My reactions to this story surprised me, so I thought I would present it here for discussion.
I have signed every ‘Impeach Bush' petition put before me. If I owned them, I would gladly wear an ‘Impeach Bush' tee shirt everywhere I go. My car sports a number of anti-Bush stickers. If I could get up there, I would paint ‘Impeach Bush' on my roof.
So, it surprised me when I was not immediately moved to defend the ticketed man in this article: Kent officer tickets man for ‘Impeach Bush' sign. I am (obviously, after the second paragraph) a strong supporter of the first amendment, and I continue to exercise this right even as it is being whited-out of existence.
However, I was offended by the author's attempt to sway me (even to my own side) by the use of "soft-spoken teacher" in his first-line introduction to the ticketed man. Laws should apply the same to soft-spoken teachers and raging bartenders, so I don't need to read his profession or emotional status before I see the rest of the story. I have nothing against soft-spoken people or teachers in general, but this started me out on edge and on the wrong side of my natural position.
I also learned in that first line that this soft-spoken teacher had placed is sign in a public garden, twisting what I would have thought would be my knee-jerk reaction to this story yet again. That made his display unlike my tee shirt, my car, and my roof, and more like the ten commandments in the courthouse or classroom. Ouch. At this point, I was close to disliking ticketed guy for testing me.
Fortunately, I continued to read. Ticketed guy won back my heart when I read that he and his friends think Bush's Iraq invasion is illegal and immoral, and have placed hundreds of anti-war signs around several states. I forgot about the author's attempt to influence me and thought about looking up ticketed guy to see if he needed my help at that point. But the public property thing still bothered me.
A cop added the final twist. When ticketed guy asked how his placing the ‘Impeach Bush' sign differed from the real estate signs that others placed on private property, the cop's response was, "You don't know the difference?" Ticketed guy's attorney said the difference is that one is commercial and the other political and political messages don't have the same protections.
Ticketed guy can remain soft-spoken if he wants; this makes me want to scream. Public property and private messages are - well, public property and private messages - so this makes no logical sense to me.
The article goes on to say that the same community sometimes allows leeway to politicians who place signs on public property during campaigns. To me, this means individual cops get to decide which political messages they allow and which they don't. And that seems all wrong to me.
I am interested in reading your comments. Should any private signs be allowed on public property? And can anyone present justification for allowing some and not all?
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 47
Sandy, you'll never believe this, but I have often been referred to as soft-spoken. I wouldn't hang around waiting to see someone call me soft-written, though!
I can't seem to justify putting up some signs, while not allowing all signs because to me, it doesn't make sense. Private signs are someones private property and just my opinion, don't belong on public property.
If anything is allowed (sorry, can't think due to soft-spoken guy driving me nuts too), then what's stopping anyone from putting a sign for a party at their house in a playground or allowing all kind of hate-type signs kind of like some of the stuff we see here in articles all over the place?
Though if we could flag and rate the signs, that might make it OK too. But I'm getting ahead of myself. Life's not Gather, is it?
Or, if one could get points or cash for the amount of signs that were put up in public places, that might also be a way to get lots of different signs all over the place. Perhaps the person that put up the most private signs in public places could get extra points or something.
Seriously, I don't think that private signs should be allowed on public property. If one wants to put up a sign on their own property, that's a whole different thing, but that would be their own sign on their own property. Just my opinion.
I also don't understand why the message Impeach Bush would be different than any other campaign sign.
Either way, I don't think they belong on public property, but who is going to pay the manpower to remove them.
I'm with LS on what he said, I would not think of placing anything anywhere but on my own property (car, yard, etc), but if people do, who is going to decide what is ok and what isn't?
Calling for the impeachment of Bush is not anti patriotic, and it's certainly not a threat, so is it really different than any other sign?
So above comment is mine, not his, didn't want to be mistaken.
I wonder what he has been reading here?
1) Who is going to remove them
2) Often, they are placed on busy corners, obstructing view and making a safe turn almost impossible
But, I also understand what makes ticketed guy think he should be allowed to place his signs on public property if there are other signs on public property. He pays his taxes and owns that property the same as those others.
I think the solution is to enforce no private signs on public property, unless the signs are ON the private property (car, shirt, hand) of someone who has a legal right to be on the public property.
I would never place a sign of any sort on any property other than my own, without appropriate permission. I do not understand why anyone else thinks he can.
Here in Hawaii, bill boards of any type are not allowed on highways...in fact, even business signs have to conform to certain sizes and cannot be put in public or private places unless they are your own location....
The only signs allowed during campaigns are small and they do show up everywhere on lawns, yards, fences, etc, but you have to get permission from the owners of the property to put them up and then you have to take them down a few days after the elections (not sure how many days now, though)
Kris, I've heard your voice and would agree. I think both of us 'sound' softer than our written messages. I know my speaking voice is softer than the words I speak which some people find baffling while others have asked me to speak as a buffer for their message. Trying to manage my tone in written forums like this one has been a great challenge for me.
During the last 2 elections, I put my signs inside the front windows of my house, where no one could get at them. I haven't been able to think of a good reason not to allow impeachment signs along with other signs on public property. I wish I'd thought of it before now...
Yes, but they have to be hand-held, as in a protest, silent or otherwise.
Kris, I love Janis Joplin. And I still haven't thought of a reason not to allow impeachment signs any place that other signs are permitted (public or private).
Don't forget those little signs stapled to poles that proclaim you can get rich by working with your computer on the internet! We also encounter a lot of "We buy ugly houses" signs. I am still trying to figure out why anyone would want to buy an ugly house!
To me, those road-runes are emblematic of how many are starting to feel. I watch how people react to Clark Kent's articles here, when he speaks out against Bush: direct, personal attacks on every possible aspect of his emotional, intellectual, psychological health and stability, rather than reasoned arguments about the issues. Dissenters are being marginalized rather than being allowed to raise their Constitutional voices in fair discussions or debates. I'm surprised there aren't more "crazed" individuals by now.
I'm leading up to the concept that perhaps the author of the article you read was grappling with how to shatter the stereotype of "Bush-haters" by describing the teacher? A lame attempt, obviously -- you, as a reader, felt manipulated rather than offered a new look at the person behind the impeachment demand. But still..?
I haven't read the original article (yet) or the preceding comment thread; I wanted the chance to respond directly to your article, first.
As to the issue, isn't it political v. commercial messages? Both are trying to influence decisions, one for direct monetary gain, one for indirect monetary gain. With the landowner's consent, either kind of sign may be placed upon private property. (I have seen many homes with political support signs, and many where a roofer or landscaper can advertise while working on the house or grounds.)
Then we get onto public property, and it all changes. Now someone has to assume that we all share a Group Mind like the Hive in Card's Ender series, and that we all march in lock-step. The easiest way to do that is to leave the public property signless except for those posters that speak of community events: community team try-outs, public concerts, village fairs -- that sort of thing.
I can see where the issue of impeaching Bush could be a true public concern, but between ennui, apathy, and inertia, we can't drag ourselves past the word "public" to get to "concern."
I would not place a political or commercial sign without permission.
I hate political signs littering the landscape, and would not put one in my yard, but others have the right. Public property, no. This is usually a local zoning issue, though. Here where I live, all signs on public property are not allowed. They are still, there, of course, but there is a zoning agent whose job it is to remove them.
I also agree with Sandy's comment re: who removes them. Around here, people put banners on overpasses saying "Welcome home, Pvt. Kelly" and the like, and after Mr. or Ms. Kelly is home, they forget about them. Thus there are tatted bits of sheets and flags hanging from the bridges months later. The same with yard sale signs.
So, Sandy, my answer is, yes and no. All or none.
The exception being, according to the Supreme Court, if you're a student holding up a "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" sign in a public place on school time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
(Let's hear it for John Paul Stevens!)
Just yesterday I read an excellent article by Clark Kent and of course the usual chorus of the hive mind swarmed around it in a semiliterate-at-best attack. (You know, a few of those right-wing gasbags are quite eloquent -- you'd think they would tell the buffoons to shut up and let someone who made it past junior high carry the flag for once, but no. Which is fine with me, because it's much more fun to kick a moron.) I think every time a crowd like that starts flinging mud with their misinformation, an angel who looks suspiciously like Edward R. Murrow gets his wings.
The same way they do at the national parks.
Freedom of speech/expression died when the supreme court appointed george ( Duh) bush president.
And I agree that political signs do not constitute a protest if they are not held by someone or worn.
Freedom of speech/expression died when the supreme court appointed george ( Duh) bush president. I agree. We lost everything when that happened. And that fool has convinced people that we are killing innocent people on the other side of the world to protect 'our freedom' - while he's here at home eroding it. grrrr
I saw a fun sign earlier - Impeach the son of a bush.
Maybe if you decide to call me 'Tim ' , then perhaps I'll re-consider! LOL
In a family home, the living room is public and the bedroom private. I would sit in the living room and paint my nails while talking to the family about what a fan I am of Gary Morris. But, when I finished, I would not leave my nail polish in that room. Nor would I permanently hang my Gary Morris poster over the couch, even though I would bring it into any room to show others, and I would wear my Gary Morris night shirt in any room. On the other hand, I believe it is appropriate to hang the poster over my bed and leave the nail polish on my night stand if I want.
I think I should respect my larger community the same.
Supporters for a candidate for a township office have placed campaign signs in the median of a public thoroughfare. This candidate is vehemently opposed by the sitting township supervisor, who happens to be nuts. The township supervisor, driving on said thoroughfare, sees the signs. Apparently enraged by a combination of a nemesis' name in his line of vision and the disregard of public property, the supervisor drove his car up the median curb and over a row of signs. In broad daylight. In front of witnesses.
Did I mention that he was nuts?
However, I must confess that I was forced to realize that I might have become equally irrational one time. A friend received a visit from a local politician's campaigners. She told them she did not support their candidate and tried to end the conversation.
One of the canvassers asked if it would be okay to place the candidate's sign (which was the size of a billboard instead of a yard sign) in her yard. She said no, she did not support the candidate, did not want the sign in her yard, and she closed the door.
When the friend went out later, not only was the sign in her yard, there was a matching bumper sticker on her car. Every house and car on the block had received the same gifts. If that had happened on my block, I might have done something similar to what the guy in your situation did.
One, the first amendment is above all else about FREE political speech. That is exactly how the founding fathers viewed it. Now, on public lands that is a different matter. Frankly either have an area where everyone can post their message or rule that no one can.
Two, as I read this I thought about my days on a college campus when the weather was perfect and all I wanted to do was sit outside and soak up the sun, only to be disturbed by some 'preacher' using a micorphone screaming at me. I really felt that something that should have been enjoyable to me was stolen by someone who thought he had the right not only to speak, but to make sure I couldn't escape it. So, I believe in freedom of speech, but not in freedom to broadcast it on a microphone.
Three, when I read your article I thought about how those spontaneous memorial sites that you now see off the highways honoring someone who died in a wreck. I still have mixed feelings about those and often wonder how the state patrol or local enforcement feel about them as well. It is a cultural phenomena that seems to have sprung up and seems to be getting more popular.
Anyway, I do tend to dislike writing that tries to persuade me to think a certain way by describing the people involved as 'gentle' and such. I also hate anything that uses children as part of the reasoning. 'It's for the children' sort of stuff. I don't care if it is best for the children, is it best for humanity? Besides, I don't really like children (some I do find tolerable) so if someone is trying to sell me something based on children saying the darnest things, then it really backfires.
And Lisa, the roadside memorials annoy me. For one thing, they make no sense to me. But then, I don't visit cemeteries, either. I can't imagine that I would want to return to the scene where something horrible happened to leave a remembrance. I would be more apt to avoid that spot.
That tushie munching being said, my opinion is that a sign on public property is not right. A sign on private property is just fine.
I lived in a city where you couldn't put any signage up except right on your lawn. That mean not on easements, sidewalks, boulevards or light poles. The police would come and tear them down. I think that's going a bit far, especially if you're trying to sell a house and your sign isn't visible at all unless it's next to the street.
I couldn't get to the link, by the way.