Albany Paper Backs Free Speech Claim in Controversial Game Lawsuit

In an editorial published this morning the Albany Times-Union offers support for a federal lawsuit filed last week against the city of Troy, New York and its public works commissioner, Robert Mirch (left).

GamePolitics readers will recall that in 2008 inspectors invoked the city’s building code to shut down an art gallery which was displaying Virtual Jihadi, Iraqi artist Wafaa Bilal’s controversial computer game exhibit. From today’s Times-Union editorial:

What constitutes free and protected speech in Troy, and what constitutes public safety and unacceptable building code violations, aren’t merely matters of fiat. They aren’t simply up to the whims of Robert Mirch. They shouldn’t be, at least…


The public works commissioner, not to mention the majority leader of the Rensselaer County Legislature, had effectively appointed himself arbiter of public morals…

Mr. Mirch, meanwhile, seems to have a new beef with the media… He’s bothered that the lawsuit, which after all is a public document, has made it into the hands of the media. Let’s hope he doesn’t try to use the building code to further retaliate…

Free speech and the building code should be kept separate.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    Kamil says:

    They are trying to block free speak which is unacceptable under circumstance. I think google is a big violator of such things you can go to google maps and just find the location of any house in any city, county nation on the planet. Lawsuit Funding

  2. 0
    ZacharyMiner says:

    It doesn’t matter what the fine *would* have been, or how long the Sanctuary was given to fix it, they WERE in compliance with the law because the city of Troy told them that they could legally hold events in the building as long as they petitioned for, and received, an inspection prior to any events. In this case, that’s exactly what they did. So, for the purposes of this event, their building was found to be safe, and then someone with a vindictive agenda shut it down a day after it was declared not to have any safety issues. Please go back and read the original posts about the event, and you’ll see what’s really going on. The truth shall set you free!


    The Troy case is essentially like this:


    City Official: Your car is unsafe at high speeds. You can drive on city streets, but not the highway.

    Person A: But I need to drive on the highway to get places!

    City Official: Okay – you can drive on the highway, as long as every time you want to drive there you ask an inspector to look at your car and make sure it isn’t going to self-destruct.

    Person A: Fine. I’m going to go somewhere this weekend. Can you have someone take a look at it now?

    City Official: Sure. [sends an inspector to check it out]

    Inspector: Looks good to me – you’re all set.

    Person A: Thanks! I’ll have fun driving to the gay bar this weekend.

    City Official: [overhears] Gay bar?! I object as to what you want to do with your own personal time and money!

    Person A: Too bad – my free time is my free time, and your inspector already said my car was safe.

    [weekend arrives]

    Police Officer: [pulls car over] Hey there, you’re under arrest! Your car isn’t safe to drive on the highway.

    Person A: You’re incorrect about that – my car was just inspected by City Official’s inspector and I was given a legal assurance that it was safe and legal to drive it.

    Police Officer: That’s weird, it was City Official who told me to pull you over. But I’m sure it had nothing to do with his public statement of disapproval about what you’re doing with your personal vehicle, which his office already said was safe.

    Person A: Yeah, I can’t possibly see how these events might be related. [explodes from sarcasm]

  3. 0
    lumi says:

    The underlying premise of your post is correct, but I think you’re mistaken about the actions and events actually depicted in the game.  I don’t think the player is even the one who is supposed to assassinate Bush; the objective is for the player to recruit someone else (a non-terrorist, I think) to do it (further emphasizing the idea that the "common Iraqi" is more susceptible to terrorist sympathy by the actions of the U.S.).

  4. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    No, fire hazards are always a biggie, especially if the location was given over a year to fix it.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  5. 0
    Monte says:

     And what you don’t seem to get is that the game does not "encourage violence" against anyone … that is NOT what the game was about… the game depicted the assasination of Bush by the player, but that is a far cry from encouraging violence against him or being considered a threat against him. (unless you think ALL violent games encourage real world violence)

    What the game is about, the purpose behind the game, is a commentary about how the US actions in iraq have lead normal citizens to joining up with terrorists… THAT is what you don’t seem to get and should read up on.

    You said you did not know much about this game and as such you should not be too quick to comment on it… By doing so, you are making the same horrible mistake every Right wing nutcase who has spoken about this game, and other controversial games without even seeing the game in question… you are getting outraged and offended by something you know NOTHING about

  6. 0
    Yuuri says:

    The dept gave the go ahead, then the head of the dept later came back AFTER doing a protest at the site. That is what is the issue is here. Expecially since it’s an infraction that normally only gets a warning and/or a fine, not a complete shut down.

  7. 0
    Wolvenmoon says:

    Was it the same guy who gave them the go-ahead then shut them down? While I doubt this would be the entirety of his reason for shutting them down, he could have noticed a violation that was ignored. (Of course, I believe if he did see this the controversial display lit a fire under his ass to shut it down).

  8. 0
    Wolvenmoon says:

    There’s a difference between pushing cultural norms and blatantly encouraging violence upon ones own culture. Freedom of speech allows for both. It also allows for us to be angry at a group that does the latter under their freedom of speech. We don’t want to have people POed at us because of their actions.

    If we toss our lots in with the people blatantly encouraging violence, or supporting violence, against our country we’re going to have many more people acting like our infamous attorney friend who’s name is akin to ego masturbation saying the same things he did, but the fact is they’ll be a WHOLE lot less insane, and more easily believed.

    Imagine if Jack Thompson had some sway over others. "Gamers are psychotic murderers, they’re extremists. They’re no better than the terrorists" is pretty hilarious right now, as it’s so far out there it’s ridiculous, and most of the public sees that. Imagine if the public already asociated us with those kinds of people.

    Do winerys want drunk hobos selling their product? Does the EU want greenpeace heading their RoHS commission? Do positive reinforcement only dog trainers want PETA controlling their commercials?

    Do gamers really want the military controlling gaming? (I sure as sh** don’t). How about a psycho conservative group like westboro church representing gaming? Let’s take that a step further, how about a psycho religious group like westboro church that ALSO believes detonating oneself and killing civilians is their path to paradise, and an acceptable way to show disagreement? (This is what modern day jihadist islamic extremists believe, in general. Some won’t go as far as to suicide bomb, but they are for killing people who don’t believe the same way they do.)

    Do we want them representing gaming?

    We are not bloodthirsty killers. We are generally not looking to rock the world with our hobby, though might in our other pursuits. We are not here to encourage violence against other people. We are not here to inflict violence upon others. Political causes of groups that do these things should be something we actively work to distance ourselves from, especially when they’re halfway across the world. Part of exercising freedom of speech is that sometimes one does it absolutely alone.

    Our games keep the blood pixelated, the gore in 32 bit color, and the screams pre-recorded. Extremists that want to harm others, or anything directly sympathetic to these extremists, may be protected under first amendment rights, but I don’t want it asociated with me. I have enough social stigmatizing because I like launching virtual missiles at virtual humans in a virtual arena. I don’t want any of their rep.


    There are many other groups doing much more good for this planet that are much more oppressed that gaming could stand with.

  9. 0
    Yuuri says:

    What part of they got the all clear to be open to the public from the same dept. the day BEFORE it opened for the event, but only AFTER the guy in charge got his panties in a twist the day of the event did they get shut down do you not get?

  10. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You’re right, but as I’ve been saying, this may not be about free speech in the first place.  It could just be some crackpot claiming he’s being persecuted because of his beliefs, when the whole place was shut down because of irresponsible establishment owners who don’t understand that when the city says to fix something, it needs to be fixed.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  11. 0
    lumi says:

    Didn’t take as long as I expected to reduce you to ad hominem attacks, even considering the complete and utter lack of material you have to work with on this issue.  Not that you had anything else you could say in response, since I was dead right.

  12. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Most left-wing idiots are male upper-middle class white Americans.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  13. 0
    lumi says:

    And you’re willfully ignoring additional facts in the case.

    First off, the Sanctuary is far from the only building in Troy with the same or similar code violations.  As a non-profit organization facing a 15k bill to fix your doors, a violation that is not being enforced all over the city…you’d do the same damn thing.

    Secondly, as you’re so fond of pointing out, this violation was on the books for over a year.  PLENTY of time for Mirch to have shut them down if it really mattered.  But for thirteen months, he didn’t shut them down (or anyone else under the same violation).  The day of the exhibit, that he led the protest against, he shuts down the building for something that, for the past thirteen months, didn’t warrant shutting them down for.

    Oh, and this was also less than twenty-four hours after his own department green-lit the event.

    So yeah, this is totally left-wing kneejerk reactionism on our part.  For the record, I am a male upper-middle class white American, and I quite happily agree that this guy deserves to burn.

  14. 0
    lumi says:

    Reading comprehension FTW, right?

    Someone objected to the term "pro-jihadist" being used to describe the game.  You responded to that with "Yeah, because America had 9/11 coming, right?"

    "Anyone who says that we need the perspective of a terrorist is.  You are excusing terrorism and murder by saying that it is our fault."

    You fucking fail.  You just…fucking…fail.  I don’t understand how the hell you twist anything that’s been said here into "excusing terrorism".  If you can’t figure out that "understanding the roots of terrorism" is completely different from "excusing terrorism", then you need to STFU, because you are clearly incapable of intelligent, constructive input on this matter.

    Understanding terrorism, especially recruitment methods and tactics, is something we in the U.S. should really be trying to get a handle on, because that’s the first, best step in figuring out how to combat it.

    "I have no problem with this game, because nobody will buy it anyway."

    No shit, you moron.  It isn’t being SOLD.  It’s part of an art installation.  It was being put on exhibit, not up for sale in Gamestop.  No one’s supposed to buy it.  Every post you make highlights how little you actually know about this issue.

  15. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    How many times have I said that a fire hazard, which the doors were, is grounds for immediate closure?  You guys are so blind to anything said by anyone opposing your viewpoint that you can’t even read.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  16. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I didn’t say that this game says that america deserved 9/11.  Anyone who says that we need the perspective of a terrorist is.  You are excusing terrorism and murder by saying that it is our fault.  I have no problem with this game, because nobody will buy it anyway.  However, trying to say that America needs to see the terrorist perspective is almost like saying that Jews need to see Hitler’s side of the story.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  17. 0
    HelpHelpImBeingRepressed says:

    It doesn’t always have to be the truth actually.  As long as it is not slanderous or done to incite illegal activity or used to signal imminent mortal danger (fire) when there is none, you can pretty much lie all you want.

  18. 0
    lumi says:

    I misread this post the first time through.  You are off your fucking rocker, man.

    Clearly you never bothered to read anything about this exhibit beyond "Wafaa Bilal, Iraqi-born artist" and "Virtual Jihad".

    No one, including Bilal, is saying anything remotely like "America deserved 9/11".  If anything, this exhibit could be helping the U.S. understand some of the consequences of our actions.  I’m not saying "OMFG, we’re evil and need to leave the Middle East!!!11".  But understanding how the rest of the world views our actions, and what reactions can result (making it easier for terrorists to recruit against us), is a good thing.

  19. 0
    lumi says:

    You seem to also be ignoring the "selective enforcement" charge.  There are plenty of outstanding building code violations on the books that the offenders aren’t shut down for because 1) they’re very minor violations (the building wasn’t in disrepair or about to collapse or any such thing), and 2) the cost-benefit ratio of the danger inherent to the violation and the cost of repairing said violation may be utterly disparate or outside the means of the offender.

    In short, if Mirch wanted to go on a crusade against wrongly-swinging door violations, there are a ton of other places (in Troy) he’d have to go after.  But he didn’t.  He went after this one, and ONLY this one.

    Still think there’s no political motivation at work here?  I mean, besides the obvious stuff you’re so willfully ignoring?

  20. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Yeah, because America had 9/11 coming, right?  Stop sucking Obama’s dick long enough to get some real perspective.  This guy has a point.  New York was attacked by terrorists.  No American had that coming.  Our military doesn’t intentionally kill innocent civilians.  Yes, accidents happen, but the ones that have been happening over the last seven years are as a result of terrorists attacking us, because our country has this policy that Israel has a right to exist as a nation.

    From what I have seen about terrorists, they’re the intolerant ones.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  21. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    I guess you haven’t seen the extent of Wolvenmoon’s craziness before. He is one of those uber-patriotic extreme right crazies. He’s just generally more subtle about it.

    I expected nothing less of him than to call this exhibit pro-terrorist.

  22. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    "pro-jihadist"? Really? Are you new here or did you just miss everything ABOUT this game? It doesn’t support terrorism, by no means does it do that. It gives you some perspective. If soldiers rolled through your town and killed your brother for no reason, you would be (very) likely to join a terrorist organization against said soldiers. Killing/torturing innocent people only creates terrorists. That’s what his display is about. It doesn’t support it, no, it simply tells of how easy it is to turn to terrorist organizations when your innocent family is killed by a right-abusing government (aka the United States. Which they are.).

    Way to be tolerant.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  23. 0
    Monte says:

     Unlikely… i mean who would actually do a report about the building’s minor violations in relation to that game? It’s such a minor issue that would have stayed under the radar if no one brought it up… no one would say he was the one who gave the "ok" to show that game

  24. 0
    Wolvenmoon says:

    <snips long post>

    In general, it’s really a good idea to go near the site of a tragedy and mock it. It tends to garner a good response, and is definitely not called ‘attention whoring’. In fact, dressing up as nazis and marching into a synagogue sounds like it’d get welcomed with open arms!

    Of course, those open arms would likely be firearms, but what the hay.

    Seriously though, this guy probably knew he was likely screwed either way. On his watch, he’d given the okay to a pro-jihadist display opening up in the state that had losses from an actual jihadist attack. His head was likely to roll either way.

  25. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    They are a non profit museum. From what I have read it would have taken $15,000 to get the building up to code.

    They did have their ducks in a row thought. They got permission from the Fire Marshal to hold the event. That should have been plenty to get through the event and continue working toward updating the doorways.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  26. 0
    Nitherean says:

    Actually, there has been a few facts and they have already been stated.  Mr. Mirch LED the protest and then had the building closed.  It would be like someone in the pro-life camp, arguing someone should be jailed on pulbic TV, and then, the next day shooting the person on live TV.


    The guy is guilty of violating the freedom of speech, hands down.  He should just be a man, and admit it. 

  27. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Nothing has been said by anyone proving this was politically motivated.  It has been proven that a valid violation of building code was found, the establishment had over a year to fix it and didn’t.  Case closed.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  28. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    I blame the murderor for George Tiller’s murder.

    It cannot be argued that Mirch selectively enforced a building code to shut down an exhibit that he disagreed with. That is a violation of free speech. If he shuts down that building, then he would also have to shut down EVERY OTHER BUILDING in the city that has the same violations, otherwise it is quite clear that he abused his power to further his agenda. It’s an abuse of power, straight-up.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  29. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Maybe so, but that doesn’t change the fact that there was an issue in the first place, and it was his responsibility to deal with that issue.  Does anyone know whether or not he is under investigation by the city?  I would assume that, with what this case alleges, the city would have launched one, unless his claim is actually valid.  From what anyone has said, it is.  The only people objecting seem to be people who have a problem with percieved tactics.  I find it funny, because the people supporting this game are the same people who blame Bill O’Reilly for Dr. George Tiller’s murder, and defend him by pointing out what he did was legal.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  30. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    There was a violation and they did everything "short of correcting the violation?"  Then they didn’t do anything.  If I’m told over a year before that I need to get new doors, I should have gotten the doors.  Again, this is kinda fishy, but I think it would not be prudent in any way to claim that this is only meant to stifle free speech.  At the very least, the people running the show knew that this would incite controversy, and should have had all of their ducks in a row.  I’d blame the location manager just as much as this guy.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  31. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    What he did is the equivalent of impounding a car with no chance of getting it back simply because of a speeding ticket. Way overboard and completely for biased reasons. The only reason he chose to enforce that little rule was because he disagreed with the subject matter of the display. He did it for political reasons, not because he thought that there was an actual issue.

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  32. 0
    E. Zachary Knight says:

    Here is what I understand:

    1. The Sanctuary was already in violation of building codes not for the direction the doors swing but that they were no wide enough nor had panic bars.

    2. These violations were know about and part of the city record on the building for at least 13 months prior to the opening of the exhibit.

    3. The day before the exhibit opened, the Sanctuary had Fire Marshals inpsect the building and they green lighted the event.

    4. Mirch led a protest over the exhibit.

    5. Mirch is also the City official in charge of building code enforcement.

    6. The day of the exhibit, The City of troy sent notice that no public assemblies could be held in the building until the code violations were corrected.

    Just from the descriptions of what transpired, it looks like Mirch used his city position to shut down something he disagreed with. The Sanctuary did everything they could possibly do short of correcting the violation and were approved to hold the event.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA

    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  33. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    I didn’t miss the point.  How about you actually read what I posted.  If he had a valid claim, what he did was totally legal, and people should stop attacking him.  It is his job to take note of these types of things, and take action accordingly.  If he did not make a valid claime, he commited a blatant abuse of power, and should be treated accordingly.  Chastise him, fire him and pursue legal action against him.

    I totally agree that this doesn’t look good for him, and am willing to accept the viewpoint that he was trying to "stifle free speech."  However, it hasn’t been made clear whether or not this was the only piece of art at this location, so it’s also entirely possible that many works were removed, not just this one.

    Also, depending on the level of code violation, an immediate closing of the location may be justified, such as anything considered a fire hazard, as improperly swinging doors are.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  34. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Somebody said on here that they were warned over a year beforehand.  That’s not enough time to fix a stupid door?

    Again, read my original post.  If he is, in fact, wrong, then HANG HIM OUT TO DRY!  However, I’m just trying to say that he may, in fact, have a valid reason, and is following the law.  Nobody else here is willing to concede that.  They see a minority being picked on by a white guy and immediately call him a racist bitch.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  35. 0
    Amosh says:

    But the problem is that they were approved the same day. There is also the issue that the action taken for that particular infraction should have been a warning (either written or verbal), closing down an establishment is reserved for only things that represent an active danger to the occupants.

    Edit: Was supposed to be a reply to Jedi’s reply under my tree.

  36. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    You sicken me Wolvenmoon, seriously. I can’t even describe how much you disgust me.

    Your post boils down to, "I am only in favor of free speech when it protects something that nobody would care about anyway."

    The whole point of free speech is to protect the speech that offends, that people would want banned, and the creator shunned.

    My rage at you is like the heat of a thousand suns.

    Not to mention that you apparently have no idea what Virtual Jihadi is all about. 

  37. 0
    Erik says:

    If we only support the speech we agree with or are comfortable with then we are seriously fucking missing the point of freedom of speech.  This freedom wasn’t placed into the US Constitution to protect feel-good fluff that won’t offend anyone.  Why would fluff like that need protected anyways if no one has a problem with it?  The freedom was specifically designed for situations like this.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  38. 0
    Krono says:

    US law has nothing about grotesque violence in speech. Part of the reason these video game laws keep getting shot down by the courts is that they attempt to regulate grotesque violence in speech.

    As for threatening content, it as you say, only really applies to direct threats against people/places.


  39. 0
    Amosh says:

    I disagree, I want this to represent me. I want people to see that when I talk about the First Ammendment, I’m not hiding behind some clause on a piece of parchment. When we talk about the First Ammendment it should transcend cultural norms and what people think is "acceptable". By supporting this, people are clearly saying that free speech exists even when it is not comfortable for them.

  40. 0
    Wolvenmoon says:

    I’m not familiar with the game, as I don’t particularly care, but doesn’t U.S. law have something in it about *thinks of the word*…oh, grotesque violence/threatening content?

    I can’t remember for sure. It’s probably only applicable to direct threats against specific individuals.

    Regardless, this isn’t the kind of free speech win we want to asociate with. Regardless of if this is a video game and it is being oppressed, it is mentally asociated in people’s minds with terrorists, and while it isn’t a conscious association neccasarily, it’s more stigma against us.

    Why the heck is my text cursor invisible? This is ridiculous.

  41. 0
    mdo7 says:


    ha, free speech win this one.  The reason they want to block this controversial game because it reminds them of 9/11 and they are racist against arabs/persians.  I don’t support this game but these people are violating free speech.  The game has right to show itself, it’s not like it will make people pull off another 9/11 or so.

  42. 0
    ZacharyMiner says:

    This point has gotten buried in the recent publicity, but the facts (as others further down the comment tree have pointed out) are these:

    1. Yes, there was a code violation. But…

    2. The city had told the sanctuary that they could still legally hold public gatherings as long as the city approved the building before each gathering.

    3. The sanctuary asked for an inspection, and permission to hold the event, which they received the day before it was held.

    4. The event was held.

    5. The next day they were shut down for the code violation, which was supposedly found to be harmless less than 48 hours before the event which triggered the shutdown. And … (wait for it)…

    6. The person who ordered the sanctuary to be shut down was the code enforcement official who had spoken out about the event, and protested outside it, the day that it opened.

    If that doesn’t point to a politically influenced decision, I am really not sure what does.

    And, even if the sanctuary hadn’t been approved for the event, there might still have been a case because (again, as noted elsewhere) the state does not have the right to selectively enforce laws. For comparison, see the lawsuit that arose over NJ and MD state troopers pulling over and searching way more African-American motorists than white motorists. Yes, it’s true that 98% of motorists are breaking the law (speeding), so technically almost anyone CAN legally get pulled over. But if 80% of the people you’re pulling over and searching are Black when only 15% of all drivers are Black, then there’s clearly a pattern of selective enforcement, and that’s a no-no.

  43. 0
    Shahab says:

    OMG, talk about missing the point entirely. Whether or not some small code was in violation or not is imaterial, this guy got this game shut down at one venue, another one took it that wouldn’t bow to his pressure, and so he walked in and shut it down to stop the game from being exhibited, the code violation was just pretense. Totally illegal and immoral. Also, building code violations usually have to be severe to get a building shut down, usually you are given notice and have X amount of months to fix the violation. This guy came in and shut them down to stifle free speech.

  44. 0
    Monte says:

    From what’s been said, the violations were valid… Valid in the sense that their is a rule against the doors swinging inward; though i seriously question if such a thing should even be a violation since i hardly see the trouble with it…however this is a example of selective enforcement… Enforcing the violations only when they have something to object against…

    If i recall, i think there’s a video on youtube that points out that they had officials look over the building before the opening and they gave them no problems and voiced no concerns… it wasn’t until afterward on the very same day of the opening that they got the call that the building was in violation and had to be closed down… and Mirch ofcourse has the authority to do so and he had been very vocal against the exhibit… another article i’ve read, states that this wasn’t the first time they used slecetive enforement as they also did it to an adult theater or some such after some incident occured (controversial enough to attract protesters); they go on to mention that they seriously question the valididty of those violations

  45. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    What nobody has mentioned is the grounds of the building code violation, and whether or not such a violation actually occured.  Before we condemn anyone, I think that it should be reported as to whether or not the building was not up to code.  If it wasn’t, then get of this guy’s back.  If it was, hang him out to dry.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  46. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    That’s why it’s case closed! This guy is such a clear loser that the judge should just be able to read the opening statements and a couple of articles about the situation before he bangs his gavel. (Though, in the interest of fairness and justice, the judge should hear both sides before confirming his original decision)

    -If an apple a day keeps the doctor away….what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

  47. 0
    Mendror says:

    What case closed? No, wrong. Far from closed.

    There some points that your missing and have been pointed out by several posters.

    A. They weren’t warned nor they knew and have been inspected by several times by the city and they never pointed out the doors.

    B. Fire department came and inspected them said they where okay.

    From what I can gather from A. & B. The guy abused his power to push his POV and got the game kicked, but no only that but people are out of business because of it.

    I hope Mirch loses his job over this.

  48. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    The reason why doors aren’t supposed to swing inwards is because, if there is a fire, it is harder to open the doors.  If they swing outwards, you can open the doors while exiting the building.  If they swing inwards, you need to stop, back up as the door opens, and then exit.  If there is a large crowd, people could get trampled, or even trapped in the building.


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  49. 0
    Chaplain99 says:

    I can see Mr. Mirch losing this case, but only because he’d base his case on his actions, not the game itself.  That’d be a last resort.

    "HEY! LISTEN!"

Leave a Reply