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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 25 2021, @04:51PM
Right, right, stepping through slowly, so that you can follow along. Good, good, we like that.
The town's restriction on speech does, yes, come under First Amendment review because of the fact that the town is a government, and the Fourteenth Amendment brings it to bear on local governments as well.
As was pointed out elsewhere, the banners may well not meet the legal definition of obscenity, and there's clear precedent concerning mentions of "Fuck *topic*" that bias towards permitting this view. So assuming that they're legally obscene is not safe.
How nice for them. The problem is that the town may very well not get to choose that way. This is a content-based restriction on speech, which means that strict scrutiny is waiting in the wings, licking its chops.
And often struck down or pushed aside as unenforceable or inappropriate.
Sure, sure. Calm down buddy. Have a Xanax. Have five Xanax. First amendment. Freedom of association. All that feel-good, crunchy stuff. We love it. We all love it here.
That's not the problem.
That was never the problem.
You can clutch your pearls, fall on your fainting couch and call for Martha and her smelling salts as much as you want.
You can youtube it and showcase your shiny, blobby tears, even. Very first amendment.
The problem here is that the town (a government body) wants to remove (presumed) obscene content of a (patently) political nature with (substantial) precedent in its favour and that a judge backed them. This is contra the first amendment - and This is basic first amendment stuff here. You are in favor of the first amendment, right?
But sure, let's all calm down, have a valium or thirty, and wait for this to roll through the courts all the way up to the Supremes and see what happens. After all due process is a thing too.