• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

When Free Speech Collides With Property Values

Nobody seems to want to answer my question. Would you want to live in a neighborhood where a guy had turned the 40-foot remnants of a burned-out house into a political diatribe?

(I'm assuming you don't already live in a neighborhood that's even worse...)


I have to put up with all the

"Its not a choice its baby" signs or the ones that say

"Heart beat at 6 weeks"

and even worse all the advertising on those big light up ones.
 
There is an area of town here where you can't hang laundry in the front yard, nor may you paint your house pink.

i would assume that he lives in an area that they just incorporated.
 
Nobody seems to want to answer my question. Would you want to live in a neighborhood where a guy had turned the 40-foot remnants of a burned-out house into a political diatribe?

(I'm assuming you don't already live in a neighborhood that's even worse...)

No, I wouldn't. Of course, I'm not particularly thrilled with with some of my neighbors' other choices for ornamentation either but at least I'm not required to keep my lawn x inches high nor to get approval for my exterior house colors.

It does seem that some more direct type of political action would be more productive than a sign.
 
From the language of the first line, if I were the city council, I'd sue for libel.

Some stupid people think this is all about Mexican illegals when it's actually about all illegals. Someone should also take a look at the guy who made the sign. Maybe he's illegal, too. Deport his sorry butt and *poof* problem solved!
 
From the language of the first line, if I were the city council, I'd sue for libel.

Some stupid people think this is all about Mexican illegals when it's actually about all illegals. Someone should also take a look at the guy who made the sign. Maybe he's illegal, too. Deport his sorry butt and *poof* problem solved!

Wow, yes, obviously the right thing to do.
 
This is my opinion... putting up with stuff like this - and far worse stuff, like huge light-up billboards about McDonalds, or the obnoxious "you are all going to HELL" sign I have to see right next to the post office every day - are part of the price we pay for freedom.

Now, I would love to go through my entire neighborhood and redecorate everyone's yard. But by a lucky chance, I can't do that legally. The great thing is no one can come and redecorate my yard either. That's really great because frankly my house looks like crap, and it's a heck of a lot bigger than this sign. Maybe I should paint a sign on it.

Somewhere in this thread the reader is asked
Would you want to live in a neighborhood where a guy had turned the 40-foot remnants of a burned-out house into a political diatribe?
Hey - I already do. There are signs all over the freaking place that I don't like. In fact I wish there weren't ANY signs at all. But guess what, there are. Into every life a little rain must fall. It's a lot better than living in a dictatorship so I take it with some salt.

And as far as devaluing your property, the economy has already taken care of that. No sign needed.
 
I sense your sarcasm, but I am confused by it. What in my suggestion was not "the right thing to do"?

Pretty much all of it. First, the words "fair comment and criticism" come to mind in regards to your supposed legal action. I doubt that boat floats, it's wearing concrete shoes.

Second your assumption that he's here illegally is pretty much downright racist. There are many reasons to think he's legal - he owns property, he is willing to become a public figure, he has been interviewed, etc. There is no reason to think he's here illegally - except his race.

So, in sum, everything.
 
Pretty much all of it. First, the words "fair comment and criticism" come to mind in regards to your supposed legal action. I doubt that boat floats, it's wearing concrete shoes.
If they can show he acted with reckless disregard for the facts and can show damages caused by his idiocy, then I don't think it's at all outlandish to suggest they may be able to state a claim and be granted relief. If not the city council as a body, then at least the individuals who sit on the council may be able to get something done about this.

Second your assumption that he's here illegally is pretty much downright racist.
Maybe it would be "racist" if I had made such an assumption. If you look closely, however, you'd see I did no such thing.

So, in sum, everything.
Which has now become nothing.
 
If they can show he acted with reckless disregard for the facts and can show damages caused by his idiocy, then I don't think it's at all outlandish to suggest they may be able to state a claim and be granted relief. If not the city council as a body, then at least the individuals who sit on the council may be able to get something done about this.
It's pretty much obviously fair comment and criticism, and if it ever goes to court, it's getting shot down, for the chilling effect if nothing else.

You can't just take any message you don't like and muzzle it, first amendment be damned. Hence "fair comment and criticism." You can't argue from that sign he took reckless disregard for the facts. You can't quote a single line that can be shown to be reckless disregard. You basically just quoted libel definition, and hoped it would fly.

Maybe it would be "racist" if I had made such an assumption. If you look closely, however, you'd see I did no such thing.
You have no reason to assume he's an illegal, and every reason to think he is not... except his race.
Which has now become nothing.
Why yes, that is the sum of your points, given you addressed nothing I wrote.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom