General Discussion

Saboburns

(2,807 posts)

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

Thu Aug 24, 2017, 10:04 AM

Aug 2017

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.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

125 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I was detained for protesting Trump. Heres what the Secret Service asked me [View all] MiniMe Aug 2017 OP

Starbucks isn't a public place. It's a private business. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #1

Absolute nonsense. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #7

The Secret Service existed before the Waffen-SS. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #42

Thy overstepped and are acting like brown shirts and I will equate the two...when they attempt to Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #91

Cool story. nt Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #117

it is also a public accommodation. ProfessorPlum Aug 2017 #12

Walk into a Starbucks and start a protest. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #40

Your last line is the key IMO Orrex Aug 2017 #46

Correct. Ghandi paid many a price for civil disobedience in India. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #53

You are right, it is a business that serves the public, and this is a perfect example of civil still_one Aug 2017 #49

Civil DISobedience, you mean. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #50

yup, thanks. Just corrected it. still_one Aug 2017 #59

can you wear a MAGA hat greymattermom Aug 2017 #62

Yes. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #63

Some hats are better than others :-) FakeNoose Aug 2017 #109

Generally you'd be asked to stop, and leave, and THEN trespassed off the property if AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #69

Sure, if the Starbucks was on any street corner. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #70

I agree it comes with a price. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #71

I didn't get past the paywall to see that information. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #73

"Over-charged"? What? Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #77

It's a riff on 'price to be paid'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #78

Secret Service has been doing the same for decades for every President Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #83

I wouldn't expect it for an action that isn't remotely threatening. AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #88

Your job isn't to be as thorough as possible to spot any possible threat Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #90

Wait, so there were no charges? Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #82

Why are you so adamant about sticking up for trump? George II Aug 2017 #72

I am NOT sticking up for Trump in ANY way. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #75

Can we calmly discuss this issue, without assumptions about the person's motive? AtheistCrusader Aug 2017 #76

the atrium is on the second floor. der drumpfenfuhrer's residence is not. niyad Aug 2017 #94

If its open to the general public its not a private business. procon Aug 2017 #16

One of the conditions on which trump received approval to erect the building, is that.... George II Aug 2017 #35

Anyone can enter. Not anyone can start a protest or hang a banner. nt Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #41

Neither of which is a felony or even misdemeanor. WinkyDink Aug 2017 #54

Trespassing is a misdemeanor. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #57

No. You are confusing two concepts. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #60

It's interesting, we have a generation of folks who think there are / should be no consequences.. X_Digger Aug 2017 #103

The atrium in which Starbuck's is located is a public place. George II Aug 2017 #33

1964 Civil Rights Act SCantiGOP Aug 2017 #48

Title II of the CRA made no such claim. "Public Accommodation" is not "public place" X_Digger Aug 2017 #104

It is within a public place, aka Trump Tower. Anyone may enter. Hence,...... WinkyDink Aug 2017 #52

But not anyone can start a protest. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #55

Correct. H2O Man Aug 2017 #80

I understand this was very unnerving leftynyc Aug 2017 #2

I agree. cwydro Aug 2017 #11

Unless you're the victim, literally NEVER talk to cops Nevernose Aug 2017 #23

Also This WoonTars Aug 2017 #85

Have your lawyer on standup when you do it. SharonClark Aug 2017 #67

This WoonTars Aug 2017 #84

The Secret Service is rather serious about investigating even the slightest possible threat Lurks Often Aug 2017 #3

They do get paid to do it Not Ruth Aug 2017 #6

Well, not anymore. Twitler ate up their budget on golf outings. catbyte Aug 2017 #15

True ck4829 Aug 2017 #25

How do mere words constitute a "threat"? procon Aug 2017 #21

The Secret Service took action to look into a POTENTIAL threat Lurks Often Aug 2017 #64

not really azureblue Aug 2017 #29

Keyword is investigating. That does not create a "trampling rights zone." L. Coyote Aug 2017 #30

Does the Secret Service do the questioning of the neighbors? Not Ruth Aug 2017 #4

I'm not surprised they detained her and asked her questions. This country is in such a RKP5637 Aug 2017 #5

I am wondering if the next President will allow her to be a White House tour guide again Not Ruth Aug 2017 #8

Clearly...they were Trump supporters. Demsrule86 Aug 2017 #9

Plus, I'd bet the ones actually in Trump Tower... forgotmylogin Aug 2017 #27

Yep, definitely! I would sure be edgy! n/t RKP5637 Aug 2017 #44

Starbucks is not a public place,it's private so it should have been up to THEIR management.... Bengus81 Aug 2017 #10

They were doing their job Roland99 Aug 2017 #13

actually, no azureblue Aug 2017 #34

Ten years ago I'd say you were wrong. defacto7 Aug 2017 #45

Your very wrong here Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #81

That would be up to Starbuck's to decide, not the NYPD or Secret Service. Not a 'law' matter muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #86

No, your still wrong Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #89

No, investigating medical records is not reasonable muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #92

You keep claiming she didn't break any law Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #95

You keep talking about 'threats'. There were no threats. muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #96

I never called it a threat Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #97

Again, you call this 'illegal'. It was not. muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #98

Civil disobedience, BY DEFINITION, is breaking the law. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #99

It was a protest. That does not define it as "an act of civil disobedience" muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #100

Protesting inside a place of business is trespassing. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #101

Law applying to New York that says protest in a business is illegal right from the start, please muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #107

You really think it's legal to protest INSIDE a place of business? Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #108

I think there's probably no law explicitly against it. muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #110

Go hang a banner in a local business that is not yours. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #111

So far, someone has done this, and not been charged, which they expected muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #113

Just because you break the law, doesn't mean you get charged. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #115

By the way, what's your address? Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #116

As I said, the burden of proof is on you. muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #118

Here's some important fucking information. Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #119

I don't think you understand the difference between a right, and something not being illegal muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #120

I have no idea why you're so obtuse about this. nt Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #121

Here's an example: you do not have a right to enter a nightclub wearing whatever you like muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #122

And once you've broken their rules Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #123

Once you've broken their rules, you have to leave. muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #124

If you walked into my music shop and hung ANY sign, Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #125

Trespassing. n/t X_Digger Aug 2017 #105

You tell a protester is non-violent by observing them. Medical records do not say muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #87

I thought maybe they'd hit you up for spare change. . .n/t annabanana Aug 2017 #14

You win the thread. n/t rzemanfl Aug 2017 #20

A few things here.... but people who protested Obama like that got the same basic treatment Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #17

Which law was violated here? redgreenandblue Aug 2017 #22

Not legal to put your banners on property owned by other people Saboburns Aug 2017 #26

but the ss is not there to enforce that city law azureblue Aug 2017 #38

The 'federal agency' that did this was in place to protect the POTUS on his property. Texin Aug 2017 #61

If you read it again NYPD is who detained her first Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #93

That's not the only thing. forgotmylogin Aug 2017 #31

Just carrying it would still not be allowed Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #36

Why would she conceal the sign if it were legal? Not Ruth Aug 2017 #47

There are many things Lee-Lee Aug 2017 #32

In short, yes. Ms. Toad Aug 2017 #68

Fits right in with the DOJ prosecuting protesters from the inauguration. sinkingfeeling Aug 2017 #18

"Since Starbucks is a public place and I was a paying guest," Orrex Aug 2017 #19

EXACTLY! nt Dr Hobbitstein Aug 2017 #43

It is a public place SCantiGOP Aug 2017 #56

Does that grant you the right to decorate a restaurant? Orrex Aug 2017 #58

"I'm sorry I don't worship the President like he's a god" ck4829 Aug 2017 #24

I assume that the Secret Service has legal authority or tenant permission to take actions... Princess Turandot Aug 2017 #28

You don't think her treatment was excessive? Duppers Aug 2017 #37

"SS should know half of the US hates Trump by now" Not Ruth Aug 2017 #51

This treatment was authoritarian thuggishness. Duppers Aug 2017 #39

Yes, half of the country despises Trump. So how would SS possibly keep track of half of the country? YoungDemCA Aug 2017 #74

So she was wearing the banner under her skirt, like a slip. greymattermom Aug 2017 #65

Love her fight. So sorry they harassed her in such a manner. Hope she gets ACLU involved. iluvtennis Aug 2017 #66

Businesses open to the public do have some discretion on what they allow you to do inwiththenew Aug 2017 #79

Kick for exposure! red dog 1 Aug 2017 #102

Why did they ask if she had thought of sucide or attempted it? Doreen Aug 2017 #106

There's broad misunderstanding of the situation on the thread. FBaggins Aug 2017 #112

Ah, now that's worth considering. muriel_volestrangler Aug 2017 #114