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, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 23 2021, @03:59PM (4 children)
a) it wasn't an insurrection by any rational standard, and not as close than a lot of other events going on across the country
b) it was a silly sideshow compared to a lot of other events going on across the country
c) it was driven by dissatisfaction with the credibility of the process of the vote, which is anti-fascist, if anything
So no, I was not worried by a non-insurrection in favour of electoral transparency. I'm deeply worried by people running around beating others up for saying the wrong things, having the wrong things or looking the wrong way. If the capitol demonstration worries you, you are either blind, or horrified by the events of Minneapolis.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 23 2021, @09:25PM (3 children)
Wrong, they all went there with intent to disrupt a democratic election and a small number went with intent to kidnap and likely murder some officials.
Insurrection: an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Riot: a tumultuous disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled together and acting with a common intent
Ok, so you're only mostly wrong. The more important part was the insurrection aspect, but the insurrectionists did create a violent disturbance as a crowd so they also rioted. Lookit that, it is even worse! Insurrectionists could be somewhat peaceful, not often but peaceful coups do happen. Riots are always violent.
So there you have it folks, the crazy Qultists were violent insurrectionists that rioted at the Capitol to overturn the very foundation of our government.
like the whataboutism you felt necessary to throw in there, really strengthens your point
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 24 2021, @09:57AM
Hey! So it really was an insurrection! But, the court has determined that the Q-Anon Shaman is nuttier than a squirrel cache, so he might get treatment instead. But yeah, didn't read the Constitution, so they were persuaded by Donald, who also did not read the constitution (because, you know, words), that Pence could just overturn American Democracy and approve the zoning variance for the new Trump development. It worked so many times before, in New York City. I still think hanging is too good for them.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 25 2021, @05:35PM (1 child)
If you're going to paint every single sit-in as an insurrection because it involves resistance against a civil authority, then sure, it was an insurrection, but so was the last time a knitting circle put knit fabric on trees in protest against land developments. It dilutes the definition to meaninglessness. The evidence on actual murderous intent is thin and disputed, and the only actual killing done was by the authorities, of an unarmed member of the group by a shot in the neck.
So, uh, if you wanna stretch those definitions like a balloon on an air compressor, sure, but then we need to talk about a hell of a lot of other events. If you're going to talk about an actual attempt to supplant government - there was no such thing. Some morons indulging in fantasies doesn't apply to the group - and even there the record on things like the "zip-tie guy" turns out not to support the picture that you're painting.
In short, the narrative doesn't stand up under scrutiny.
As for "whataboutism" - do you really want to shuck that oyster? Do we really not get to talk about the analysis of hypocrisy and compare supposed horrors? Do we not start to count up the damage to private and public persons and property? No? Because that would be whataboutism? Scary, scary whataboutism?
In the immortal words of the Great George Carlin: "Let's not have a double standard. One standard will do just fine." If you have a problem with insurrection - ooops, sorry, riots - then you have a problem with riots everywhere, and to the extent of their riotous record. If your problem is just people who happen not to share your views? We have other words for that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 26 2021, @09:00AM
Waaaah waaaah I'm a god damn fucking BABY and George Carlin would shit me out and laugh as he flushed me doooooown waaaaahhhhhhh!
Riots are riots, insurrections are usually riots with intent to overthrow political mechanicsm WAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Fuck off whiny turd.