I was detained for protesting Trump. Heres what the Secret Service asked me

[MiniMe]

I was detained for protesting Trump. Here’s what the Secret Service asked me

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/08/23/i-was-detained-for-protesting-trump-heres-what-the-secret-service-asked-me/?tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.2368aec2fddc

-snip
Like every good political operative — I worked for Sen. Bernie Sanders’s (I-Vt.) 2016 campaign and then the MoveOn super PAC supporting Hillary Clinton’s campaign — I run on coffee. Conveniently, the Starbucks inside Trump Tower is located on the second floor and overlooks an atrium — exactly where I’d want to hang the banner. I sipped a flat white and waited for the right moment, when uniformed NYPD wouldn’t be nearby. Then I unfurled the banner. A security officer grabbed it almost immediately. I ended up on the ground.

Since Starbucks is a public place and I was a paying guest, I knew I hadn’t violated any laws. At worst, I could be banned from the building. I expected from past protest actions that I’d be given a warning and a request to leave. I clearly and politely explained to the NYPD officers who detained me that the protest was done and I was heading out.

They had other ideas.

A detective grabbed my wrist and cuffed me. A gaggle of officers from multiple law enforcement agencies escorted me to a room near the atrium. A few chairs had Trump campaign materials plastered on them. Inside the room with me were more than 10 officers from the NYPD and the Secret Service. -snip
more at the link. Interesting read

[Dr Hobbitstein]

1. Starbucks isn't a public place. It's a private business.

I'm all for civil disobedience, but there are consequences.

[Demsrule86]

7. Absolute nonsense.

The Secret Service...such convenient initials...SS were wrong and hopefully this article will cause those who engage in this behavior to be disciplined.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

42. The Secret Service existed before the Waffen-SS.

Don't try to equate the two.

[Demsrule86]

91. Thy overstepped and are acting like brown shirts and I will equate the two...when they attempt to

deny constitutional rights or anytime they act like fascists.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

117. Cool story. nt

[ProfessorPlum]

12. it is also a public accommodation.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

40. Walk into a Starbucks and start a protest.

See how far it gets you.

Like I said, there are consequences to civil disobedience.

Remember back in '04 when we cheered Cindy Sheehan and the rest of the Iraq War protesters who were arrested in front of the Capitol? That was civil disobedience, and there were consequences, and they knew it going in.

Once again, I WHOLE-HEARTEDLY support what this woman did.

[Orrex]

46. Your last line is the key IMO

Whenever someone says "you know, this is a privately owned facility," that person is immediately accused of suppressing free speech or for being a pro-corporate/anti-democratic shill, etc.

It is entirely possible (and IMO appropriate) to support what she did while recognizing that she must face consequences for it.

The author recognizes as much, though she underestimated the intensity of the response.


After several attempts, I couldn't get to the article because of a paywall, so I can only respond to the quoted text.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

53. Correct. Ghandi paid many a price for civil disobedience in India.

Civil disobedience is a time-honored tradition of protesting governments, but there is always a cost (usually being arrest). Hell, by DEFINITION, it is illegal.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civil%20disobedience

Definition of civil disobedience
: refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government

[still_one]

49. You are right, it is a business that serves the public, and this is a perfect example of civil

disobedience

[Dr Hobbitstein]

50. Civil DISobedience, you mean.

And yes, it is a PERFECT example.

[still_one]

59. yup, thanks. Just corrected it.

[greymattermom]

62. can you wear a MAGA hat

in Starbucks?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

63. Yes.

You can also wear a shirt that says "Fetus: The Other White Meat".

You can't, however, hang a sign that says either. Or anything else, for that matter.

[FakeNoose]

109. Some hats are better than others :-)

[AtheistCrusader]

69. Generally you'd be asked to stop, and leave, and THEN trespassed off the property if

you refused.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

70. Sure, if the Starbucks was on any street corner.

But when that Starbucks is located in the atrium of the President's private residence, things are a little different.

As I said before, I support what this woman did. However, civil disobedience comes with a price.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. I agree it comes with a price.

Based on her account of the experience, I believe she was over-charged.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

73. I didn't get past the paywall to see that information.

It's rare that actual charges come up against civil protesters like this. That is a shame.

[Lee-Lee]

77. "Over-charged"? What?

Umm, she wasn't charged with anything. They could have, but didn't.

That's literally as far in the opposite direction from being over-charged as you can get.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. It's a riff on 'price to be paid'.

Word-play.

The security response is, in my opinion, and based on her account, wildly out of proportion with her actions, and the allegation of medical history request without legal counsel is extremely troubling.

[Lee-Lee]

83. Secret Service has been doing the same for decades for every President

And the medical records thing is normal and warranted. A very high percentage of threats made against the President come from people with a history of mental illness and they have to tke that into account when investigating to determine if a person is a credible threat or not.

I can attest to it going back at least to the 90's when in my county we had a person who had struggles with mental illness who had made threats to President Clinton. They talked to the mental health professionals who dealt with him along with local LE and even EMS that had dealt with him.

[AtheistCrusader]

88. I wouldn't expect it for an action that isn't remotely threatening.

Unfurling a banner, with no explicit threats on it, doesn't seem in any way threatening to me.

[Lee-Lee]

90. Your job isn't to be as thorough as possible to spot any possible threat

Theirs is.

So when someone is willing to travel to NYC and risk arrest by smuggling a banner past a security checkpoint they are well past the usual protester profile.

People get the same level of checks for making a pen or two sentace social media post sometimes.

People get deep investigations for a lot less. When it comes to the safety of the President the Secret Service doesn't cut corners. If there is even a hint a person may be a threat they have to check it.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

82. Wait, so there were no charges?

So I was lied to by the poster criticizing me?

[George II]

72. Why are you so adamant about sticking up for trump?

The atrium at trump tower isn't in "the president's private residence", the condominium in which he lives is his "private residence". It's a building with hundreds of other condominiums in the building as well as a number of floors of offices (including the Russian bank with which he was "communicating" throughout the campaign.

It also contains lots of stores AND the public-access atrium, as required by the conditions of the approval to build it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Tower

[Dr Hobbitstein]

75. I am NOT sticking up for Trump in ANY way.

I am stating facts and not letting emotions cloud my judgement.

You CANNOT just start a protest inside of a business of ANY sort, whether it's public-access or not.

I've stated MULTIPLE times that I support what this woman did, but that civil disobedience comes with a price.

With that said, FUCK TRUMP and EVERYTHING HE STANDS FOR.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. Can we calmly discuss this issue, without assumptions about the person's motive?

This is a grey area with regards to modern security, and a bizarr-o presidency/residence.

It is not unworthy of consideration from multiple angles.

[niyad]

94. the atrium is on the second floor. der drumpfenfuhrer's residence is not.

[procon]

16. If its open to the general public its not a private business.

A country club that is open only to members who pay to join, or a gym that is for the exclusive use of paid members, might be called a "private business", but not a retail store like Starbucks where anyone can enter.

[George II]

35. One of the conditions on which trump received approval to erect the building, is that....

...the atrium had to be included and open to the public.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

41. Anyone can enter. Not anyone can start a protest or hang a banner. nt

[WinkyDink]

54. Neither of which is a felony or even misdemeanor.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

57. Trespassing is a misdemeanor.

And yes, there is a such thing as trespassing in public.

[Ms. Toad]

60. No. You are confusing two concepts.

Starbucks Is a private business (private property) that is open to the public (provides public accommodations).

That means they must comply with nondiscrimination laws. It does not turn s private business into a public forum, in which free speech must be permitted.

Before engaging in civil disobedience, it is important to consider the legal consequences (i.e. consult a real attorney - not your memories of your 9th grade civics class)

[X_Digger]

103. It's interesting, we have a generation of folks who think there are / should be no consequences..

.. for civil disobedience. They want to have their cake and eat it too.

[George II]

33. The atrium in which Starbuck's is located is a public place.

[SCantiGOP]

48. 1964 Civil Rights Act

Made it clear that anywhere the public can enter is a "public place."

[X_Digger]

104. Title II of the CRA made no such claim. "Public Accommodation" is not "public place"

For your education:

https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations

[WinkyDink]

52. It is within a public place, aka Trump Tower. Anyone may enter. Hence,......

[Dr Hobbitstein]

55. But not anyone can start a protest.

How hard is this to recognize?

[H2O Man]

80. Correct.

[leftynyc]

2. I understand this was very unnerving

for her but NEVER, NEVER, NEVER talk to authorities without an attorney present. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER sign forms that allow them to view ANY OF YOUR RECORDS. Force them to go to a court and get a warrant. They can only trample your rights if you stay silent and allow it. I would have called one lawyer in my family who would have gathered up all the others AND called the media and made sure what was happening was recorded. These are our rights, people. Never let fear allow you to give them up.

[cwydro]

11. I agree.

I can't believe she waived her HIPAA rights.

[Nevernose]

23. Unless you're the victim, literally NEVER talk to cops

Nothing can come from it, only bad things. "Not getting arrested" is the top event on the possible police-interaction scale, and shit only gets worse from there.

I say this as a former probation officer, the husband of a lawyer, and the buddy of a couple of cops.

Understand that you (whoever is reading) are stronger than their intimidation and ask for a lawyer. Also, if you don't already have both a bail bondsman and an attorney lined up (their phone numbers and names should be written in permanent marker on your inner thigh), then don't even THINK about any kind of protest. Not a banner, not a march, nothing.

[WoonTars]

85. Also This

...

[SharonClark]

67. Have your lawyer on standup when you do it.

[WoonTars]

84. This

.

[Lurks Often]

3. The Secret Service is rather serious about investigating even the slightest possible threat

to ANY president, especially when the president is scheduled to speak later in the day at the same venue the protester chose to unveil her banner.

[Not Ruth]

6. They do get paid to do it

[catbyte]

15. Well, not anymore. Twitler ate up their budget on golf outings.

[ck4829]

25. True

[procon]

21. How do mere words constitute a "threat"?

The banner read “Women Resist White Supremacy", maybe that's a political slight, but hardly a threat.

[Lurks Often]

64. The Secret Service took action to look into a POTENTIAL threat

I wonder how many would object to what happened if we changed the president in question to President Obama and the protester to someone who had a banner that said "Women Resist Muslim Collaborators".

[azureblue]

29. not really

Primarily threats made by Democrats. Their record proves they let the wing nuts and GOpers slide.

[L. Coyote]

30. Keyword is investigating. That does not create a "trampling rights zone."

What we need is lawsuits when rights are not protected or respected.

[Not Ruth]

4. Does the Secret Service do the questioning of the neighbors?

[RKP5637]

5. I'm not surprised they detained her and asked her questions. This country is in such a

tedious state. I guess the point is, did they ask her questions as Trump supporters, or Trump protectors. ... or simply as part of a normal process.

[Not Ruth]

8. I am wondering if the next President will allow her to be a White House tour guide again

[Demsrule86]

9. Clearly...they were Trump supporters.

[forgotmylogin]

27. Plus, I'd bet the ones actually in Trump Tower...

which is a public space anyone can walk in and out of, are going to be naturally edgy.

[RKP5637]

44. Yep, definitely! I would sure be edgy! n/t

[Bengus81]

10. Starbucks is not a public place,it's private so it should have been up to THEIR management....

to do what they thought needed to be done. Take the banner,kick you out etc. Those THUGS unless a direct threat to Trump shouldn't have done anything.

[Roland99]

13. They were doing their job

I'm sure this kind of thing has happened for many years

They dont know a protestor is non-violent. They don't know if the stunt is some form of distraction or a precursor to something worse

[azureblue]

34. actually, no

they were their to oppress, hamper and intimidate anti Drumpf Protesters. That is what the record shows they do. They overstepped procedure here and prevented a lawful non violent protest. She was in no way a threat to Drumpf. Not even in the same building. Not even at the same time. The questions they asked were out of the scope of their investigation, especially the medical records. The medical records is a big no no. Now they know where she lives and her SS number, the names of her next of kin and / or relatives, And they used that illegally obtained information to collect information against her, maybe to try to get her fired, or smear her.

[defacto7]

45. Ten years ago I'd say you were wrong.

Now.... you're probably correct.

[Lee-Lee]

81. Your very wrong here

First, it wasn't a lawful protest. You can't come into private property and start hanging signs and causing a disruption.

The questions they asked were entirely within the scope of the investigation to determine if she presented a real or credible threat to the President.

The medical records are a valid thing too. They would have subpoenaed them anyway had she not signed a release. A very high percentage of the people they have to investigate for making threats to the President have a history of mental illness and they have to take that into account.

Your conspiracy theaory about them using that info to attack her is way off base and out of base. These are the same Secrete Service agents that served under Obama and protected him in the same way, doing their job professionally. It takes more than a year to go from the first interview applying with the SS to pass all the employment hurdles, security clearance check, initial training and specialized training so literally every agent involved was at a minimum hired under the Obama administration and most seed under it. These are professionals, not Trumps private security goons.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. That would be up to Starbuck's to decide, not the NYPD or Secret Service. Not a 'law' matter

You are assuming that a banner is a "threat to the president". I have no idea how you have this fundamental misunderstanding what protest is. So, no, asking for medical records was not valid. She did not threaten the president.

They were not doing their job professionally. That could have been taking the banner, frisking her, asking the Starbucks and/or Trump Tower personnel if they were OK with her being there, and if either said 'no' then throwing her out. They instead intimidated her into handing over medical records, and wasted taxpayer money by researching her afterwards. It's so unprofessional it's sickening.

I never expected to see behaviour like that defended on DU.

[Lee-Lee]

89. No, your still wrong

Your shading your view because you support her, but they would have done the same thing a year ago if a white supremacist had snuck a banner into a place where the President frequented then.

It wasn't up to Starbucks. She tried to hand it over the wall in the atrium, a common space, so it was up to the Trump Tower people.

And a short detention to investigate her motives is perfectly legal and reasonable. And further investigation to ensure she isn't a threat is reasonable.

A year ago if someone smuggled a white supremacist banner into a venue where President Obama frequently was and that was associated with him and the local police and SS let him go without any investigation further into him to determine if there was a further threat you would be livid that they were not doing their job to protect him.

[muriel_volestrangler]

92. No, investigating medical records is not reasonable

Expressing your dislike of the president is not a threat in any form. It doesn't become a threat based on medical history, either. If you're saying the Secret Service regularly demands medical records of protesters, then it was authoritarian nonsense when they did it before too.

No, I would not have been livid. Get a grip. Her behaviour was rational, non-violent, non-threatening, and didn't break any law. Their 'investigation' is outrageous. They know what she did, and there is a standard, legal explanation for it - she disagrees with the president. There is nothing to 'investigate'; this is just intimidation of opponents of the president.

It's no wonder they run out of money, if they waste their time like this.

[Lee-Lee]

95. You keep claiming she didn't break any law

If you can't comprehend that she did break the law in several ways then trying to get you to understand the rest is an exercise in futility.

She trespassed, because she was there for a purpose to do something not allowed on the property for a purpose they don't allow people to enter the property for. People are allowed in to conduct business there. They are not allowed in to protest. She knew it was not allowed and she wouldn't be allowed to go in if they knew what she was doing, as indicated by her smuggling the banner in under her skirt.

She then hung the banner up on someone else's building without permission.

She did so with intent to draw attention and create a disturbance, constituting a breach of peace or disorderly conduct.

Let's switch the roles a little bit. Would you say it was legal and ok if someone hid a banner under her shirt and used false pretenses to get into a Planned Parenthood facility and then tried to hang a banner that said "abortion is murder" in the lobby or front lobby? Same actions exactly.... is that perfectly legitimate protest or is it trespassing and disorderly conduct?

And yes, in this context looking at medical records is quite reasonable. As I said, a very high percentage of the people who have made threats on Presidents have a history of mental illness, and they have to evaluate that as part of the whole picture. To not look at them when evaluating these cases would be negligence. Look back at all the assassination attempts on US Presidents in the last 3 decades and see how many of the people have mental illness and you will see why it's relevant.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. You keep talking about 'threats'. There were no threats.

It's not just me who thinks she didn't break the law:

Since Starbucks is a public place and I was a paying guest, I knew I hadn’t violated any laws. At worst, I could be banned from the building. I expected from past protest actions that I’d be given a warning and a request to leave. I clearly and politely explained to the NYPD officers who detained me that the protest was done and I was heading out.

If someone hung a banner in a PP lobby, I'd expect them to be escorted off the premises, and told they must never come back again, or it will be trespass. If they just hung a banner, no, it doesn't sound like disorderly conduct. It's not disruptive.

And, of course, she hasn't been charged with anything.

Why are you calling hanging a banner a 'threat'? Why are you talking about assassination? Have you misunderstood, or are you trying to distort what happened?

[Lee-Lee]

97. I never called it a threat

Either your reading comprehension sucks or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said.

What I said was once someone has gone to that level of action- traveling to the location from out of town, smuggling a banner in, and risking arrest the Secret Services job is to look into them and make sure they are not a threat of doing anything to harm the President.

Lots of people protest. Very, very few will travel into NYC from out of town and smuggle a banner into a secured area, breaking the law (no matter if you want to understand that or not) to do so. That she was willing to smuggle it into Trump Tower was a different level of activity.

I didn't say what she did was a threat. I didn't say she was a threat. I said that she went to far greater effort for her protest than the vast majority of people and that made her stand out and warrant further investigation.

The fact that she had once served as a tour guide at the White House also probably increased their scrutiny, because it means she has a high degree of familiarity with how White House security works from having been around it a great deal. So you have someone who used to have White House access who is familiar with White House security protocols who just traveled into town for the express purpose of smuggling an item past security for an illegal priest action.

I don't get how you don't understand that the Secret Service is obligated to look into her further given all that.

It's not that she was a threat. Is that when someone comes on to their radar like she did it's their job to go out and make sure is isn't a threat.

Got it yet?

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. Again, you call this 'illegal'. It was not.

There is no evidence she broke a law.

This was a protest. Really wanting to protest, and going to lengths to do so, does not make it a threat.

It's awful that you're OK with an invasion of privacy (her medical records) because she believes strongly in the same things that we do. It's awful you keep wanting to call it 'illegal'. It's awful that you think a peaceful protest should be seen as a possible sign of mental illness.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

99. Civil disobedience, BY DEFINITION, is breaking the law.

This was an act of civil disobedience, hence she broke the law.

[muriel_volestrangler]

100. It was a protest. That does not define it as "an act of civil disobedience"

What law did she break?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

101. Protesting inside a place of business is trespassing.

Her protest was civil disobedience.

I fully support what she did, but there are consequences.

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. Law applying to New York that says protest in a business is illegal right from the start, please

Remember that she, an experienced protester, didn't think she was breaking a law, and she hasn't been charged, despite all this time spent snooping into her life.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

108. You really think it's legal to protest INSIDE a place of business?

I can't help you if you think that is legal.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. I think there's probably no law explicitly against it.

It's a cafe, so the assumption is people can come in and do all kinds of things; it's up to the owners to say what is not acceptable. The banner message - "Women Resist White Supremacy" - is a message 90% of the USA would agree with. It's perfectly possible everyone who saw it actually thought it an acceptable message, if not displayed there as a banner. It's not offensive in any way.

The business has the right to chuck you out and bar you, and it would be illegal to resist being chucked out. But, yet again, I remind you that this experienced protester doesn't think she broke a law, and she was not charged with anything, despite the authorities clearly being pissed off with her.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

111. Go hang a banner in a local business that is not yours.

Make sure there are lots of cops around, too.

See what happens.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. So far, someone has done this, and not been charged, which they expected

The burden of proof is now on you to show that there is a charge that fits, if you claim it's illegal.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

115. Just because you break the law, doesn't mean you get charged.

Even if you are detained.

How is this so fucking difficult to understand?

[Dr Hobbitstein]

116. By the way, what's your address?

I have some posters that would look great on your walls.

[muriel_volestrangler]

118. As I said, the burden of proof is on you.

All we have as evidence that it's illegal is your opinion. Against that, we have the opinion of an experienced protester, and the lack of action of the authorities, even though they had the motivation to charge her. You need to give us a reason for your opinion.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

119. Here's some important fucking information.

https://www.nyclu.org/en/know-your-rights-demonstrating-new-york-city-0

Here's the pertinent fucking information:
"New Yorkers have the right to engage in peaceful, protest activity on public sidewalks, in public parks and on public streets in New York City."

Nothing about having the fucking right to engage in protest inside of a fucking business.

Also, I wasn't stating a fucking opinion, I was stating a FUCKING FACT.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. I don't think you understand the difference between a right, and something not being illegal

If something is a 'right', then you can't be stopped doing it. But if something is not a right, that does not have to mean it's illegal. This is pretty simple.

I have no idea why you are so angry.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

121. I have no idea why you're so obtuse about this. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

122. Here's an example: you do not have a right to enter a nightclub wearing whatever you like

but it is not illegal to enter a nightclub wearing ripped clothes and trainers. The club can set a dress standard, and refuse entry to individuals. Cafes and similar businesses can set standards for acceptable behaviour.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

123. And once you've broken their rules

You are tresspassing. Which is a crime.

Glad we've cleared this up.

[muriel_volestrangler]

124. Once you've broken their rules, you have to leave.

No, breaking their rules is not a crime. You cannot be charged with anything. Refusing to leave when you've been asked to is a crime. But she didn't do that. Also, they don't have an exhaustive list of what they find unacceptable (would a banner saying "Love" be unacceptable? or "USA"? Or an American flag?), so this is only determined by your behaviour in the cafe.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

125. If you walked into my music shop and hung ANY sign,

I would have you tresspassed and arrested.

[X_Digger]

105. Trespassing. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. You tell a protester is non-violent by observing them. Medical records do not say

"this person will be violent on 12th August at 3pm". If they were worried the stunt was a distraction, then they should be looking elsewhere, not talking to her about access to her medical records. And in the following days, they shouldn't be looking at the records, or talking to neighbours. Because that was after Trump was in Trump Tower, when they knew there was nothing else involved.

[annabanana]

14. I thought maybe they'd hit you up for spare change. . .n/t

[rzemanfl]

20. You win the thread. n/t

[Lee-Lee]

17. A few things here.... but people who protested Obama like that got the same basic treatment

First, as noted Starbucks isn't a "public place". But past that she was attempting to hang a banner over a wall in the atrium, and that is clearly a common area of the building and not the portion leased by Starbucks. As such she was actually on Trump property attempting it.

She is foolish to think she could just say "my protest is over" and expect to be allowed to walk away after actually doing that in Trump Tower. She's actually pretty lucky to not be facing charges because if the folks running the property wanted to they could push the issue.

Second, when you get the Secret Service involved they are going to dig deep into you and see if you present a credible threat to the President. Period. That's their job, period, no matter who is in the office. He attitude that somehow she is being persecuted is a sham looking for attention. I would chalk it up as just being naive except she worked in the White House and she knows exactly how this works.

When I was a deputy we had a resident of the county who wrote a bunch of seemingly (not overtly but also very disjointed and rambling) threatening letters to President Clinton. The Secret Service did the same thing, they came and brought him in for an interview, talked to any local LE that had dealt with him (most of us had), talked to neighbors. They determined he was enough risk that whenever the President was traveling in the area they sent someone by to check on his whereabouts or asked us to monitor him for that period.

The Secret Service does not play. And that's a good thing, is what kept President Obama safe in the face of a huge threat from violent white supremacists.

[redgreenandblue]

22. Which law was violated here?

I would not think that unfolding a banner could be illegal, or grounds for arrest, under any circumstances, unless the text on the banner contained a threat. Does a person lose 1st amendment rights from being on private property? I would not think so. Isn't the only thing the owner can do to kick the person off of their property?

[Saboburns]

26. Not legal to put your banners on property owned by other people

The folks who own that property could have raised a bigger fuss than they did. All in all the lady is lucky she was not arrested and charged with criminal trespassing. BTW nobody hates Donald Trump more than I, and I am heartened by the growing protests to him that are occuring.

We need more protests with more people.

But displaying your banner on someone else's property isn't legal.

[azureblue]

38. but the ss is not there to enforce that city law

And neither Starbucks nor the owner of the building called the cops on her. A federal agency took it upon themselves to voluntarily enforce a city level law / building code. Uh, no.

[Texin]

61. The 'federal agency' that did this was in place to protect the POTUS on his property.

While the Starbucks is a leased space within that building and has his permission to be there via their payment of rents, fees and utilities, and they have general patrons who come and go from the premises, it is not a public space. Just as 'rump has the right to protect his space, so does the Starbucks franchisee (or the parent company if this is one of their corporate-owed storefronts). When you, as a patron, enter into a café, restaurant, storefront, shopping center, etc., you are entering private premises. Any and all of those owners have the right to make rules or policies pertaining to whom they allow to use their premises and under what conditions they have the right to have you removed from them, short of violating your civil rights. You may be within your right to protest, but they have a concurrent right to remove you from their space if they don't want you there.

The SS is solely and exclusively in place there because it's their job to do so. People have been getting detained and questioned by the SS for decades when they observe behavior considered possibly threatening or a precursor to a threat. They're not there because they are necessarily fans of this guy. It's their job and their job is to protect the POTUS and, presumably in this case, protect the premises that are owned by this guy. There are enough credible threats made on a daily basis to make this requisite. It was done during President Obama's term, and I would guess they were every bit as up in the grilles of folks they tagged as the ones who were in Ms. Byrne's. Bet on it. Thank god they were because otherwise, does anyone seriously believe that one of these right wing, racists neo-Nazis wouldn't have tried?

[Lee-Lee]

93. If you read it again NYPD is who detained her first

Secret Service just conducted an investigation to determine if she was any danger to the President.

[forgotmylogin]

31. That's not the only thing.

It would be like a visitor to your home hanging up artwork of their choosing on the wall without asking you. Or like someone putting a political sign in your yard near your front door. (That's why they are always close to the side walk - the city usually reserves a few feet in from the curb as public property in case they need to dig up a sewer or phone lines.)

I wonder if the lady had simply carried the sign around with her without trying to attach it to the balcony if that would have been legal.

[Lee-Lee]

36. Just carrying it would still not be allowed

It's still private property and they can have whatever rules for behavior they want.

And in this instance a criminal charge like disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct would be applicable, as well as possibly trespassing.

[Not Ruth]

47. Why would she conceal the sign if it were legal?

She seemed to have no challenge to it being illegal, she just wanted to leave without being questioned.

[Lee-Lee]

32. There are many things

Trespassing comes to mind as one, if the venue has rules posted as to acceptable behaviors. If your physically attaching a sign to property that isn't yours that isn't allowed in almost any business. State and local laws can vary as to if a person must be personally warned before trespassing can charged in many cases- sometimes an in person warning on record is needed, sometimes just a sign that a person disregards.

Depending on the state and local laws any variation of laws on disorderly conduct, breaching the peace, etc. can be applied.

Yes, you First Amendment rights are limited on private property. You do not have a right to go into someone else's property and say anything you want without being told to leave. You can't go hang signs and banners on other people's property without permission. That's always been the case and always will be. And it's not a violation of your First Amendment rights because a property owner is free to set any rules that apply on their property that they want. It isn't the government restricting your speech, it is the property owner setting rules and the government only enforcing the laws applicable to people trespassing/causing a disturbance on private property.

[Ms. Toad]

68. In short, yes.

When you are on private property, you lose your free speech rights.

[sinkingfeeling]

18. Fits right in with the DOJ prosecuting protesters from the inauguration.

[Orrex]

19. "Since Starbucks is a public place and I was a paying guest,"

Does the author suggest that I can therefore buy a soda at a restaurant and then start redecorating? I'd be a paying guest, after all.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

43. EXACTLY! nt

[SCantiGOP]

56. It is a public place

as a legal definition. If I open a restaurant, and it is not incorporated as a private, members-only club, it is a "public place" as defined by law. That means I can't keep patrons out based on race, creed, etc.
My home is not a "public place," and I can deny entry to anyone I want.

[Orrex]

58. Does that grant you the right to decorate a restaurant?

[ck4829]

24. "I'm sorry I don't worship the President like he's a god"

[Princess Turandot]

28. I assume that the Secret Service has legal authority or tenant permission to take actions...

they deem necessary in the retail spaces of the building.

They really do have to protect him. And it's Trump's home, not just an arena where he was going to give a speech. It's obviously an atypical situation compared to past presidents' residences, but it seems to me that the building lobby is more akin to the White House lawn than a public sidewalk.

And deciding to pull an action/stunt in the lobby of his home with presidential security all around is going to cause them to want to interview you. I don't know why she was surprised by that fact.

[Duppers]

37. You don't think her treatment was excessive?

Last edited Thu Aug 24, 2017, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)

That should be mistreatment.

These SS should know half of the US hates Trump by now. Yes, I know it's their job to protect him but this woman's background should have given them a clue.

[Not Ruth]

51. "SS should know half of the US hates Trump by now"

They may not be getting OT, but their job security is peaking.

[Duppers]

39. This treatment was authoritarian thuggishness.

They had the discretion to be more reasonable and nicer. This woman's background gave them no reason for this sort of treatment. As I said above, the SS should know by now that half the country despises Trump but doesn't have intent to kill him.

I was questioned by the SS in my home decades ago during the cold war. Long story. They were polite! Damn, how things have changed.

[YoungDemCA]

74. Yes, half of the country despises Trump. So how would SS possibly keep track of half of the country?

Are they supposed to assume that not one of the well over 100 million Americans who do indeed despise Trump - who IS the President of the United States, as much as I hate it, you hate it, and everyone else here hates it along with so many others in this country and outside of this country - is a potential threat to him?

Presidents get death threats all the time, and they and the Secret Service have plenty of historical reason to take such threats seriously. Obama got plenty of death threats, obviously. But so did George W. Bush. So did Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush. Ronald Reagan was literally shot and very seriously wounded at close range (and his Press Secretary James Brady was paralyzed for the rest of his life), and Gerald Ford came close to being assassinated on TWO separate occasions. And of course, JFK...

It doesn't matter who the President is; the Secret Service's job is the same. Protect every President (and ex-President) and their families, along with Ambassadors and embassies (and a few other functions that escape me at the moment). This is all the more important in these deeply polarizing political times, since there is a TON of anger out there and there are plenty of crazies in this country with access to firearms and other lethal weapons in some cases, and you can bet that not all of them are right-wing in their views or are Trump supporters. Wasn't a far-right Republican Congressman seriously wounded by a gunman a few months ago?

The Secret Service really can't take any chances, especially considering that Congress has reduced their funding several times in recent years and that the current POTUS and his extended family aren't exactly making the Secret Service's job any easier...

[greymattermom]

65. So she was wearing the banner under her skirt, like a slip.

Could she wear it over her skirt, like an apron?

[iluvtennis]

66. Love her fight. So sorry they harassed her in such a manner. Hope she gets ACLU involved.

[inwiththenew]

79. Businesses open to the public do have some discretion on what they allow you to do

Case and point, concealed weapons. You can live in a state where carrying a concealed weapon is a legally protected activity but a business open to the public can still ban you from carrying on their property without running afoul of the law.

Same can be applied to protest and political statements. What they can't do is ban you because you are not white or because you are Muslim something along those lines.

[red dog 1]

102. Kick for exposure!

Imo, Ms. Byrne was lucky not to have been arrested by the NYPD.
(and I don't think Starbucks is a "public place&quot
But I admire her courage anyway.

[Doreen]

106. Why did they ask if she had thought of sucide or attempted it?

[FBaggins]

112. There's broad misunderstanding of the situation on the thread.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (One of many tweaks to a 1971 law) was passed by large majorities in both parties (399-3, and then again unanimously) and signed by President Obama.

Under the original law (Title 18, Chapter 84, Section 1752) and it's amendments, it's illegal to trespass into any area that is currently secured by the Secret Service.

It doesn't matter whether Starbucks is a private business, or whether she snuck in a protest banner, or she was nonviolent... and it isn't any different from the rules under the last few Presidents. If the Secret Service doesn't want you to be there, then they can remove you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. Ah, now that's worth considering.

People saying "it's obvious this was illegal" should note that's a recent law, specific to places the SS has secured.

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

" Whoever—
‘‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building
or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
‘‘(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the
orderly conduct of Government business or official functions,
engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such
proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so
that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions;"

It's arguable that hanging a banner would not "impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions", since Trump can walk past it. The media would probably take pictures of it, but it's not part of government business that they only look at Trump. They let her into the building, so she would claim she had lawful authority to be there; she would have to leave as soon as they told her to, when they saw the banner.

Yes, they can remove you, but that doesn't mean what you did was illegal, nor that it's OK for them to demand medical records and spend time asking neighbours about your motivations and behaviour.