

Feds Say Man Deserved Arrest Because Jacket Said ‘Occupy Everything’ - cyphersanctus
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/03/man-deserved-arrest/

======
glimcat
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...](http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57572068/sequester-its-just-
dumb-obama-says/)

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>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.

~~~
mpyne
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.

------
tptacek
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_

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.

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

~~~
tptacek
Visitors.

~~~
dmix
> wearing clothing with signs?

~~~
saraid216
That counts as a device, yes.

------
mpyne
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.

~~~
gknoy
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.

~~~
saraid216
> 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.

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

~~~
saraid216
That was actually my point.

