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, @07:27PM
Yes, the Miller test, like mentioned, is literally the legal definition of obscenity. The first condition refers to community sexual standards. In most of the US an attractive model in a bikini would be a yawn. In Hamtramck (the first Muslim majority city in the US) it would be considered exceptionally prurient. In practice though, the first condition only allows for things to go the other way - in a community that has far more lascivious standards than the rest of the nation. The reason is that in order for something to be considered obscene it has to hit on all 3 points which appeal to (based on precedent): community, state, and nation. So even if Hamtramck wants to ban images of bikinis as obscene, they'd be out of luck. By contrast if Degeneratown thinks that images of hardcore porn are fine, then it would be impossible for somebody else to try to sue them for obscenity, because it's their right to do their own thing.
As for censorship. Obviously you realize that trying to argue that fining and jailing somebody for expressing something is somehow not censorship is absurd. So I'm not even going to get into that. The one thing I would say is that we have a term for a judge who transitions from judging based on law and the merits of a case: inquisitor. And as we migrate from a system of laws, to a system of loyalties - we go a long ways towards erasing every single bit of progress we made in the past millennia. This sounds hyperbolic because "it's just one judge", but this seems to be a trend in America, rather than a one-off. People are losing their ability to think clearly and logically, and instead increasingly being driven by emotion and mob type mentality. It's nothing new in history, and never once has led to good things.