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: 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.