• 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

BPSCG

Penultimate Amazing
Joined
Mar 27, 2002
Messages
17,539
In Manassas's quaint, red-brick Old Town neighborhood, a giant billboard greets visiting tourists and commuters, but it was not put there by the city or Chamber of Commerce.

"PWC and Manassas the National Capital of Intolerence," it declares, in hand-painted, none-too-subtle red and blue block lettering. The sign, 40 feet long and 12 feet high, sits on the property of Gaudencio Fernandez, 47, a contractor who immigrated to the United States from Mexico in 1979.


What follows is a rambling indictment of Prince William County and Manassas, likening efforts to target illegal immigrants in the jurisdictions with slavery, Jim Crow laws and the Ku Klux Klan.

"We demand equality and justice for all," Fernandez's broadside concludes. "We will not be your slaves of the 21st century."


Since it first appeared last fall, the billboard, called "The Liberty Wall" by Fernandez's supporters because of its address at 9500 Liberty St., has become a political symbol and a rallying point for those who see it as a truth-to-power act of defiance. The sign's text has changed a few times, but its message has essentially remained the same: Latino immigrants have been exploited by ungrateful, racist white residents who took advantage of their labor and now want them to leave.


To many residents and business owners, "The Sign," as they call it, is an ugly diatribe and galling eyesore. Comparing tougher immigration enforcement with genocide and slavery is offensive, insulting and wildly exaggerated, they said.
Link with photo of the billboard.

"PWC" = Prince William County, which over the last year has enacted some tough ordinances aimed at illegals.

It appears there's no law in Manassas, Virginia, that prohibits putting up a billboard on your private property.

I guess you could say that the answer to free speech is more free speech, but would you want to live in a neighborhood peppered with angry billboards?

"Wetbacks go home!"
"We're Americans too!"
"If you're not here legally, quit complaining!"
"**** you, gringoes!"

Of course, I see more offensive stuff every day right on my own street. Just down the block is an Obama for President sign...
 
Last edited:
Well, zoning laws are a tough one, he might be set back from the street as well. My town allows them all over but then the other town gets all hooey at times and says that have to be set back and not beyond a certain size.

Considering the amount of all sorts of displays on private property it should be an interesting case.
 
From the Article said:
"If anyone can build anything they want where they want, then we don't have a building code," Hughes said. "We've balanced the issue of free speech with the need to enforce the building code".
Mr. Fernandez put up a sign critical of the local government. Citizens are free to either ignore him or put up a sign refuting his claims. Instead, it appears that the city is trying to find a way to use ordinances to surpress Mr. Fernandez' message.

BPSCG said:
I guess you could say that the answer to free speech is more free speech, but would you want to live in a neighborhood peppered with angry billboards?
No, I wouldn't want it, but I am willing to pay the cost if the alternative is that some speech is welcome and some is surpressed.
 
Mr. Fernandez put up a sign critical of the local government. Citizens are free to either ignore him or put up a sign refuting his claims. Instead, it appears that the city is trying to find a way to use ordinances to surpress Mr. Fernandez' message.

Well, that's the question, isn't it.

While I sympathize with Mr. Fernandez' message, I suspect that legally he is in the wrong. Of course, it's easy enough to deal with. Ask for planning permission to erect a billboard, and when the planning permission is denied (as it almost certainly will be), then turn around and claim free speech violation. The city council had better have a damned good reason for denying him the permit, because they will have to defend it in court.

Actually, I think the city has already failed. The publicity Mr. Fernandez is getting for the billboard fight is worth a dozen billboards....
 
It seems to me that the issues property rights and free speech are getting mixed and confused, no?

I suspect that if I put a sign that big in my front yard, my neighbors would sue me for damages to their property values, even if it read, "Welcome."
 
It seems to me that the issues property rights and free speech are getting mixed and confused, no?

I suspect that if I put a sign that big in my front yard, my neighbors would sue me for damages to their property values, even if it read, "Welcome."

Different legal system.

Your neighbors can sue you for anything they like, but they'd not have a case. ("Lowering your property value" isn't an actionable tort unless you can show that I did it in violation of some agreement or duty or something.) But that's civil law and the first amendment is irrelevant.

The CITY is trying to use local ordinances to remove the billboard, which makes it state action --- and the first amendment applies. They'll have to show to the satisfaction of the court that they're using reasonable pre-existing rules that are fairly and consistently enforced.
 
IANAL, so some of the premises here may be faulty; if so, I'd appreciate it if someone with more knowledge than I have could enlighten. Here's how I see it playing out:

I don't see how the city can force him to take it down. According to the story, there is no city law prohibiting signs on one's property. The claim that he should get a building permit for reinforcing the sign (which is the remnants of a house destroyed by fire) seems bogus to me; it looks like it's simply an attempt to lure him into the city's bureaucratic regulatory system so they can deny the permit and force him to tear down the remaining structure as being unsafe.

The city could pass an anti-sign ordinance, but that would be an ex post facto law, which the Constitution prohibits.

So the sign stays up until Fernandez decides to take it down or until some vigilantes burn it down at 3:00 am.

Once Fernandez wins his case, the neighborhood goes to hell, as people realize the sign is going to stay there. The first person sells his house, and gets less than what would otherwise be fair market value. Word quickly gets around that your house's value is dropping because of this permanent neighborhood eyesore, and as "less-desirable" people move into the neighborhood, more and more people move out.

A Hispanic on the block does not ruin a neighborhood. The neighborhood I lived in before Mrs. BPSCG and I got married looked like the United Nations, and my best friend on the block was a guy from Puerto Rico. It was a terrific neighborhood.

A crusading guy with a grudge and a large, ugly sign with an ugly message, can ruin a neighborhood.

Fernandez may be within his legal and Constitutional rights, but he's a jerk. He's complaining that everyone doesn't have the same access to the American dream, and instead of helping to build the American dream, does his best to turn his neighborhood into a slum.
 
He should spring for one of those electronic ones that displays scrolling text, with flashing lights and such. It would be more attractive and more effective. More noticeable, more visible at night, and he could change the text as often as he liked.

I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to apply a legible font and proper character spacing in an attractive and readable manner. I mean, come on, free speech and property values are fine things, but both pale in consideration when it comes to the matter of visual appeal! Style matters!
 
A Hispanic on the block does not ruin a neighborhood.

A crusading guy with a grudge and a large, ugly sign with an ugly message, can ruin a neighborhood.

So, some bigots lose money because other people notice and publicize they're bigots?

Gosh, golly. You have no idea how limited my sympathy is.


Fernandez may be within his legal and Constitutional rights, but he's a jerk.

So was Rosa Parks. Why didn't she just stay in the back of the bus where she belonged? And those uppity n-words at the University of Alabama? Why didn't they just stay home instead of forcing people to set off bombs in churches in protest?
 
...
"Wetbacks go home!"
"We're Americans too!"
"If you're not here legally, quit complaining!"
"**** you, gringoes!"

Of course, I see more offensive stuff every day right on my own street. Just down the block is an Obama for President sign...

Has everyone so far let this Obama comment slide? Or am I missing something, perhaps in the context?
 
He didn't put up a sign. He painted words on the remnant wall of a house that burned down, and reinforced the remnant wall so it wouldn't fall over.

Seems the homeowners don't have any kids who are of the proper age for vandalism, and graffiti, whereas is rougher neighborhoods, taggers and spray can artists could certainly be found in sufficient abundance to overwrite the message this gent put up in their 'hood.

Hey, suburban whitey, if you don't fight for your 'hood, it isn't yours anymore.

*cues up old Up With People song*

Freedom isn't free . . .

DR
 
Should he have the right to do it?

Yeah, he should. The end?

Certainly I don't see how 'property values' somehow constitutes an argument next to '1st amendment.'
 
So, some bigots lose money because other people notice and publicize they're bigots?
Wait a minute. Why does not wanting a huge ugly sign with a political message in your neighborhood make you a bigot?

I wouldn't want a sign like that on my block even if it started, "BPSCG is the most wonderful guy in the world because..."

So was Rosa Parks. Why didn't she just stay in the back of the bus where she belonged?
Rosa Parks was insisting on her right as a citizen to sit anywhere on the bus she wanted.

Are you saying Fernandez is insisting on his right to trash up the neighborhood he lives in?

The difference between Rosa Parks and Fernandez is easily demonstrated by Emmanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Act in such a way that if everyone acted like you, the world would be a better place.

America is a better place because everyone sits anywhere they want on a bus, without regard to their color.

Would Manassas, Virginia, be a better place if everyone there put up a 40-foot sign with an angry political message in their yard?

Would you think it was cool, if you lived there?
 
Wait a minute. Why does not wanting a huge ugly sign with a political message in your neighborhood make you a bigot?

I wouldn't want a sign like that on my block even if it started, "BPSCG is the most wonderful guy in the world because..."

Rosa Parks was insisting on her right as a citizen to sit anywhere on the bus she wanted.

Are you saying Fernandez is insisting on his right to trash up the neighborhood he lives in?

The difference between Rosa Parks and Fernandez is easily demonstrated by Emmanuel Kant's categorical imperative: Act in such a way that if everyone acted like you, the world would be a better place.

America is a better place because everyone sits anywhere they want on a bus, without regard to their color.

Would Manassas, Virginia, be a better place if everyone there put up a 40-foot sign with an angry political message in their yard?

Would you think it was cool, if you lived there?
You're interpreting Kant's words very literally.

Would the world be a better place if everybody sat in the front of the bus? Would the world be a better place if everyone became an engineer, or a farmer, or a president?
 
He didn't put up a sign. He painted words on the remnant wall of a house that burned down, and reinforced the remnant wall so it wouldn't fall over.
I think if you're living in a neighborhood where burned-out houses are allowed to stand around writing on the wall of one is the least thing affecting your property values.
 
Wait a minute. Why does not wanting a huge ugly sign with a political message in your neighborhood make you a bigot?

It doesn't. But there are two ways to deal with the huge ugly political sign.

The first is to destroy the sign.

The second is to destroy the REASON for the sign -- i.e. deal with the (political) content through the usual political process.

The fact that the city is taking the first course is what makes them bigots.

Rosa Parks was insisting on her right as a citizen to sit anywhere on the bus she wanted.

Are you suggesting that Rosa Parks was insisting upon her right to trash up the bus by putting her dirty black ass where it didn't belong?

Are you saying Fernandez is insisting on his right to trash up the neighborhood he lives in?

Nope. He's insisting on his right as a citizen to express whatever political opinions he wants.


America is a better place because everyone sits anywhere they want on a bus, without regard to their color.

Would Manassas, Virginia, be a better place if everyone there put up a 40-foot sign with an angry political message in their yard?

A better place than it would be if the city council could arbitarily tell people which 40-foot signs they could put in their yard? Which part of "YES" don't you understand?
 
The second is to destroy the REASON for the sign -- i.e. deal with the (political) content through the usual political process.
Sorry, that won't wash. You're saying then that any time anyone has a grievance against anyone for any reason, he should be allowed to express his displeasure by trashing up the neighborhood.

There's no such thing as an absolute right, not even free speech, not even life, liberty or property. Hence the title of this thread. People have the right to express their opinions. People also have the right to the quiet enjoyment of their own property. At some point, one man's right to speak freely comes into conflict with all his neighbors' right to the quiet enjoyment of their property. Do you think his neighbors have no rights in this matter whatsoever?

The fact that the city is taking the first course is what makes them bigots.
You have a very casual definition of the word bigot. If his sign said, "Drkitten is a wonderful human being and everyone should give him fifty dollars every day..." would the city be a bunch of bigots if they wanted that sign torn down, too?

BTW, if you read the story at all carefully, you see that the city is being very careful about how they are handling this, because of the racial issues involved. So I call BS on your claim of bigotry.

Are you suggesting that Rosa Parks was insisting upon her right to trash up the bus by putting her dirty black ass where it didn't belong?
This is utterly nonsensical.

Nope. He's insisting on his right as a citizen to express whatever political opinions he wants.
That right is not unlimited, though. I may think America is the greatest country on earth, but I can't get a can of red spray paint and express that opinion on the Washington Monument. Do you think his right to "express whatever political opinions he wants" is unlimited? If not, where do you draw the line?

A better place than it would be if the city council could arbitarily tell people which 40-foot signs they could put in their yard? Which part of "YES" don't you understand?
There's only one 40-foot sign in anyone's yard in Manassas, AFAIK. So having him remove it would not be "arbitrary."

And I notice you didn't answer my last question: Would you want to live there?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom