Does this cause concern with anybody else.... (Kalispell: lawyer, buyers)

[jimj]

Besides me?
I don't listen to this radio station anymore after hearing some of off the wall things he and others have said including many a rant about other countries needing to disappear to put it nicely.
This just came out in the Daily Interlake:

"Court orders man to remove swastika signs
Posted: Monday, Jul 07, 2008 - 11:55:15 pm MDT
By JOHN STANGThe Daily Inter Lake


Neighbors of Kalispell radio host John Stokes recently won a legal decision to force him to remove his Nazi-themed signs near their property.

Stokes is contesting the ruling, claiming some of the final plaintiffs’ motions were mailed to the wrong post-office box.

And a Stokes counterlawsuit — alleging harassment and discrimination — apparently is still alive, with an Aug. 7 conference set to schedule a trial date and a discovery timetable.

On June 11, Lake County District Judge Kim Christopher ruled that Stokes could not display the disputed signs on the back road shared by the two sides, and that he must pay $5,853 in legal costs to plaintiffs Donna and Peter Poeschel of Arlington, Wash."

The full article is at Daily Inter Lake:Court orders man to remove swastika signs
and pretty much lays out that this person has had various signs facing the street on his frontage for more than a decade that have swastikas and references to an alleged white supremasist group.
Am I off base thinking that this really shouldn't be tolorated here and should be publicly shunned?

[Timberwolf232]

Now that is a complicated one Jimj.

Could be a trick to get free speech laws changed in favor of a certain political persuasion.

(Kind of like the anti-tobacco lobby... it's really not about whether people smoke or not, or the fact that second hand smoke isn't nearly as harmful as big-city smog to breathe, but more about taking down a HUGE political financial source. The people trying to outlaw tobacco could really care less about public health, but do care about getting money and making sure their enemies don't have as much to put out for their own agendas.)

I'd be more inclined to go out and egg or paint-ball the fasist bastards signs before going to the government for help just because I didn't like what I saw.

[GLS]

Originally Posted by jimj

Besides me?
I don't listen to this radio station anymore after hearing some of off the wall things he and others have said including many a rant about other countries needing to disappear to put it nicely.
This just came out in the Daily Interlake:

"Court orders man to remove swastika signs
Posted: Monday, Jul 07, 2008 - 11:55:15 pm MDT
By JOHN STANGThe Daily Inter Lake


Neighbors of Kalispell radio host John Stokes recently won a legal decision to force him to remove his Nazi-themed signs near their property.

Stokes is contesting the ruling, claiming some of the final plaintiffs’ motions were mailed to the wrong post-office box.

And a Stokes counterlawsuit — alleging harassment and discrimination — apparently is still alive, with an Aug. 7 conference set to schedule a trial date and a discovery timetable.

On June 11, Lake County District Judge Kim Christopher ruled that Stokes could not display the disputed signs on the back road shared by the two sides, and that he must pay $5,853 in legal costs to plaintiffs Donna and Peter Poeschel of Arlington, Wash."

The full article is at Daily Inter Lake:Court orders man to remove swastika signs
and pretty much lays out that this person has had various signs facing the street on his frontage for more than a decade that have swastikas and references to an alleged white supremasist group.
Am I off base thinking that this really shouldn't be tolorated here and should be publicly shunned?

Although I agree with you personally, this topic will probably open up Pandora's box during menstruation. The swastika symbol predates the Nazi movement, going all the way back to its' derivation from Sanskrit for some kind of lucky charm. In fact before Hitler adopted it as a centerpiece for his flag, the swastika was used as a symbol for peace and world harmony.

My point is that he can easily get a "good" lawyer (do these exist?) to twist a defense into his promotion of good will. Even in Germany, where the swastika symbol is illegal, it depends upon the CONTEXT in which it is displayed. You could try to get the State of Montana or the local government to pursue regulatory change and make it illegal like Germany did. However, I suspect this will result in your next proctology exam being done by the ACLU.

Jimj, I think your heart and values are in the right place, but I agree with Timberwolf232, that is, an old-fashioned ass-kickin will probably be more productive than working within the "system". On the other hand maybe boycotting the radio station might appeal to the "ethics" (greed) of the sponsors that employ this guy.

[jimj]

To be clear, I certainly wasn't thinking of any law or regulation to deal with this, more along the lines of the public shunning this guy,his station and sponsors. Maybe we need to bring back the pillary posts in the public square?
He's made it very clear what the swastika means to him on many other occasions this is just the latest one. I guess I don't get why anyone would give him ad money and the one that really surprises me is Los Coporalis Mexican restaraunts, owned and operated by Mexicans. You'd think they'd run from someone like this.

[bigtrees]

I could tell you what I think of the guy but I'd probably get banned for life from here if I did......

I heard when he was a kid he liked to run his fingernails against the chaukboard to get attention.

[GLS]

Originally Posted by jimj

To be clear, I certainly wasn't thinking of any law or regulation to deal with this, more along the lines of the public shunning this guy,his station and sponsors. Maybe we need to bring back the pillary posts in the public square?
He's made it very clear what the swastika means to him on many other occasions this is just the latest one. I guess I don't get why anyone would give him ad money and the one that really surprises me is Los Coporalis Mexican restaraunts, owned and operated by Mexicans. You'd think they'd run from someone like this.

I think your "public shunning" approach has merit. Some naive businesses feel any advertising exposure is "marketing". However, if several patrons of Los Corporalis Mexican Restaurants made it clear to management that were no longer willing to eat there, it would motivate them. Like most businesses, they will ignore the first one or two complaints. However, if a movement appears to be building, dollars speak louder than words.

[ElkHunter]

That's one thing that can still make a difference. If 10 people speak up, here, it's a lot difference then 10 people speaking up in San Diego. They'd laugh at you there.

[lorelei2873]

There was a really interesting PBS POV special called "The Fire Next Time" that featured this guy and a lot of the conflicts in Kalispell. It's pretty intense. Anyway, you can check it out at P.O.V. - The Fire Next Time | PBS. It sounds like this guy has been on the radar for quite a while and has a following of some pretty scary folks. The fact that he has quite a following is what makes me frightened.

I remember when I used to have a different job traveling around the state, my boss (a young Asian American women, originally from Montana) told me about her previous experience traveling. Her own boss would not let her go to certain small towns in northwest Montana because they were known for being white supremacist areas. I could go because I am white. Freaky! Anyway, have you also heard about those Prussian Blue singing twins that moved from Kalispell from California to make white supremacist music?

The whole trend disturbs me. Hopefully there are enough good people in Kalispell to just say that we don't put up with this bs around here.

[Radek]

Jim,

Normally I'd agree with you... except after reading the article, here are some pieces that stand out:

The signs read:

“Keep out. No entry. No stopping. No hunting. No travel. No trespassing. If you stop long enough to read the sign, we’ve had enough time to put a rifle scope on your head and vehicle. Get out and stay out. This property protected by The Brotherhood.”

Each sign had several small black swastikas on it. The signs did not elaborate on “The Brotherhood.”

Now, to me... thats a threat and therefore not legal. In addition, there is a contract:

The couple sought the permanent removal of the signs and attorney costs — citing a 1994 contract that forbids either landowner from any nuisance or offensive activity on Raven Way.

It also sounds like the signs might have been posted off his property, in which case I would've just torn them down.

But as lorelei points out, that gentleman has been in the media for his hate for years now. (thanks for the PBS link btw)


If it had just been a swastika, posted on his property, I agree that he has the right to leave it up.

However, when you issue threats on your signs, and you have a contract with your neighbor that prohibits offensive or nuisance activity, I believe they have a right to go to court to get them removed.

Its possible that these signs were up for a long time, but even then... I can pretty much guarantee that those signs are ominous to prospective buyers, and is therefore hurting their chance to sell their property. Can he infringe on that right of theirs?

I would argue that he can't.

[Reziac]

The problem with hate speech is that if it's not protected, YOUR speech might be the next to go, when what's politically incorrect changes and a different set of beliefs are no longer allowed. Therefore we must stand up for the right to hold and state obnoxious beliefs, lest ALL beliefs and speech be imperiled.

And if this idiot can't post threatening notices on his OWN property, what about those of us who post joke signs, like "Trespassers will be shot; survivors will be shot again" ?? HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT? it's not, if you don't know the context. Must every context be known before speech is protected??

But if he posts 'em outside his own property, I agree that is outside the bounds of protected speech. Freedom of speech is not the right to force someone else to host your words.

.