Would it be ok if he were using it "for the children"?

Here we have a greedy corperation denying a "needy" person access to their free service because he didn't buy their product. They even had the police charge him for theft of sevices.

His crime? He was using a Vancouver, Wash. cofee shop's wireless internet in the street.
Aren't these the same people who want to grab your money and redistribute it to those who "need" it more than you, because you have so much? The same kind of people who applauded the Goretax on telephones to ensure access to AlGores internet in schools?
Doesn't it go to show that he was on the wrong side of "the digital divide" and felt the need to use something provided for free on a public street?
It's not like it was morally wrong, since Libs only believe in "Situational Ethics"
instead of right and wrong. Maybe he was an honors grad from their public schools and was morally illiterate.

He also came back after the cops told him to move-on.