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 (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.