U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-09-2007, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Michigan
29,377 posts, read 53,415,985 times
Reputation: 21977

Advertisements

Kevin Egler, a 45-year-old teacher, is fighting a ticket he received for posting a sign that said "Impeach Bush" in a public garden, according to The Plain Dealer.

The Record-Courier says Egler was accused of "advertising on public property" and faces a $125 fine if convicted of putting the sign on public land near an intersection in Kent, Ohio.

Man fights ticket for putting anti-Bush sign on public property - On Deadline - USATODAY.com (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/man-fights-tick.html - broken link)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2007, 03:41 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
404 posts, read 655,360 times
Reputation: 51
I can agree with that. He would probably get the same ticket if he posted the sign on his own private property if the sign is in public view outside of his house, which I wouldn't agree with.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 04:08 AM
 
Location: Warwick, NY
1,174 posts, read 5,771,579 times
Reputation: 1020
Leaving private propery unattended on public land is as good as littering. If he wants to protest by carrying the sign, then that should be fine, but not abandoning it for the muncipality to remove and dispose of. If he wants greater exposure for his message without having to attend it then he should buy or lease private space for such a purpose.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thepizzaguy View Post
I can agree with that. He would probably get the same ticket if he posted the sign on his own private property if the sign is in public view outside of his house, which I wouldn't agree with.
Well no actually. Signage on private land is an entirely different matter. So long as his sign is in agreement with signage ordinances, he can say whatever he wants so long as it isn't seditious or libelous.

The test of law that arises by this matter is what if everyone were permitted to place signs on public property? In that case you'd have so many signs that people wouldn't be able to walk on the property. Now if the municipality allows the realtor signs without leasing the land for commercial purposes to the realtors and discriminates against Egler, then he's got a case because the law is treating the realtors preferentially and that's unconstitutional. In fact, to uphold the law, the realtors should be fined and forced to remove their signs as well. If not, then Egler and everyone else who wants to plant a sign on public land should be entitled to do so.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 04:18 AM
 
Location: South East UK
659 posts, read 1,339,167 times
Reputation: 138
This incident reminds me of the time the Friends Of the Earth (FOE)asked for permission to erect a banner across the high street where I live. That banner saying to appose the contruction of a mighty industrail complex (that was anticipated and admitted by the developers to be a huge polluter) right in the middle of a residential area.
Shortly after erection of the banner supporters of the scheme said it had political overtones and according to the rules this aspect was against the rules and demanded it be taken down.

In spite of the weakness of the political argument it was after a week taken down amid great publicity and so served it's purpose admirably in two ways. It highlighted that opponants of the scheme were not given a fair hearing (the press had given scant coverage to the oppenants but supported the scheme heavily)and that supporters had the ear of the local district council (the authority decidng the banner question) in more ways than one.

This guy has done his cause a lot of good by way of infamy, very clever whether you agree with him or not.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 04:23 AM
 
Location: The best country in the world: the USA
1,499 posts, read 4,689,950 times
Reputation: 737
Quote:
Originally Posted by John1960 View Post
Kevin Egler, a 45-year-old teacher, is fighting a ticket he received for posting a sign that said "Impeach Bush" in a public garden, according to The Plain Dealer.

The Record-Courier says Egler was accused of "advertising on public property" and faces a $125 fine if convicted of putting the sign on public land near an intersection in Kent, Ohio.

Man fights ticket for putting anti-Bush sign on public property - On Deadline - USATODAY.com (http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/08/man-fights-tick.html - broken link)
The key word here is PUBLIC property. If it was ok to go posting crap all over the place, then I am gonna advertise my business on public land and you guys have to be ok with it?

Nah. No one wants public spaces to turn into free advertising fields.

And the ONLY reason this is getting any coverage in the media is because it is anti-Bush and the media loves it. I bet the ACLU will come down and fight for this guy, but if it was a "Support The Troops" or "God is Love" or "Deport Illegals" or "Homosexuality is a sin", the ACLU would want to have the person ARRESTED for the sign.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 05:05 AM
 
Location: South East UK
659 posts, read 1,339,167 times
Reputation: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirvana-Guy View Post
And the ONLY reason this is getting any coverage in the media is because it is anti-Bush and the media loves it. I bet the ACLU will come down and fight for this guy, but if it was a "Support The Troops" or "God is Love" or "Deport Illegals" or "Homosexuality is a sin", the ACLU would want to have the person ARRESTED for the sign.
Would you feel the same way Nirvana-Guy if you didn't think you were in the minority group?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 05:16 AM
 
18,945 posts, read 18,262,820 times
Reputation: 12180
And this guy's a teacher. Great.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 08:53 AM
 
Location: Heartland Florida
9,324 posts, read 25,775,916 times
Reputation: 5026
I don't get it. In order to be advertising he would have to be offering a service or product. This seems more like political speech protected by the first amandment. I would think the issue would be with him leaving a sign behind, rather than carrying it around.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Oak Park, IL
404 posts, read 655,360 times
Reputation: 51
Sign, sign, everywhere a sign.

My comment is more like he would get a ticket from the one cop in town who found the sign offensive. Not that the sign was illegal, or that he had broken a law.

I didn't think about adding cop into the mix. I just assumed everyone understands that cops give tickets even when tickets are not called for.

I am not a law student, or admit to knowing much about it. I know more than most, but I am no expert, and I know less than I think.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2007, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Land of Thought and Flow
8,323 posts, read 14,648,267 times
Reputation: 4939
In a lot of cities, it's actually illegal to post signs for even a yard sale or daycare. Doesn't matter what was on the sign, but rather what IT was. A sign illegally posted. If there's a law against it, just because it says "Impeach Bush" doesn't mean it should be exempt from the law.

Why is it that people try to avoid the law by trying to say that their rights are being violated? The only reason this is getting any coverage is because of what the sign said. If it was a stay-at-home mom putting a sign up for daycare services it wouldn't have made news. But rather, an angry mother's blog.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top