The rough side is he lacks the experience to know when and how to fight the battles. Stepping on the people that foot the bill in public without legal recourse, and an attorney that would have told him to shut his mouth, is not a wise move. And sometimes even with that, he indicates to me he doesn’t understand the way business is transpired and would be a bit of a gamble to hire in a public theater. He needed to keep his opinions and attacks between him and the company until he decided to go to a legal aspect. That’s how business is done.
In some states, an act like that is considered unlawful even for a patron. In Washington State, where I live private property is any property owned by private persons and not by the government or reserved for public use. Private property includes buildings and real estate as well as objects and intellectual property. People who own property have the right to manage it and control it. A store, for example, is private property. Offering merchandise for sale implies an invitation to enter, but the store owner is entitled to ban someone from coming in. The person could be a suspected shoplifter or a troublemaker, or he can be banned for any reason, as long as it is not based on bias against a federally protected class of people.
State Law RCW 9A.52.115
So he could be removed and his job terminated for what he did. He was not prepared and would not understand why because he didn’t read the law. Is it enforced in Washington State? If the owner requests the police to remove someone from their property after they request him to leave and he refuses, they will respond and arrest him for trespassing. And it’s happened more than once. He could also end up in court for slander for that.
I’m not saying he’s wrong or right as I was not there to witness the incident. But in this case, he has no right to his opinion publicly the way he did it without being unlawful. It was an attempt to chase away patrons and potential employees from a public business. And its intent was going to cost them financial loss. And without a legal precedence, his stuff is in the wind. He was stupid for doing it that way.
rwood
Without going into detail, I am an expert on RCW 9A.52.070, 080, and 090.
The section 115 is only the declaration form. The sections I cited are the substantive sections. The young man did not violate the substantive sections.
I’ve read much of the case law on this statute. He did not violate them based on the information in the article.
Please don’t try and convince me I am wrong. You will lose. I am very well known at the Washington State Supreme Court, and at the WSP. My screen name is a excellent clue.