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: 5, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday July 21 2021, @04:06PM (41 children)
First Amendment my ass. They only want the obscene banners removed. The rest of the idiocy can stay as far as the town is concerned. Anti-obscenity laws have been around a looong time.
I'd wager that this special snowflake Trumper would be first in line to complain about some Fuck Trump banners. She's not interested in free speech, she wants freedom to be an asshole. I've no sympathy at all. I myself don't mind when idiots advertise, as it removes all doubt of their stupidity.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @04:15PM (7 children)
Indeed. It lets me know, without doubt: this is someone I don't want to associate with.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @05:18PM (5 children)
The question before that court wasn't "do you want to associate with them?" but "are they allowed to say it?"
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @09:12PM (4 children)
OK, let's step through this one more time, slowly so that you can follow along. First, cmdrklarg said that he did not mind that idiots "advertise" their stupidity as it removes all doubt. I agreed with him and added that it gave me clear direction concerning who I don't want to associate with. This is regardless of what the courts have ruled concerning what political messages people are allowed to (or not allowed to) display on their own property. cmdrklarg and I are allowed to make our own decisions regarding who we choose to associate with. This is basic first amendment stuff here. You are in favor of the first amendment, right?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 25 2021, @04:51PM (3 children)
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @08:52AM
Loving it. First amendment bitches! Fuck your privileged shit, we can call out pricks when we damn well please!
Fuck Biden! and Fuck Trump!
/no_sarcasm
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @03:33PM (1 child)
It seems you didn't bother to read what I had written. Go back and reread it, this time without jerking your knee. I don't care that she put up a sign saying "Fuck Biden" on her property. As far as I care, she can keep it there. I just don't want to associate with idiots like her. According to the first amendment, I'm allowed to do that. Are we all clear now?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 29 2021, @07:51PM
Quoting what you apparently didn't bother to read:
Maybe the Xanax isn't working. Try Ritalin.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:31PM
Neighbor from Hell, destroying property values. Her name is Andrea Dick (can't make this up) but she's just another Karen.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @05:20PM (1 child)
You okay?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:12PM
That assessment is entirely subjective and depends upon the assessor.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:22PM (2 children)
Some people think she's an asshole. Some people think she's not an asshole. Do you really want to make that the deciding factor, on this or on anything?
If I think you're an asshole, and I do, should that mean I can shut you up?
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
(Score: 3, Insightful) by cmdrklarg on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:32PM
Ah, if only making assholery illegal were a thing. Wouldn't be feasible to enforce, 'cuz there's too many assholes out there.
You absolutely *can* shut me up. Just be prepared to suffer the consequences of doing so (depending on your method). Oh, and thank you for the endorsement.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @09:10PM
This is in error. Everyone thinks she's an asshole, even her kids.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @06:48PM
The legal test for obscenity is pretty strict. Famously a jacket reading "fuck the draft" was held to be permissible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California [wikipedia.org]
The obscenity definition itself is discussed in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California [wikipedia.org]
and specifically:
1. whether the average person, applying contemporary "community standards," would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in an offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions, as specifically defined by applicable state law (the syllabus of the case mentions only sexual conduct, but excretory functions are explicitly mentioned on page 25 of the majority opinion); and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Based on the record here, I think that the judge erred. An indecent reference in an expression of political view is pretty well protected speech.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:05PM
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @07:06PM (7 children)
Pretty much all the replies above think you are pro-censorship when all you said was you have no sympathy for a loser MAGA that would be shrieking over a Fuck Trump sign. Pretty hilarious how thin-skinned they are and leap right to mUh RiGhTs!@!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @08:12PM
Shut up Karen! [dailydot.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @10:50PM (2 children)
Apparently political speech is obscene now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @06:02AM
Now? Those arguments have been before the courts since the 60s at least.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @12:42PM
Always was. What's your point?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 21 2021, @11:37PM (1 child)
"They only want the obscene banners removed."
This is the part that is being objected to as censorship. Because it is censorship. Banning them is exactly as wrong as banning "Fuck Trump" signs.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 23 2021, @09:37PM
I agree with you, but this thread wasn't started about the ethicality of the anti-obscenity law. Was a good scarecrow though, got all the bird brains agitated!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:07AM
Ooh another gaggle of Karens, complete with their own documentary! Keep that fear going suckers, you'll never again understand what is actually going on around you.
(Score: 2, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 22 2021, @07:46AM (16 children)
Sounds reasonable. Now, can you remind us of the universally accepted, Supreme Court approved, definition of "obscene"?
Sorry, that lame old "I'll know obscenity when I see it" isn't going to work here.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:06PM (15 children)
For the record, I really don't care about whether or not she has "obscenity" on her banners. I'm simply commenting on what the court is basing their order to remove them on. "Obscenity" is one of those "eye of the beholder" things where something that is obscene to one person may not be to another.
Someone(s) in her neighborhood decided that it was obscene, and complained. You really can't argue that "fuck" isn't obscene since it is regularly used as an obscenity and likely triggers various obscenity laws on a regular basis. Whether you agree with those laws or not are irrelevant; they exist. If you don't like them, work to get rid of them.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Thursday July 22 2021, @04:38PM (12 children)
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?
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday July 22 2021, @06:12PM (11 children)
The first test is absolutely "eye of the beholder". What exactly is "contemporary community standards"? Is that not a "I know it when I see it" rule? Which community are we using as the gold standard?
Interestingly enough, the law being invoked here specifically lists those three tests as the method of determining obscenity. https://ecode360.com/35328682#35328681 [ecode360.com]
Also, she is not being censored. Censoring would be having somone come around and tear the banners down. She is simply subject to fines and possible jail time if she continues to violate the statute.
You have misread what I posted. I did not defend this judge's actions. Regardless of my political leanings, there are laws against obscene signs posted, and that is what this judge's actions are based on, the merits of said laws notwithstanding. Those are things for the courts to decide. Who knows, the case may go to the SCOTUS and result in the law being repealed.
*I* don't give a flying fuck whether she has these banners hanging or not. All a "Fuck Biden" banner's effect has on me is to confirm that the hanger is likely an idiot and an asshole and that I should avoid them. A "Fuck Trump" banner would confirm to me that said hanger has at least some functioning brain cells. Whether they were not an idiot and/or asshole would still be unknown.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @06:57PM (1 child)
I would love to know socrastotle's original username.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @09:13PM
Anti-aristarchus?
(Score: 2) by Socrastotle on Thursday July 22 2021, @07:27PM (7 children)
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.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @07:49PM
Rightwing judges have been doing that shit for aaaggges, but I get it, suddenly your ideology is being poked and prodded so the sky is falling.
Yes, the MAGA movement with a conman speedfreak leader set us on a very dangerous course. We've got literally millions of those nitwits trying to overthrow democracy! Did you think that was insightful, because I'm pretty sure we all saw the videos of the insurrection.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday July 23 2021, @04:41PM (5 children)
For a large amount of the community, state, and nation the word "Fuck" publicly emblazoned in large letters *is* obscene, including that particular neighborhood. That's one.
Does "Fuck Biden" mean that this lady wants a piece of the POTUS, or does it advocate "fuck him with a rusty fencepost"? Again, offensive to a great majority of the community; that's two.
(Now, one could argue that the second doesn't apply, as "fuck *insert person*" doesn't always have a sexual connotation. The defendant didn't bring that up though; they framed the defense as a 1st Amendment issue.)
And only the most partisan Trumper could think that said signs have any serious value, political included. Certainly not the general community; that's three.
Calling it censorship is ludicrous, as they aren't asking her to remove *all* of the signs, just the ones containing profanity. The "Don't blame me" and "I'm a Trump girl" signs are not in question and can stay up without repercussion (I'm not certain about the ones containing "blows" and "sucks"). She can continue to display her displeasure with Biden all she wants, as long as it doesn't use profanity.
That's the law, regardless of it's merit. If they want to get rid of said law so that Trumpers can display profane banners that's their right. I question their loyalty to the 1st Amendment, but that's my opinion.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Socrastotle on Friday July 23 2021, @06:27PM (4 children)
Can you not see what you are saying, becoming? In an effort to confirm your own biases, you're trying to argue that "fuck politician" not only directly appeals to the prurient interest, but also depicts or describes sexual conduct, and has no political value. And then you want to argue that the government forcing you to censor your statements under threat of imprisonment is not censorship. And it's not censorship because the government said you can't say that...
Can't you see that the "bad guys" in all of the countless horrible events in our history always saw themselves as the good guys? They would demonize their "opponents", and then rationalize every single action they carried out. Are we the baddies? [youtube.com] How many times do you think this event, far less comically, has genuinely played out throughout history? People get so worked up in their own biases, beliefs, and rationalizations, that they begin to lose contact with any sort of reality and simply replace it with whatever they see fit. Can you imagine the you of 10 years ago believing you would be arguing this sort of stuff today?
Do you not understand that "you" (in the general sense) are driving us towards the same sort of regressive behaviors, values, and attitudes that always result in humanity taking 2 steps forward and then 2 steps backwards? Over and over and over. The few grand achievements we have managed, including the defacto end of slavery, have been little more than a product of technological progress. So bemusing!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 23 2021, @09:30PM
Reading comprehension, you gots to work on it.
"The few grand achievements we have managed, including the defacto end of slavery, have been little more than a product of technological progress. So bemusing!"
Bemusing indeed! Here I thought we had a little kerfuffle about ending slavery, but sounds like some people are still in denial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 23 2021, @09:33PM
Forgot to add this helpful link for you https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=44004&page=1&cid=1159410#commentwrap [soylentnews.org] which might help clear up your misconceptions
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 26 2021, @09:09PM (1 child)
You are simply not understanding what I'm writing (or you're being deliberately obtuse, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).
My "biases, beliefs, and rationalizations" have nothing to do with any of this. The law in question was put in place by the "contemporary community standards" many decades ago, long before you or I were born. It was decided back then that society did not want to see "obscenity" out in public. If anything, things are becoming far more relaxed in recent times vs. when I was young. And yes, my views of 10 years ago were largely the same as now.
I simply do not care that she has signs out; they don't bother me. The fact that they are out tells me that she is not someone I would want to interact with, but it stops there for me. It's not me you need to worry about; it's morons like that Trumper you should be worried about with regards to regressing.
Of course I realize that every "bad guy" sees themselves as the "good guy" in their own mind. Your comparing this woman's
stupiditydesire to display her signs to "horrible events in history" is ridiculous.Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 27 2021, @03:18AM
What you seem to be missing is that for something to be obscene it has to fail all three test points, not merely one.
It has to appeal to the prurient interest by contemporary community standards AND depict or describe, in an offensive way, sexual or excretory conduct AND offer no artistic, literary or political value.
Even if you determine that the contemporary community is quivering in its boots, AND you determine that it's a patently offensive reference to sexual activity, you yet fall on the third point, where it's a plainly political expression of view.
Not obscene, any more than a "fuck the draft" jacket is obscene.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 25 2021, @04:58PM
"Also, she is not being censored. Censoring would be having somone come around and tear the banners down. She is simply subject to fines and possible jail time if she continues to violate the statute."
Let me help you here, because you seem to be confused.
Penal actions driven by restrictions on speech by the authorities are, yes, censorship. They're censorship whether they relate to burning books, shooting authors, spanking their cute little buns pink, putting them in stocks, fining them, stuffing them in prisons, or other tickling them until they pee. It's an authoritarian drive against freedom of speech.
But "censorship" is such an ugly word. Let's just call it "governgag" instead. They want to governgag her, good and hard, and milk her finances like a cow until she knuckles under.
Governgag. I like it.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Runaway1956 on Thursday July 22 2021, @08:36PM (1 child)
You're right, obscenity laws exist. They have existed since man first started writing laws. And, the Supreme Court has been striking them down for at least 75 years.
For any obscenity law to pass muster with the Supreme Court, it's going to be very carefully tailored, to fit very specific circumstances, in specific times and places. They WILL NOT uphold any law that says you can't write "fuck" on your own property. Maybe a homeowner's association could enforce it - maybe. People who are dumb enough to sign an HOA contract probably aren't smart enough to fight this battle though. Fekkin' conformists.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Friday July 23 2021, @03:15PM
I don't doubt it; this may very well go all the way to the SCOTUS and be struck down. Until then it's the law. I agree that it shouldn't be a thing, but there are large numbers of people out there who don't agree with us, and have made it the law a long time ago. It will need to go through the process to be repealed.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 22 2021, @02:45PM
There is no "obscenity" exception to the first amendment (The Miller Test is about as valid as Japanese internment camps), and nor should the government ban things based on subjective nonsense like "obscenity."
Lots of bad and/or unconstitutional things have been around for a long time. Slavery was around for a long time. It means nothing.
Her hypothetical hypocrisy is completely irrelevant to whether or not the government has the Constitutional authority to ban these signs.