http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331211,00.html

Agree or Disagree?

I'm not sure how I feel about it. On one hand it would be nice to go to the mall (as nice as going to a mall could possibly be) without a bunch of screaming meme's, but then not all kids behave badly.

It almost seems like they are punishing all kids for the behavior of a few.

"It almost seems like they are punishing all kids for the behavior of a few."

Few?

When was the last time you were in a mall?

The majority of kids are not shoppers, but hang out there to act big and far too many go too far as jerks.

The owner of the mall is free to do this if they want. Question is, will it cost them money because people decide not to go there? I'm not quite sure carding people is the answer though. After all, most malls appeal to younger kids, especially ones with movie theatres. What's wrong with just adding more security to keep the peace? Teens have to have some place to go, otherwise they find other things to do "underground".

I am not sure the owner can do that, a mall is considered a public place, and anti discrimination laws apply.

A mall is a privately owned business, and they can do what they want in order to maintain the business in the fashion they want. Every heard of "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?

And if you refuse someone because their black, or a woman or a man or because of age, you violate the civil rights act.

All high courts tend to side with controls over juveniles, ie., it is OK to have curfews for juveniles and to require they attend school or be home schooled.

Nwokie, the mall is not refusing the teens, just requiring that they have an adult with them. This is perfectly acceptable and is not a violation of anyone's civil rights.

It is just like requiring parental permission to attend an R-rated movie.

Surely, Nowkie, as an ex-reserve cop you know that restrictions can be placed on juveniles so long as they are placed equally.

Their discriminating because of their age, which is a violation of the civil rights act.

You are wrong, as usual.

OK, Nwokie, get them a lawyer to fight curfews, school attendance, movie controls, voting rights, concealed weapons controls, alcohol controls, etc.

Maybe Okie should call the ACLU?

Your confusing government controls, with what a private business can do.

Nobody has the right to go and hose up the mall for others.

There are rights and RESPONSIBILITIES.

If the number of irrresponsible teens didn't devalue the mall, no worries. Today that's no longer true. Malls are pretty horrible places these days.

Growing rapidly outta control.

IMHO, some of that speaks to parents not willing or able to do what they need to do, and some of it lies with teens, way too focused on their rights, and not anywhere near as focused on their responsibilities that come with those rights.

Fail to consider both, means losing both.

That's just how it is.

It is a group action, but it's warranted and defensible. Really, any younger person upset about having to have an adult with them in the mall can start pressing on their irresponsible peers to shape it up.

There is absolutely no harm in this.

Parents, also concerned about having to deal with taking their kids places, can start hard on the same message.

Law makers can consider how we got here and maybe introduce reforms, programs, whatever to help correct things at the system level.

This is a systemic problem. Awareness and a pretty serious consensus on how we got here and that we need to get back is gonna be required to fix it longer term.

Really, the loser here is the owner of the mall! They have to put their business at risk because others are not doing their part. Doing that actually has merit in that they realize the longer term significance this growing problem will have for their properties going forward.

eg: A whole generation of people that prefer to avoid malls because of their poor experiences.

No Shirt, No Shoes, No Manners, No Service.

Damn straight!

FYI, over the last 5 years of so, I've seen the mall behavior change with my kids and their close peers.

Used to be, they would agree to meet at the mall, do some activity, then all return home.

That's no longer done very much, but for the troublemakers. Now, it's meeting before hand, travelling in groups, getting rides to avoid the public transportation, and having far more planning.

The mall is avoided more often as the trouble makes being there far less worth it.

My kids used to dread parents with them at the mall. Now it's a good thing! If we must go, then we do go, but we pay attention. It shouldn't be that way.

And we leave when we are done --no hanging around, etc...

The absolute number one reason for this change, along with lots of others happening right now, is outta control irresponsible teens thinking they have all the rights and none of the responsibilities.

Go to Lloyd center on the weekend and ask yourself, do I feel safe here? The last time we were there several portland police were there as well to break up a huge fight. I will not shop there.

No problem with excluding an individual, or group who are doing something wrong. However to exclude all teens for the crimes of a few, is not only wrong, but most instances illegal.

Show me one restaurant, that excludes children. Not counting those in bars.

Deal.

You are absolutely and completely wrong on this. However, let's say you are right on.

How do you fix it then? What is the right thing to do Nwokie?

You have decent security, and exclude people , for behavior.

You could also play some Sinatra as background music.

Like the Sinatra idea actually --that's funny!

So, what's decent security?

Does that escalate as the problem does? How expensive and dangerous is that?

So, we've got a few troublemakers, and we have some security. Odds are, most people feel ok about things, most never see incidents.

That's the mall some time ago. No big deal.

Now we've got a bunch of troublemakers and they are bolder than before. There are lots of security and most people see indicants and generally have a bad experience.

Before, it was rare to see people getting into it at the mall. Now it's extremely common. The chance of a visit and having that experience is very high.

Does the mall owner increase security still?

At what point do people actually have to step up and take some responsibility for what is happening and how does that happen?

What you are talking about is a simple escalation of the problem. Force met with force. A pure military play, and we all know just how inviting those kinds of environments are to ordinary people.

If I see bars, lots of armed persons, etc... the whole place screams, "Go away!". So, I will go away, and so will a lot of others.

We then reach a point where malls are not viable.

Guess what?

The problem of young people not focused on both their rights and responsibilities is still there and will just move to the next popular venue.

It will continue until something core is done. Something more than simple escalation.

That's what systemic means. Escalation does not work with systemic problems, which is why the mall owner is approaching it differently.

Ask yourself, what if the troublemakers were from another identifiable group, blacks, hispanics, whites, women, men etc. Would your answer be to exclude that group?

You know it is not entirely the kid's fault. When you see the worst punk ass kid meet up with his parents, you often realize then who is at fault, the punk ass parents. Some people should not reproduce!

"Would your answer be to exclude that group?"

They aren't being excluded. So, no. To answer your question.

I can just see the headline, soldiers returning from Iraq, not allowed into mall without their parents.

Yeah. That won't happen either. And that was a weak attempt to make me feel unpatriotic.

Pathetic. You should be ashamed.

So now your saying only some teens will be excluded. What else you going to base it on?

I'm sorry, are we sending 17-year-olds to fight in Iraq?

We're sending 18 year olds, and there are probably some 17 year olds. Minimum enlistment age is 17, with a HS diploma.

" So now your saying only some teens will be excluded. What else you going to base it on? "

I didn't say anything close to that. Repeat what I said. Go ahead. Type it out. Word for word. Don't just copy and paste it. TYPE it out.

Private Business can REFUSE service to ANYONE!

No they can't. The civil righs act in the 60's since amended several times, say you can not discriminate by sex, race, national origin, age, vietnam vets in housing, employment and public accomadations.

Washington State and a few other states have added sexual orientation.

They are not refusing service.

Not allowing them in, is refusing service. That would be like a restaurant not allowing blacks in.

Only way to get around it, is if the establishment was totally private, IE you had to have a membership card to get in, and it didn't engage in interstate trade, in any way.

Teens are allowed in.

This is about solving a problem.

It's a given the mall wants the kids. So that takes intent off the table. One of the core elements inherent in discrimination issues is where the motive is.

Is the motive personal? ie: "black people suck", "old people don't spend enough", "gays are not allowed because we don't let sinners in our establishment", etc...

All of those kinds of things devalue people for no real social gain. We all get old, some of us are black, gay, whatever. They are things we cannot control, therefore we do not discriminate on those things.

It's true that people cannot control their youth, however, they can control their behavior!

That's directly connected to motive here.

Would it be better to just close the mall? Really, the level of security required is too high, and is a major turn off. If there are no solid options, perhaps it should just be closed right?

Now, everybody who is interested in using a mall, will not have one to use --and the owner of the mall takes a big bath as who wants to own a failed mall?

Seems to me, before having to deal with that, applying a solution like this makes a lot of sense. Will it test the law?

Absolutely it will!

Here's the kicker:

Again, we have law, norms, money and physics as tools to regulate people. None are absolute.

I posed this scenario to people today. Was a fun work topic. NOBODY DISAGREED WITH THE OWNER OF THE MALL.

Responses were:

"Hey, sounds like a mall I would visit!"

"About time, those things are really dangerous."

"Maybe those kids will think about things."

So, should this actually be a violation of the law, we may find it to be a defensible one! The law then will change as juries of our peers will make value judgments.

Interesting stuff.

Our law is there to serve us for the greater good. If it isn't actually doing that, it can and will be changed. How it changes is events like this one!

I can solve this! Plus kids can stay at the Mall!

Anyone kid under 21 has to show receipt proof of $50.00 or more from the Mall in the last 12 hours.

Nwokie.....
Any PRIVATE business can refuse business to anyone at anytime no matter what! That's what makes it PRIVATE! If that is not true then tell my father's best friend who started Pumpkin Ridge Golf course that..... And a buddy of mine that owns a bowling center in Hillsboro... They would tell you what i've told you no matter what LAW YOU think there is PRIVATE BUSINESS can refuse business to ANYONE!
Don't like it?? Call your local chapter of the ACLU!

No they can not, you may not refuse anyone for race, sex, age, national origin etc

If you required everyone to purchase $5.00 that would be legal, but you can't discriminate on the basis of race etc.

If your fathers best friend refuses someone because their black, or otherwise covered he can be sued by the person he refused and the US govt.

If its a totally private course, only lets members in he would be ok, but the minute he accepts public business, hes covered by the civil rights act.

http://www.legalzoom.com/legal-articles/article13721.html

Not to mention that the youth market = huge $$$$! The kids should take their money elsewhere and teach 'em a REAL lesson!

(Just my humble opinion!) ;-)

This is weird, I'm the conservative here, and I am arguing that not only is it illegal for business's to discriminate, but its just wrong.

And many of the normally liberals' here are arguing, its perfectly ok for a business to discriminate.

I don't know about the others, but my response is more complex than, "it's perfectly ok."

Really, I'm not convinced they are operating within the law.

I'm saying their approach is defensible and has an impact that gets at the systemic cause of the problem, and that it does not do any great harm.

Law is about harm and property. The mall owner is being harmed and his property is at risk.

Now, this action might be unlawful. There will be an accounting for that --and we may find the law is inadequate for the task.

The intent is to lower the overall harm --equally, I might add. The kids are in danger, as are adults, the mall owner, etc...

It's just not a matter of personal gain. The intent is good.

I dunno how many people read the actual article (which is actually just an AP article that's on Fox's site), but this is a mall in suburban New Orleans. In fact, with a little looking around I found their website:
http://clearviewmall.com/
(It didn't load for me since it's a 100% flash site and I'm on dial-up.)

Anyway the article said this is in effect from 4 PM until closing on Friday and Saturday only. So, if someone felt strongly about this and is under 17, then they could go there outside of those hours.

Anyone kid under 21 has to show receipt proof of $50.00 or more from the Mall in the last 12 hours.
Y'know, Craig, you might be on to something. Maybe someplace could charge a deposit similar to the Bottle Bill or the mythical deposit on tourists in the "Orygone III" joke book, where anyone entering the mall pays whatever amount to get in ($25, $50 or whatever). When they show their purchase receipt upon leaving, they are credited the deposit. People who are just there for a while and don't buy anything, and anyone removed for not following the code of conduct loses the deposit, because the place costs money to operate and provide security and such.

I'm not saying I like the idea, just presenting one that popped into my head.

...you may not refuse anyone for race, sex, age, national origin etc...

Private Business can REFUSE service to ANYONE!
I was under the impression that someone cannot be discriminated against for something in Affirmative Action laws, however if someone is violating a rule that applies to everyone, then they can be refused service on that basis.

That is true, if you have posted rules, that don't discriminate on the various protected classes, you can bar people. Heck you could even bar all short people, or tall or people with blue eyes. But you can not have rules that impace people specified in the various state and federal equal rights rules.

If you have a room you want to rent out, you can reject someone because they smoke, but not because their black.

Well, we have a civics lesson going here.

Let's say the mall just does it, enforces it, and the law says otherwise.

Guess what?

They get to do it, until the people seek a remedy. That means going to the courts, presenting a case, or to government and asking for their assistance.

So, we are gonna get to see this tested, I am sure.

And any individual discriminated against, can be part of a class action suit, and receive about 10 thousand each.

Now there is a possibility the courts will rule, since it only affects minors, they can do it, but in most other cases, except for reasonable curfews they haven't ruled that way.

The mall is taking a large financial crap shoot, if they go with the plan.

You can REFUSE anyone! Not by race or gender but ANYONE who is human. That's the rights of a PRIVATE BUSINESS! If that were not true then NO golf course could have rules about whom they let play there. ANY THEY DO! Because it's private!!!!

If your business is truly private, yes, but since most business are open to the general public, you can't.

If you have a private membership roll, and its not considered a sham, and your not in any way involved in interstate trade.

Teens are allowed in the mall.

But your adding a qualifier, it would be like saying a black man can't be in the mall, unless his wife is with him. Or a white woman can't be in the mall unless her husband is with her.

Hey, let them do it, I will be interested in the court case.

Me too. I'm not convinced they will win either. But for now, teens are allowed in the mall. To overstate it as they aren't, is false. They are. There are restrictions put on them. Reasonable ones too. ( In my opinion ) We'll see if they hold up.

The part I find most interesting is the scope and size of the problem actually warranting such a risk!

It's also gonna be tough for teens to show harm. And that's where the word REASONABLE really will play out, IMHO.

If there isn't any solid harm, then the action may well stand, with us seeing the law changed as a result.

Could be a nasty slope however.

Once the civil rights laws were enacted, blacks didn't have any problem showing "harm" when they were denied entrance to a store or restaurant.

It's not the same thing to me.

Sue me.

Nwokie, in a way I am reiterating what Newflyer, Trixter and others above have said, but have you ever noticed the signs commonly posted in businesses that read, "WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE"?

Well, judging by your responses above it's clear that *you* likely haven't noticed them. But I assure you, they do. Just as if you were to go into someone else's home, you are a GUEST in their place of business-shopping malls included. (It's also one reason why restaurant tickets often are printed with the header "GUEST CHECK" at the top.) So if a business owner doesn't like a patron's/guest's conduct or foul attitide or whatnot, they can ask said guest to leave. You wouldn't like to have a bunch of rowdy teenagers raising hell at your house/apartment/trailer/etc., would you? As I see it, this is the same approach shopping malls use.

It has absolutely nothing to do with "civil rights" or "discrimination" or "excluding black people" or whatever other completely out-of-context term you want to use. It's about maintaining a professional, efficient, well-conducted and safe business environment. Ask *ANY* business owner, if you know any, and they will probably tell you pretty much the same thing.

There.

Sure i have seen them, they have no legal meaning. Its like the signs rollar skate rings, that say "not responsible for accidents".

They may look nice, but have no legal meaning.

Yes you can ask a bunch of rowdy teens to leave, or rowdy blacks, or whites or women. But you can't ask them to leave just because their black, or women or teens.

those signs can get cause you a lot of hurt, because in the case of a lawsuit for discrimination, they can be used to show intent.
Like the "Beware of dog" sign. Its proof you know you have a dangerous dog.

You are so completely and totally full of shit!

Say you walk into a place of business, and they have the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" sign posted, and they just don't serve you and point to the sign.

That's it!

At that point you are simply not gonna get served. They don't even have to tell you why, just that it's not gonna happen and would you please leave, thanks!

From there it's the courts.

You can demand they say why, that you be served in the future, that you should have been served, and all sorts of other stuff, but

(and this is a big but)

they are not gonna do it, unless compelled to do it in a court of law, meaning you have to have obtained a judgement for said compulsion to actually have any teeth.

And then, say you spend the money and get all of that done.

Maybe they just don't serve you anyway, just because.

Again, you then are simply not served!

So, back to the courts for another judgement, perhaps one with more teeth this time, right?

And it goes on and on and on.

Right now, that mall owner is not seeing the value in allowing the teens in the mall without supervision. They get to do that, unless somebody presses the matter.

So, the law is the law, but that is balanced by money and time.

Remember those four regulators: money, law, physics, norms. The law is not the be all, end all, of how we regulate behavior.

Here's another example. Jaywalking. We have laws that say jaywalking is bad. Now, if you read closely, those laws don't say one can't jaywalk, only that if one is caught jaywalking, then one is subject to a fine.

Go read the discrimination laws. They are gonna say there is a consequence for violating them.

They don't say "can't" because the law is not the sole regulator of behavior.

Therefore, this guy gets to modify how and when teens can enter the mall, until such time as people deem it worth the court time to put an end to it.

Seeing as how a very large segment of the people agree with the action, that's just not gonna be all that easy.

One final example:

Lots of people will say, "you can't hit me, it's against the law!". When they are hit, they get a very basic lesson on how the law really works and the implications of that on the real teeth behind the word can't.

If you are in a protected class, the burdon of proof is on the business, to prove it didn't violate the law.

A lot of restaurants in thge south tried that crap when the civil rights laws were first passed. They lost.

It doesn't have to be a violation of law in order for it to be enforced at the business' discretion. There are all kinds of legal precedents for it. Bars, movies - heck - even ME as a business owner can say " I don't like your attitude. I'm not going to provide you my service."

And it's legal to do so. According to the State of Oregon ( My regulating body ). I checked. It is fully within my rights. Even if I just suspect something, it's not up to me to provide any proof of anything.

I'm going to repeat this one last time and ONLY one last time.

If your a PRIVATE business you can REFUSE business to ANYONE!

That's it END OF STORY!

I was at the UPS store today, and saw that they had a handwritten sign that said "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyne." It's not that uncommon.

I was once refused entry to a bar in Seattle because I had a hat on and would not remove it to enter. Their policy was no hats. So, I told them I don't patronize joints that have to regulate whether I'm wearing a hat.

Heck, I've even been refused service (or received awful service) at places where nothing was posted. When I call to complain (and sometimes not about being refused service, but only about the employees' attitude), sometimes the only answer I get is "if you don't like it, don't come back."
Fine.

Here's a broadcasting example: I heard of someone who called channel 8 during the Ward Weaver incident in Oregon City, because of the pictures they were broadcasting from inside the house that showed child-sized stains on the walls, complete with narration of what police think happened at that exact location. The caller reached the newsroom, where they were told if they were disturbed by the story, they should turn their TV off.

I'm thinking somebody here has flunked the bar exam 23 consecutive times.

I think malls are stupid, vapid and an eyesore.

If your purpose is to make people exchange the architecture, intimacy and personal connectedness of a downtown shopping district -- or neighborhood street of small businesses -- for a big impersonal box full of smaller boxes, you will have the same problems as any corporate myopia. By ignoring the individual, and by marginalizing any sense of community, these folks should not be surprised when people act human and irrational.

The reality is that many kids are bored, and they end up in the mall. If our parks were safe, or young folks had lots of after-school activities to choose from, it would be different. Unfortunately, we live in a society where personal fulfillment is centered around public consumption. We react to symptoms, but ignore the disease.

America is being slowly strangled by the lie that says we are neighbors, when nobody builds a house with a porch. "We reserve the right to refuse business to anyone" works both ways. If the mall is no longer the center of the world, one can find the universe that lies beyond the asphalt shores.

To be quite blunt, if parents were doing their damn jobs, this would be a non-issue. However, institutions both public and private have been saddled with the chore. So, here we are in 2008, arguing about whether kids ought to be able to hang out at the mall.

Personally, I would rather there were no kids at the mall. I think that when a young person has chances to explore and understand, the acts of shopping or loitering are equally evil. They are both an undisputed waste of time.

When our libraries are regulating patrons and exercising crowd control, we can argue about the rights of our youth.

Yes Indeed!

I'm really glad I grew up where I did. We didn't have malls close by, so going to one was a big enough deal that we mostly didn't!

Getting board meant exploring that back 40 one day, playing survivor, maybe working on blowing something up, running the motorcycles, riding bikes, throwing stuff, talking, running.

At the end of the day we were mostly tired...

Read up on the Denney's lawsuit, where they were sued for not serving blacks, or giving blacks poor service. Denneys lost millions in that suit. You can not refuse service because someone in black, etc. and the burdon of proof is on you. Check out a law book on case law, there are thousands of examples of a store, restaurant hotel etc that was sued because they refused service to someone, that is in a protected class.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's gonna take some body, upset enough to drive a suit, or the mall guy gets to do it.

Malls are loaded with Sex addicts, pedophile's,and rapists, preying on teenage girls. I couldn't think of more dangerous place to drop your teenage daughter off at the mall for a day. I was at Washington Square the other day and could not believe how some of these girls are dressing. Some of these girls are just asking for trouble by the way they are dressing.

You could let them ride Max to the Mall, that would be worse!

A woman has the right to dress anyway she wants, and be free from being assulted.

I thought wwe had come a long way from women being accused of being responsible for them being assulted.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=379&invol=294

This is the prime case, which most civil rights laws, concerning restaurants are based. It ruled that a restaurant may not refuse to serve blacks. Even though its only connection to interstate comemrce, was that it bought some of its meat from a distributer that purchased across state lines.

Nwokie, teens are allowed to go into the mall. None of your examples apply.

Your trying to put a qualifier on peoples civil rights, thats like saying, black people can eat here, as long as their accompanied by a white person.

Ok, there is a difference here.

The teens are KIDS. They have somewhat different treatment, in terms of their rights, and they have less responsibilities too.

This is warranted. ..and, IMHO, an excellent first step at raising awareness of this growing problem.

The motive on this is a good motive; namely, a viable mall. If it were some other thing, maybe it would not be seen the same way. I'm sure the owner wants the kids in there, so it's clear this move is not anti-kid, like the anti-black examples are.

It's more like, "hey, these kids are really acting out, let's start doing something to fix it please?"

Way different. You'll see that, if and when it hits the courts.

"Your trying to put a qualifier on peoples civil rights, thats like saying, black people can eat here, as long as their accompanied by a white person."

No. For the last time, I'm not. It's not LIKE anything. Teens can go in the mall. Read the article.

Their saying they can't go in without an adult, sounds like a qualifier to me.

Okie- Whether you like it (or know it) or not, you are MAKING SHIT UP.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers only "discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations" based on RACE or GENDER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 "prohibits *employment* discrimination against persons *40 years of age or older*"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employment_Act

You are doing a fine job of demonstrating how your negative opinions about groups who are politically or socially opposed to you are based on *your imagination*, not facts.

Like it or not, people under the age of 40 are not a legally protected class in any way, shape or form.

Your confusing the age discrimination act of 1975, with the employee age discrimination act of 1974.

http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/age.html

The age discrimintaion act of 1975 prohibits any company or group receiving federal funds, and you can bet that mall receives some federal funds or loans of some kind. From engaging in age discrimination.

Now since the age discrimination law specifically does not preempt state laws on age, if the state or city passed a law banning minors from malls during certain hours, that would be legal.

"The age discrimintaion act of 1975 prohibits any company or group receiving federal funds, and you can bet that mall receives some federal funds or loans of some kind."

Full of shit, as usual.

Keep the little monsters out of the malls. I agree with that policy. While we're at it, let's confiscate the cell phones from the little brats right now. I ain't the bff of any of these societal parasites.

While I do not believe that consumption is a basic or fundamental part of childhood, I think that kids have a right to be safe. In my whole life, I have never felt safe and secure in a mall environment.

Several months ago, a dear friend in their mid-30s had to carefully skirt a knife fight at Lloyd Center to get to the DMV. No, your children were not safe in the mall.

In 1990, my first love was a barista. She had to carry a blackjack with her to and from the car at Clackamas Town Center. No, your kids were not safe at the mall.

Over three decades ago, my brother and I were approached by a creep in a shopping center in the midwest. So, we quickly ran a couple of aisles back to Mom and Dad. Even then, two growing boys were not safe at the mall.

Our experiences are not unique. This is a very old problem that has been buried in the media for decades because the nightly news and morning paper depend on the malls for revenue.

From what I know, members of law enforcement absolutely detest malls. Any person that has worked in that environment, or been a neighbor to a mall, will also tell you it is a crime mecca.

Let's face it, a bunch of disconnected people are gathered in big crowds to achieve nothing. They have come together with only an addiction and the almighty dollar as a unifying presence. Like a traveling carnival, or a drug house, it is a sure invitation for trouble.

With the shootings at the Lane Bryant fresh in our minds, and so many others in recent memory, we ought to be thinking of this as a problem that is much bigger than the kids. It is a people issue.

So far, the sterile halls, softly lit walls and plastic plants are driving people mad. So far, the nuts with weapons are winning. Either the businesses take it seriously, or we completely rethink our concept of the American village.

Is a world without malls all that scary when dozens of people are dead?

Lets us not forget that it was a MALL that gave birth to Tonya Harding.

I thought it was a 6-pack of Hamms, a crew cab Ford Pickup's back seat, and a broke Trojan.

Lets us not forget that it was a MALL that gave birth to Tonya Harding.

CRACKofmyASS Towne Center???

Laughing huge at Dark.

Golden man, just golden.

"Their discriminating because of their age, which is a violation of the civil rights act."

Not true. It is illegal to discriminate based on age with respect to those over 40 specifically when it comes to hiring practices. It is not illegal to place restrictions on minors because of, well, their minority age status.

Every now and then I rip a zinger that don't stink! Glad you liked it!

By the way, most teenagers can't even afford Adult Escorts.

By the way, most teenagers can't even afford Adult Escorts.

I was wondering how long it would be before someone "read" it that way. I'm glad to see I'm not the only sicko! That was my first thought when I saw the title of the article.