Just a little too far...

[tecoyah]

There comes a time when you just need to evaluate the stupidity of fear, and the ignorance of society. This is one of those times:

10-Year-Old's Bandana Causes Controversy

"June 22, 2006 05:30 AM

SPRINGFIELD, Mo. -- If you go shopping at the Battlefield Mall in Springfield, be careful what you wear.

A 10-year-old girl got in trouble while shopping with her mom, because she had on a bandana.

Lydia Smith was wearing a bandana, decorated with peace signs, smiley faces and flowers.

A security guard approached her at the food court and said the bandanna violated the mall's code of conduct, which is "wearing apparel which is likely to provide a disturbance or embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict."

http://kctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5064364

[Rodney]

Things must be pretty uptight in Missouri. Is this their logic: if we let the little girl wear a bandanna that has a peace sign on it, then we have to let the Klan and Nazi Party in, in uniform?

Pshaw.

[Charlatan]

This has much more to do with the security guard's sense of self importance than anything else.

[warrrreagl]

Well of course, once a law has been designated, no one is allowed to think about it. I really hate stuff like this.

I've said this before, in order to make sense, even the simplest rules require some judgment. Context is as vital in law as it is in life, and laws should deal with real-life problems in ways that reflect an understanding of the situation.

Andy taught Opie that wonderful lesson about saving a drowning boy in one episode. Even though the sign says "No Swimming," you have to take the situation into context and ignore the law sometimes (based on nothing more than human judgment) and dive in to save the drowning boy.

I can understand the difference between a recognizable gang-banger and a happy little kid out shopping. Believe it or not, so can the law if we allow it.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

This has much more to do with the security guard's sense of self importance than anything else.

Pegged it.

[Average_Joe]

A security guard approached her at the food court and said the bandanna violated the mall's code of conduct, which is "wearing apparel which is likely to provide a disturbance or embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict."

Please help me understand...I can't think of any reason that that particular bandana would "provide a disturbance or embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict."

If a priest or nun walked into the mall with a collar or habit, would they be asked to leave for fear of embroiling an athiest group? Am I missing the point here?

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by Average_Joe

I can't think of any reason that that particular bandana would "provide a disturbance or embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict."

Blue bandanas = Crips, and Crip wannabes
Red bandanas = Bloods, and Blood wannabes
Put 'em in the wash together...and the colors bleed.
And bandanas with smiley faces, flowers and peace signs = the worst gang of 'em all...pre-teen girls. What gangbanger doesn't tremble in fear at the sight of body glitter and lip gloss in his 'hood? Hell, even the hardest of your hardcore gangsta rappers are afraid to even make mention of...the Sparkles.

[Charlatan]

The way I read this, the interpretation is that a peace sign is a protest of the war in Iraq (rather than a gang symbol).

Regardless, the security guard is likely a frustrated police academy reject with a big chip on his shoulder.

[Toaster126]

Or the guard is just doing his\her job, which is to enforce those rules.

[maleficent]

pre-teen girls are annoying - getting them out of the mall works for me.. can we target horomonal frat boys next?

[Cynthetiq]

No different than the time that person was removed for a Tshirt in Albany the other year.

private property... asinine, but private property nonetheless.

[warrrreagl]

Originally Posted by maleficent

pre-teen girls are annoying - getting them out of the mall works for me.. can we target horomonal frat boys next?

Ahh, Mal, if only you lived in the South. You wouldn't be bugged by pre-teen girls or frat boys at the mall. In fact, you wouldn't even be bugged by gang-banging Crips and Bloods with baggy pants sagging, underwear hanging out, gang-signs flying, rap and hip-hop booming, metal teeth flashing, and "in-da-hood" tattoos screaming.

No, in the South, you'd be bugged by scrawny white boys named Bubba and Earl with baggy pants sagging, underwear hanging out, gang-signs flying, rap and hip-hop booming, metal teeth flashing, and "in-da-hood" tattoos screaming.

------------- Way to go, Billy-Wayne. You've got all of us convinced that you're "real ghetto." Why, we can't tell the difference at all......

[Charlatan]

Originally Posted by Toaster126

Or the guard is just doing his\her job, which is to enforce those rules.

You see, this is this is just what I am getting at. This is a "rule", it is not a "law". When rules are enforced in such a mindless, unthoughtful manner; when there is no reflection on context then the person enforcing the rules is nothing but a mindless automaton.

Anyone with half a brain can tell when someone is actually "wearing apparel which is likely to provide a disturbance or embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict" and when it is just 10-year-old girl wearing clothing.

This security guard was doing nothing but stoking his own sense of self importance...

[Jinn]

I saw this on Fark earlier, and I couldn't help but saying "so what?"

It's a security guard, not an officer of the peace. He's not a police officer, he probably hasn't had any police training, been certified by anyone and likely can't carry anything other than pepper spray.

Having worked as a security guard, I can tell you that there are just as many idiots doing that as there are in any other job. The problem is that they wear a uniform that some people confuse with a real police officer. In my state, I had no powers that a usual citizen doesn't; I could make a citizens arrest and .. well, that was about it. Knowing that, I treat security guards differently now. Sure, they're just another person doing their job and deserve the respect that that entails. But they AREN'T an authority, and I don't have to take orders from them. Respect, but not the respect of power.

So one guy, somewhere, with no real power.. told a girl to take her bandana off. And it made national news?

[Charlatan]

The issue is two-fold.

1) it is an example of how stupid some people can be (ie the security guard)
and
2) it is an eample of how our traditional public spaces, town squares and shopping streets have been subsumed by private interests who continually attempt to control the messy edge of public life. You may say, "so what, where's the Gap?" but I think this is a big issue that not enough people consider.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by JinnKai

So one guy, somewhere, with no real power.. told a girl to take her bandana off. And it made national news?

Look at that power, but I wouldn't call it national news. It made local news and got picked up on Fark.

[Carno]

So when is this thread going to be closed?

The OP clearly didn't add his own thoughts and comments to his post.

[ngdawg]

It made news because it's a little deeper than just some over-egoed slacker in a uniform telling a girl to leave. There are so many unfounded fears, insinuations, ignorances and suppositions flying around now, it's making the McCarthy era look decadent.
The kid was with her mother, fercryinoutloud, not a bunch of gangbangers and wearing a *OHMYGAWD* yellow bandana. And we all know how vicious 10 year olds are. She must be a member of those dreaded Bananaramas! And since when does sitting a a food court with mom, wearing this dreaded gang's colors, constitute the likelihood of providing a disturbance or embroiling conflict? Had that been me and my daughter, he'd first be feeling about a foot tall and be looking for a new job the next morning. That'd be the only conflict he'd see.

[Cynthetiq]

Originally Posted by Charlatan

The issue is two-fold.

1) it is an example of how stupid some people can be (ie the security guard)
and
2) it is an eample of how our traditional public spaces, town squares and shopping streets have been subsumed by private interests who continually attempt to control the messy edge of public life. You may say, "so what, where's the Gap?" but I think this is a big issue that not enough people consider.

I'm going to say that the public space isn't endangered. You can stand in Times Square and shout to your hearts content. You can even use a bullhorn if you like.

Confusing malls as "the new town square" is an oxymoron because the original town squares are owned by the local cities and are public spaces. Malls are private spaces allowing the public to enter.

Shopping streets still exist all over America. Shopping streets still exist in SE Asia where Malls coexist with them. But public spaces where people can gather for free speech and free assembly that has nothing to do with malls.

But people, read consumers prefer malls because parking is simpler and easier, they can access more stores without having to move their car. There's STUFF to do in malls, unlike at the park where you may have to actually sit and be still, you may have to actually talk to the people that you are with about substantive subjects instead of cajoling at the new funny shirts at Spencer Gifts.

I stopped by Union Square Park last night and at 9:30PM it was packed. There were hundreds of people there. If I went to Washington Square Park it probably would have been the same.

Now when I was in Madrid last year, they had plenty of shopping streets, some even with no car traffic. Puerta del Sol was packed with hundreds of people.

What are all these people doing???? They are enjoying being outside and doing whatever from singing and playing guitar with their friends, to reading a book. Some just eating outside to chatting with their friends.

[Jinn]

2) it is an eample of how our traditional public spaces, town squares and shopping streets have been subsumed by private interests who continually attempt to control the messy edge of public life. You may say, "so what, where's the Gap?" but I think this is a big issue that not enough people consider.

I'm with you on 1, but I think 2 has always happened. "Private interests" have always tried to control society, in their own close-minded fashion of what is acceptable and what is not. The only difference now is that there are faster methods of dissemination - we're talking about it a day or two after it happened, rather than years after. Perhaps much of the ipercieved ncrease in control (beside the actions of a certain Commander in Chief) is simply... the perception. You hear about it more, so it's happening more?

So when is this thread going to be closed?

The OP clearly didn't add his own thoughts and comments to his post.

Burrrrrrnnn.

[krwlz]

"There comes a time when you just need to evaluate the stupidity of fear, and the ignorance of society. This is one of those times:"

That was enough of a starter for me and the rest of the posters...

Back to the point, the rule isn't that peace signs and smilely faces are banned... Its that controversial signs are banned. This was an interpertation of the rule by a guard that was obviously not up to the task.

[analog]

The guard was a fuckhead. Rules are created to be applied in pertinent situations- a 10 year old little girl with smiley faces and flowers on a bandana is not the situation described by the rule. If the rule wa simply, "no bandanas", then they would have something, but it's not. A 10 year old girl will not embroil the public in open conflict OR provide a disturbance. She's not in a fucking gang. She's 10. She's not going to incite anything past giggling.

[MySexyAssJ]

that's dumb. i can understand if the rules are applying to gang affiliated gear, but not to a 10 year old girl wearing a fun bandana.
i hope her mom had a few words with him, because that shit's ridiculous!

[merlin]

Wouldn't it be ironic if she had purchased the bandana from a store in the mall...

This is just another example of following the rules over using common sense *shakes head*

[water_bug]

Originally Posted by maleficent

can we target horomonal frat boys next?

No! They are a garunteed date! Just kidding...

This actaully holds some merit. I have been in countless brawls and an occasional gun fight over clouds, smiley faces and peace signs.

[Brewmaniac]

Originally Posted by Carno

So when is this thread going to be closed?

The OP clearly didn't add his own thoughts and comments to his post.

If I had posted this it would have been closed immediately!
Oh well-

[tecoyah]

Originally Posted by Carno

So when is this thread going to be closed?

The OP clearly didn't add his own thoughts and comments to his post.

I believe this was the OP's comment:

"There comes a time when you just need to evaluate the stupidity of fear, and the ignorance of society. This is one of those times"


And as the intent obviously wasnt clear enough...I will expand upon it for you, though it has been well covered in the many replys to the thread.
The bandana is not offensive, nor derogatory, has no implications for violence or implied intent to disturb. It is a smileyface peace sign pattern. A ten year old girl shopping at a mall with this bandana should not, in my opinion have been singled out, nor should the story have become what it has.
We are becoming a nation of fearful doctrine.....this is but an example.


Is that better?


Now I will close it due to popular demand.