SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A municipal court judge in New Jersey who apparently doesn't understand either the First Amendment or local ordinances has just ordered a resident to take down some f-bomb-laden signs from her yard. (h/t Peter Bonilla)
A municipal judge on Thursday ruled that a Roselle Park homeowner’s owner’s anti- President Biden flags including the F-bomb on her fence were obscene and must be removed because they violated a borough ordinance.
Roselle Park Municipal Court Judge Gary Bundy ordered the Willow Avenue homeowner to remove the signs with profanity within a week or face a $250-a-day fine. Patricia Dilascio is the property owner but her daughter, Andrea Dick, had the signs, three of which include the F-word, on display.
The signs, which can be seen in this photo, are certainly colorful in terms of language, and very definitely convey their owner's displeasure with the current regime.
(More information in link to original article.)
Opinion:
The first amendment absolutely prevents the government from censoring your speech, ESPECIALLY political speech. That is its entire purpose. ESPECIALLY political speech. Because we no longer have a king, nor do we want one. (unless it is Trump)
The 1st amendment does not limit private property owners, nor corporations from controlling their own platforms and moderating as they see fit. But it absolutely does (A) limit government, and (B) ESPECIALLY when you are displaying speech from YOUR OWN property (not someone else's property, where they could choose to not allow your speech on their property).
If people do not like Biden, they should have the right to say so as loudly and even offensively as they wish. (clue: a clear non offensive message can be more persuasive) A mildly offensive message can be effective in expressing one's outrage, without suggesting any intention of harm.
The problem here seems to be that there is a town law which forbids the use of offensive language. I like to avoid such words, for example, not using them on SN (other than quoting someone) because IMO it lowers the intelligence level. But that's just my preference. I happen to understand that other people are fine with using such language.
Perhaps this law should be focused on offensive messages rather than specific language or words. An obscene message is one thing. An F-bomb may be something different entirely, even if it could have been better worded.
In the 1977 Star Wars movie, after R2D2 emits a series of tweedle-beeps, C3P0 tells R2D2 "you watch your language", without needing say something like "watch your F'ing language".
N.J. woman must remove anti-Biden F-bomb signs or face $250-a-day fines, judge rules
F-bomb, bird flipping anti-Biden flags outside house near N.J. school infuriate neighbors
N.J. homeowner with F-bomb, anti-Biden flags ticketed, given court date
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:38PM
But obscenity is *not* in "the eye of the beholder" in legal sense. Obscenity in the US is legally defined using the Miller test [mtsu.edu]. There are three tests for judging whether something is considered obscene:
- whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
- whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law
- whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Now before you try to fit this sign into one of those categories, which would already be difficult enough, it's worth mentioning that for something to be considered it must pass *every* category. A sign that says "Fuck politician" is one of the most fundamentally obvious examples of material that is protected by the first amendment.
I believe as "we" all become more radicalized, we're starting to lose context with how we're behaving. Imagine, if you can, that this exact scenario played out in the exact same way with one difference - the sign said "fuck Trump." I do not believe you, or anybody for that matter, would then be defending this judge's actions. Because this is one of the more extreme examples of a judge legislating against the law in pursuit of his own political ideology. That said, I've no idea of this judge's ideology, but I do know that there's no legal basis for his judgement whatsoever. So what other explanation is left?