cut the irony with a knife.

§ 5503. Disorderly conduct.
(a) Offense defined.--A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he:

1.engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior;
2.makes unreasonable noise;
3.uses obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or
4.creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor.

(b) Grading.--An offense under this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree if the intent of the actor is to cause substantial harm or serious inconvenience, or if he persists in disorderly conduct after reasonable warning or request to desist. Otherwise disorderly conduct is a summary offense.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section the word "public" means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access; among the places included are highways, transport facilities, schools, prisons, apartment houses, places of business or amusement, any neighborhood, or any premises which are open to the public.

i'm thinking that the cops charged her incorrectly. if what we're arguing about is that she didnt leave, it should have been, as glatt said, trespassing. unless she cussed the cops out. ( i didnt realize you could get a ticket for that in pa, btw....not that im dumb enough to do it) she doesnt look the type for violence. unless, maybe she threw some tea on them....... this is another example of police thinking that they can order us about, and we have to comply. so she's a bitch.....maybe. its her right to be a bitch. i dont think its illegal to be rude, is it? she'll win the hearing, and i hope she gets enough press to make it worth her while.

Incidentally, I'm not arguing that the theater should have called the police on a matter such as this... I think that was a lousy way to deal with the problem, and makes them out to be assholes. But just as she has the right to be a bitch, they have the right to be assholes. They were within their legal rights. The cops were just doing their jobs, which is to uphold the law, and not arresting a woman for any anti-Bush sentiments, real or imagined.

Hell, I went head-to-head with a theater manager once when he insulted my wife and I, and called him some unsavory names... and they threated to have security remove me from the theater. They would have been within their legal rights to toss me out, despite the fact that they initiated the conflict. But they realized that it wasn't worth the bad karma, and backed off.

Maybe the booking officer was sympatheic to her cause, and intentionally charged her with the wrong crime. Or maybe the booking officer is just incompetent.

Either way, she will beat this one in court. She would have lost in court if the charge was trespassing.

So it looks like she's facing a misdemeanor of the third degree charge. But she will beat it, because she didn't inconvenience anyone.

Maybe she can be charged with a third degree demeanor for intending to create a public convenience.

First of all, let me state that I disagree with the theater's management of this one. I believe that someone might have posted earlier in this thread that possibly the theater viewed her as a potential public safety hazard if she slowed the exodus of people from the end of the film. I would imagine that at this point the film is playing to a packed house, so crowd control might actually be a serious concern. That's really the only legitimate reason I can think of for why she was asked to leave.

Regardless, the theater has the right to ask someone to leave its property for any reason they feel like. The manager may not have been the owner but chances are excellent that he was acting under the owner's orders. I used to run my own small business selling roses at clubs and bars on weekends. I made a little money to help myself get by that way and I didn't have to show up anywhere at any special time and if I made mistakes in giving back change I was accountable only to myself, so it worked for me at the time.

Anyhow, I became very familiar with the policies, owners, and managers of a number of downtown clubs. Some had no problem with my presence, others barred me at the door which was their perfect right. Had I gone into one of these establishments against the manager's express wishes and come out onto the sidewalk again 5 minutes later, I still would have committed the act of trespassing. Even if I put one toe over the thresh hold after I'd been told not to, that still would have been an act of tresspass.

Radar's argument seems to rest on the fact that the woman was not actually trespassing by time the police arrived. So if I go commit a burglery, I get off the charge because I'd climbed back out the window of the house and was standing innocently on a public street by time the police arrived? The jails are filled with people who would adore being letting off on that one.

What she was arrested for is getting in the face of a Pennsylvania State Police officer. Right, wrong or indifferent, you can not do that, especially in front of a crowd. :smack:

i agree in practice, but i disagree in theory. if you as a citizen are confident that you have done nothing wrong, you should be able to stand your ground when a police officer is attempting to bully you. remember, these cops are the jerk offs we all went to school with, just like everyone else.

in practice, it's foolish to do it, because we all know how important 'face' is to authority figures. they have enough power to make you regret arguing with them, and if they're petty enough, they will. i remember conscioulsy slouching when i was talking to a short cop once. i just got the vibe that he resented my height, so i felt it was best if i tried to downplay it. you gotta know when to hold em, know when to fold em......

that said, this is probably just what this lady was trying to do from the get go......to hilight and demonstrate her fear of the 'authoritarian' behavior of bush's america....

The woman was not trespassing at any point and couldn't have been charged with it. She bought a ticket to the movies, (actually 2 tickets) and attended with some friends who also bought some. This was her pass to get onto the property. Assuming that there were no signs up saying that you can't hand out government forms, she had no idea of knowing this would bother anyone and in fact it did not bother anyone other than the manager. Note: The manager is not the owner of the property.

Wrong, the simple and undeniable truth is that she did not violate anyone's rights including the theater owner. She was exercising her right to free speech and the manager of the theater either asked her to leave or to stop handing out the forms. She believed she was within her rights to hand them out (and she is if PA state law protects political speech as it does in CA) in the theater. She discussed it with the manager while she continued handing it out. This is also not trespassing. She was trying to convince him to be reasonable and let her finish. The manager presumably told her he would call the police to have her removed. By this time she had finished and left the theater unescorted and was to her car. So she complied with the wishes of the Theater manager (not the theater owner) and left of her own accord as requested. Still not trespassing and still not causing a disturbance. The only disturbance was created by the theater manager. Then when she was near her car, she was called back to the theater by police.

At no point were anyone's property rights violated, and anyone who claims they were is either lacks the brain cells or the honesty to comprehend it. There is no irony, and no inconsistancy in what I'm saying. She exercised her rights and didn't violate anyone else's rights. That is as libertarian as you can get.

The cops were not doing thier job and were not upholding the law. They were called about a disturbance and clearly there was none. The person who was accused of creating a disturbance by the person who actually created it (the theater manager) was on their way to her car and wasn't disturbing anyone. They then called her back and argued with her and when she stood up for her rights and didn't bow down to thier supreme almighty authority as a cop, they got pissed and cuffed her.

Radar thinks, like the woman thought, that the theatre itself is different than the parking lot. In actual fact most such retail situations have a single owner and the theatre is leasing the property, and so the law applies equally in both locations and the cops are well aware of the desires of the property owner. There is almost a blanket ban on solicitation in such places and it's even likely that the theatre, like most malls, has a "no soliciting" sign on their door.

In our township, 20 miles from where the incident occurred, the Regal Cinema is actually so tight with the local cops that every Friday and Saturday night there's one car on permanent patrol there. You can wager they are absolutely aware of the location's policies.

is handing out voter registration forms considered solicitation?

Oh, I see now, Radar... I hadn't realized that you were actually there, and witnessed the entire event. I assume you were there personally, because that's the only way you could know these minute details which are not disclosed in the article, many of which actually contradict the text of the article.

And I didn't realize that I can't enforce anything on my property without erecting a warning sign... I'd better get started making signs, otherwise the pizza guy will be within his rights to start harrassing my houseguests when he gets here... the fact that I ordered a pizza is his pass onto my property! And if I ask him to leave, apparently he can argue with me about it for an indefinite amount of time, while continuing to harrass my houseguests! And I can't call the cops, because the pizza guy is acting within his RIGHTS!

If that's Libertarianism, I want no part in it. I prefer freedom, and the property rights that come with it.

(voter reg considered solicitation) It sure is.

I have been kicked off of several private properties for doing this sort of thing. Mostly collecting ballot signatures, which is lightly partisan, but the rent-a-cops and such treat you the same no matter what you're doing.

You can sometimes convince a supermarket that you're doing a community service but the commercial property owners are extremely strict.

More than that HP... under Radar's interpretation, you'd need the actual property owner to confirm tresspassing. So the pizza guy could just step into your neighbor's yard and continue to harass at will, until the actual property owner is located, at which time the police could actually act.

In fact, if the neighbor's on vacation, the pizza guy could actually camp on the front lawn and the cops would be powerless.

Lucky actual cops don't apply the law that way... nor would we want them to. I notice from watching the nightly news about Iraq that actual anarchy isn't as much fun as the bands writing songs about it. It seems to involve a lot of fear and people getting killed and not being about to go about your day.