Feds Say Man Deserved Arrest Because Jacket Said ‘Occupy Everything’ | Hacker News Reader

Feds Say Man Deserved Arrest Because Jacket Said ‘Occupy Everything’

wired.com

35 pointscyphersanctus21 comments

The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea.

It is unlawful to parade, stand, or move in processions or assemblages in the Supreme Court Building or grounds, or to display in the Building and grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.

There are some genuinely stupid acts of government out there like free speech zones and all the security theatre, or attacking photographers. This is not one of them.

Want something to get mad at the government about today? Congress is currently playing an $85 billion dollar game of chicken.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-j...

And yet, the president originally supported the sequestration cuts:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=...

And Republicans were willing to give the administration more flexibility in how the cuts were made:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/politics/obama-urges-co...

Make of that what you will.

>The display clause prohibits advertising your party / movement / whatever in the Supreme Court building. It's a specific exemption intended to avoid influencing the impartiality of the group responsible for making determinations about the Constitution, which strikes me as not such a dumb idea.

Okay, now I get it. It sounds like they may be applying it wrongly here, unless they were deciding a case involving or related to the occupy movement.

Read the law again, it doesn't depend on whatever case is being debated, it's generic in scope. Any political banner, display, etc. is excluded, not just ones pertaining to a case being argued.

TIL:

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/40/II/C/61/IV/6135

40 U.S.C. § 6135

Parades, assemblages, and display of flags in the Supreme Court Building and grounds

Does that apply to the Supreme Court not being able to display things or the citizens visiting it wearing clothing with signs?

Visitors.

> wearing clothing with signs?

That counts as a device, yes.

You know, I was going to post about how stupid the gov't was on this from reading the title.

But he wasn't arrested simply because of his jacket.

He was arrested because his jacket was political in nature, he was asked to take it off or leave, and he refused to leave.

If I asked someone to leave my business and they didn't, I'd have them removed by police too if it became necessary.

For those who think there are free speech rights in a judicial building, try being the one to make repeated outbursts in a courtroom. If nothing else the government is being consistent here.

While they don't have to tell him that the Supreme Court is a first-amendment free zone, that's a point of law that I would bet MOST Americans are unaware of. I certainly was.

If they'd said, "Sir, the law prohibits wearing clothing that advertise things of a political nature in this building. Please take it off or leave," rather than simply telling him to remove it or leave, he might have been more likely to comply.

On the other hand, it seems pretty WTF-worthy that the first amendment be rendered void in a building charged with protecting it.

Well, I think the manager of any establishment can simply say "As the manager, I ask that you remove a piece of clothing or leave. If you don't we will call the police."

I don't find that particularly out of the ordinary. It happens all the time at nearly any place people can just walk into.

There is a difference between a business and a public building.

For example, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District established that a school cannot "punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others."

And of course a manager can't eject a customer who is wearing, say, a yarmulke because of specific laws which protect expressions of religion unless there is a specific safety or similar non-discriminatory for the prohibition.

So in most establishments, a manager does not have blanket authority on all types of clothing.

I haven't read Tinker v. Des Moines in some time so don't take this as ironclad, but keep in mind that the school students are in general required to go to school. No one is forcing the protestors to walk inside the Supreme Court building and so I'm not sure the same logic would apply.

You have a good point with the yarmulke example, and in fact some states (like California) have even broader protections on what reasons unrelated to an actual business need you can use to ask someone to leave the premises.

There are two logics here. The first was, can people be restricted from being in the Supreme Court building based solely on what they are wearing? lelandbatey posited a more encompassing statement, that that a manager could say "I ask that you remove a piece of clothing or leave. If you don't we will call the police." and argued that that logic should apply to the Supreme Court building as well.

My response was to show that 1) an argument which is valid for a business establishment doesn't necessarily hold for a government building (with "principal" or "school board" as the obvious correspondent to a manager), and 2) that managers don't have blanket authority to forbid certain types of clothing.

Thus, I was showing how the larger statement of lelandbatey is incorrect, so shouldn't be used as a justification for the legality of expelling someone from the Supreme Court building based on wearing an "Occupy" jacket.

However, there can be other reasons for why that expulsion is legal. The history and nuances of clothing in public buildings is complicated. For example, in the courtroom itself, the judge has very broad authority. In researching this yesterday, I came across Larocca v. Gold from the 2nd Circuit (1981), where 'an ordained Catholic priest who is licensed to practice law in the State of New York' was prohibited from wearing 'his Roman Catholic collar when appearing before a jury as a defense lawyer in a criminal trial.'

While I don't have a lot of experience here, all I can say is: wow, that's pretty interesting! I never knew that. Thank you for actually doing the research to find that answer, because I was most certainly unwilling.

That's pretty awesome.

> On the other hand, it seems pretty WTF-worthy that the first amendment be rendered void in a building charged with protecting it.

If you consider this to be a case of voiding the First Amendment, you'll also be interested to know that the First Amendment is also voided in the case of giving jurors relevant information in the middle of a court case.

> giving jurors relevant information

Courts have rules of evidence, which are largely to protect the rights of the accused. Particularly rights against unlawful search and seizure.

If it relates to a case, and the jury's going to hear it, it has to go through the proper process for evidence. Basically, the lawyers for both sides have a chance to tell the judge whether there's a legal reason the evidence should be excluded, and the judge can decide whether there's a legal basis for excluding the evidence from what the jury will consider.

Care to give an example that doesn't violate the Rules of Criminal Procedure?

That was actually my point.

> "Sir, the law prohibits wearing clothing that advertise things of a political nature in this building. Please take it off or leave," rather than simply telling him to remove it or leave

Do you have any evidence that substantiates this claim? I couldn't find any in the article or otherwise.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com