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.
clickbait and im glad he is being fined. i dont want my property values lowered because of some idiot neighbor. he probably flies giant confederate flags as well and has a handful of teeth in his mouth.
"Probably"...in other words, just make stuff up and pretend it's real.
You have no problem with government telling this person he can't put out a flag or exercise his 1st Amendment Rights? You have no problem with government deciding what can be done on land that we pay for? Where do you stand on eminent domain?
Well first of all, I'm not convinced that he would have been ticketed for flying a "feel the bern" flag....
Second, who decides what constitutes a "political yard sign"....? We all know that Liberals hate America, so maybe some day they decide that symbols of America are themselves an endorsement of a certain political ideology of hate and oppression and you can't fly them?
Maybe a gay pride flag could be looked at in a conservative town as an endorsement of the Democratic party or candidate?
Where would it end?
I lived in NJ for 55 years a lot of them in a shore town. Trust me it wouldn't matter who's sign or flag it was. You learn to live with the ordinances in your town or you move.
Alright, so I'm going to be a bit of an ass. But only becaue this is a Trump issue, as I don't think this would have been posted if it were a Cruz flag.
Conservatives always claim to support the rule of law. They do not show sympathy for those who break the law, EVEN IF the law is unjust. And I do agree, a law like this is unjust. It is a violation of the first amendment, at least to a point. Ordinance says no use of lawn signs with 30 days of an election. I don't know what California election is coming up within a month, but that's their law which still allows freedom of speech most of the time. It's selective, and I'm guessing that the law exists to prevent increases in property damage as an election grows close, sine our elections are run like it's a freaking sport.
To be clear, I do not agree with this law. But I also do not agree with law that put people in jail for 8 years because they have pot. Both laws are absurd. However, the rule of law argument seems to die out when the law happens to be something they (the conservatives) don't agree with. Why is that?
Some other details the article doesn't mention is if selective enforcement is also an issue here. Are there other political banners that are staying up and it's just Trump or GOP flags/signs that are being targeted? If so, that's completely unacceptable.
Point being, the man broke the law. Rather or not the law is stupid is sort of irrelevant, if the rule of law thing is something you value. If not, why is there any support for the war on drugs?
Also, why, OP, are you telling a dishonest narrative: he's not facing any prison or jail time, only a fine. Why lie to promote a view? Why do you have so much in common with Hillary Clinton?
So basically you accuse me of only posting the article because of Trump and then you admit to only responding because it's a Trump issue. Then you bring up a bunch of irrelevant crap about pot and jail even though the Republican governor of NJ is the one who created the drug treatment court system as an alternative to jail. Finally, you accuse my title of being dishonest even though you are the second person to do so and I already addressed the issue. But Ill make it easier for you: City of Long Branch, NJ General Provisions
The link has the punishment he faces which includes jail time. Otherwise a stellar post by you.
So basically you accuse me of only posting the article because of Trump and then you admit to only responding because it's a Trump issue. Then you bring up a bunch of irrelevant crap about pot and jail even though the Republican governor of NJ is the one who created the drug treatment court system as an alternative to jail. Finally, you accuse my title of being dishonest even though you are the second person to do so and I already addressed the issue. But Ill make it easier for you: City of Long Branch, NJ General Provisions
The link has the punishment he faces which includes jail time. Otherwise a stellar post by you.
I don't think this issue would have even been brought to your attention if it weren't a Trump flag. Just being honest. No one cares about Ted Cruz but putting 'Trump' on something makes great news.
My point on pot stands. Both in regards to the rule of law and in the aspect that I didn't mention, which was small government. Many conservatives (I wasn't accusing you specifically, so calm down) will go on about 'don't do the crime if you can't do the time' when someone is arrested for pot, but most would also seem to think this is wrong, despite both being illegal. As for small government, that points speaks for itself. A small, non-intrusive government does not care if you smoke pot, nor what flag you put in your lawn.
Ok. The maximum penalty for this crime could be jail time. That means worst case scenario, which according to the article that brought this issue up, probably isn't going to happen. As of now, he's only facing a fine. The courts could decide to go with jail, but for some reason, I don't think that will happen.
Yeah I think we've all either lived in neighborhoods or towns with such rules or at least heard of them. Nitpicky rules about things like how tall your grass can be or whether you're allowed to put up a fence in your own yard. In this case, there's a city ordinance against displaying any political flags or signs more than 30 days before the election.
The question in my mind is whether such ordinances violate 1st Amendment rights. I think they do.
Um yes but most are Home Owner Association (HOA) based, not law based. My parents live in an HOA community and see a lot of this such as one time they had weeds that despite using various weed-be-gone products, the damn things wouldn't go away and they still got the letters. Another was flag pole size. When my parents bought their house, it was no more than eight feet meaning there's no "half-mast." Now, it's 12 so my parents would have to get a new pole to fly a flag "half-mast." Another is Christmas lights can only be up for some 30 days. I'm sure we all know stupid HOA rules. The issue is this one is law based and not brought up by a builder or concerned citizens in a few block radius.
Conservatives always claim to support the rule of law. They do not show sympathy for those who break the law, EVEN IF the law is unjust. And I do agree, a law like this is unjust. It is a violation of the first amendment, at least to a point. It's selective, and I'm guessing that the law exists to prevent increases in property damage as an election grows close, sine our elections are run like it's a freaking sport.
To be clear, I do not agree with this law. But I also do not agree with law that put people in jail for 8 years because they have pot. Both laws are absurd. However, the rule of law argument seems to die out when the law happens to be something they (the conservatives) don't agree with. Why is that?
Point being, the man broke the law. Rather or not the law is stupid is sort of irrelevant, if the rule of law thing is something you value.
The man isn't breaking the law, the town is, by enforcing what should be ruled an unconstitutional, illegal ordinance, as it violates the First Amendment, which supercedes any local laws. If we can agree on the premise that this ordinance violates the First Amendment ( which you admit ) then we need not go any further. The rule of law, which I value, dictates that people be allowed to epxress themselves and speak freely, so there are no inconsistencies from rule-of-law Conservatives on this issue.
Quote:
Ordinance says no use of lawn signs with 30 days of an election. I don't know what California election is coming up within a month, but that's their law which still allows freedom of speech most of the time.
You've got that backwards, the law says you can only display political signs within 30 days of an election, meaning out of 365 days, free speech isn't allowed for 335 of them.
Simple solution. Move. I wouldn't want to live in a town that squashes my freedom to express myself anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryWho?
I lived in NJ for 55 years a lot of them in a shore town. Trust me it wouldn't matter who's sign or flag it was. You learn to live with the ordinances in your town or you move.
That's a cop-out. When exactly should one stand up for their rights?
The man isn't breaking the law, the town is, by enforcing what should be ruled an unconstitutional, illegal ordinance, as it violates the First Amendment, which supercedes any local laws. If we can agree on the premise that this ordinance violates the First Amendment ( which you admit ) then we need not go any further. The rule of law, which I value, dictates that people be allowed to epxress themselves and speak freely, so there are no inconsistencies from rule-of-law Conservatives on this issue.
You've got that backwards, the law says you can only display political signs within 30 days of an election, meaning out of 365 days, free speech isn't allowed for 335 of them.
Must have read it wrong.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. The law is absurd. My point was inconsistency in value. You make a valid argument in regards to the constitution. I will say my point on drug policy still stands. It is inconsistent to believe in small and non-intrusive governmetn while simultaneously wasting millions of dollars on a war on drugs that hasn't even brought very good results.
The man isn't breaking the law, the town is, by enforcing what should be ruled an unconstitutional, illegal ordinance, as it violates the First Amendment, which supercedes any local laws. If we can agree on the premise that this ordinance violates the First Amendment ( which you admit ) then we need not go any further. The rule of law, which I value, dictates that people be allowed to epxress themselves and speak freely, so there are no inconsistencies from rule-of-law Conservatives on this issue.
You've got that backwards, the law says you can only display political signs within 30 days of an election, meaning out of 365 days, free speech isn't allowed for 335 of them.
It was unconstitutional for HOA requirements, not laws at the moment. I agree it is a bit of a first amendment issue but until the law is challenged, the cops are right for fining him. It would take too much capital to challenge it considering the fine is oh no more than $250.
It was unconstitutional for HOA requirements, not laws at the moment. I agree it is a bit of a first amendment issue but until the law is challenged, the cops are right for fining him. It would take too much capital to challenge it considering the fine is oh no more than $250.
"It was unconstitutional for HOA requirements, not laws at the moment"
WOW, Do some of you read ANYTHING before posting and making complete fools of yourselves?
This NOT a HOA incedent.
The TOWN ordinance IS the LAW!
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.
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.
