Texas Cops Seize Anti-GOP Sign From Homeowner's Lawn

from the whole-lot-of-stupid-everywhere-you-look dept

Stupid unconstitutional stuff is happening in Texas. "Again?" I hear you ask, irritated but not surprised. "Yes," I repeat. "In Texas, and involving local politicians and law enforcement." "Again?" I hear you say (again) and the circle of commentary life continues uninterrupted.

A resident of Hamilton, Texas, posted a political sign in her front yard composed of a white label board remix of political cartoonist Ann Telnaes' remix of the GOP logo.

Here's the original:

And here's the sign that was, until recently, in homeowner Marion Stanford's yard:

As one does in this age of social media telegraphy, outraged parties brought this to the attention of a local politician with a sizable following -- Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller -- who dumped his own petrol on the partisan bonfire by posting it to Facebook and calling it an example of "Democrat sleaze." He also claimed the picture was supposed to be "Judge Kavanaugh's young daughter" -- a claim made without supporting evidence but with the amplification of 738,000 Facebook followers.

Shortly thereafter, Marion Stanford began receiving threats. Unfortunately, this is the predictable part of the backlash. Stanford also received a visit from local law enforcement, which was a bit less predictable. But they weren't there about the threats. They were there about the sign, as the Dallas Morning News reports.

Tuesday evening, she said, police came to her house and said they had received complaints.

“Police told me to remove the sign or they would take it and would arrest me,” Stanford said. “So I let them take the sign.”

This claim has been denied by the city, which issued this statement via the city manager.

The city manager of Hamilton, which is about 100 miles southwest of Fort Worth, denied that police mentioned arrest or forcibly took the sign.

“It’s political season, and a citizen here placed a yard sign that featured a political animal taking an inappropriate position with a young child,” Pete Kampfer said. “A police member visited the owner’s home, and the owner asked the officer to take the sign.”

This denial is more than a little weird. First off, even if officers did not mention arrest, they said something that caused her to hand over the sign to them. The police had no business being there in the first place, so their presence is completely inexplicable… or is at least something the city manager isn't willing to explain.

Second, the whole sentence starting with "it's political season" makes zero sense. "Political season" or no, the sign was protected expression the government had no business interfering with. The addition of "taking an inappropriate position with a young child" suggests the city -- and possibly the police -- are no smarter than the idiot commenters on Sid Miller's page who claim the picture is pretty much child porn. It isn't and only someone hoping to see someone punished by the government for protected speech would make this claim. That group apparently includes the city manager.

This is lawsuit bait. Even if the police did not threaten arrest, officers did visit a citizen to discuss protected expression -- protected expression that ended up being removed by police officers and taken to the station. Whatever the chain of events, it makes everyone involved at the government level look bad. There was no reason to visit, much less take the sign. Even if the homeowner offered to give it up, officers shouldn't have been there to ask the question, much less take her up on her offer.


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Gary (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 9:34am

    Makes sense

    Because the people who shout "Snowflake" the loudest are the most easily offended.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:13am

      Re: Makes sense

      don't forget cheering liberal tears while their own supreme court pick cries and throws a tantrum on international television in congress.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:28am

        Re: Re: Makes sense

        Yea, the whole crying bit was a turn off, but if Kavanaugh was a Female facing the same accusations all the roles would be reversed though.

        The only thing Kavaugh's hearing proved was that once again... partisan politics and party come's before law and order and due process.

        But I am marking this down in my book the same as Trump. While I personally am not a fan of them, I sure does fill me with glee to see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left.

        I keep telling both parties that the more you allow your own corrupt and evil side to do this shit the more the other side is going to try to one up you on it next time.

        I look forward to the next round of bullshit that will be arriving just as George Washington predicted in his farewell address.

        Democrats and Republicans so deserve each other... the parties should get married just so they can go through a nasty divorce, wash, rinse, and repeat!

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:32am

          Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

          I thought Kavanaugh was being hysterical.

          He lied to congress and they are not going to do anything about it, color me not surprised.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Padpaw (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:36am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

            what did he lie about and when?

            I keep seeing people making this accusation, but they are never able to back it up when asked how he lied.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:25pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                okay many of those are more opinions... and the are not lies even if they are wrong. Lying requires the person to knowingly offer a false statement. While I myself do not think that Kavanaugh is being honest, the test has to be is Kavanaugh knowingly lying or does he have the same psychosis that pretty much most people have about history... and that would be revisionist. People can and definitely do lie to themselves and some do it so well they coach themselves into it so much that all they actually do remember is the lie, which is sadly now the truth for them.

                But I do agree that I would suspect that his descriptions of "Boofing" and "Devils Triangle" for example to be lies, not sure how those would change meaning because those kinds of definitions are set by majority opinion of peoples understandings of them.

                I did not read the whole list, but a lot of those look more like opinions about lies, they should have kept it more concise to the really obvious ones that are most likely to be lies.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:50pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                  Ok .. let us compare to past situations where the president lied. When Bill Clinton said he did not have sex with that woman, was he lying? Can you prove it? Is this the same level of scrutiny in each case? Are the same criteria being used?

                  Inquiring minds want to know.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Bruce C., 10 Oct 2018 @ 3:19pm

                  For what it's worth...

                  When I was in grad school, a friend called his dog Boofer because it would sexually assault anything from your leg to a wart-hog as long as it didn't resist. This was in the late 80s, so I don't think the meaning was much different for Kavanaugh than it was for my friend.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 3:38pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                  "I did not read the whole list" then you don't have any idea what you're talking about

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:45pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

              Breaking news at 11!

              Confronted with a link and a comprehensive list, will Padpaw scream "fake news" and just ignore, or will he have a sense of honor and admit he was wrong?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:05pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                But I have a list,
                a list, I tell you.
                Please believe my list.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:10pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                  lol, yea that list was hardly comprehensive... mostly fluff, but it does make some good points in a few places.

                  I for one suspect Kavanaugh intentionally lied, the problem is proving it though. That said, I get more of a kick out of seeing him make it to SCOTUS as people kick and scream.

                  They should have been way out in front with the Sexual Assault charges but they tried to use them in bad faith and it blew up in their face. If Kavanaugh is guilty and can be proven then the bullshit fucking antics of the Democrats HELPED get this guy a seat on the court rather than prevent it!

                  When you come to me in the hour of your peril I suspect you are up to foul play!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:53pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                    As if it were simply a chess game being played between two accomplished players with no outside influence and or interruption.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • identicon
                    bob, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:10pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                    But the hearing is not a court so beyond reasonable doubt is not required. Simply put he has to show he has the temperament to do the job, is qualified for the job, and is independent enough to be there. I think he failed those requirements regardless of his past actions involving Ford and the rest, but that doesn't make him guilty either.

                    I think it is more telling that the GOP chose that hill to die on as opposed to just picking someone else off the list provided to Trump. Lucky for them they didn't need to die to get the nomination. I mean really, why so desperate for him specifically? Was there no other good candidate that didn't have the potential baggage Brett might have had.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:49pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                      Yup, and now Kav will also face many instances where he should recuse himself but I doubt he will.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • identicon
                        Wendy Cockcroft, 11 Oct 2018 @ 6:07am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                        To be fair, on his first day on the job, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case he had adjudicated before. Kavanaugh had no say in whether or not this would happen, the others decided not to hear it.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2018 @ 7:41am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                          The comment to which you replied was not un fair, not sure why anyone should feel the need to be fair in situations like this.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Oct 2018 @ 9:28pm

                          the Supreme Court refused to hear a case he had adjudicated before. Kavanaugh had no say in whether or not this would happen, the others decided not to hear it.

                          Couldn’t Kavanaugh have recused himself from hearing the case so that it could be heard?

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Baron von Robber, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

              How do you play Devil's Triangle. Asking for a friend.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                bob, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:15pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                3 cups in a triangle.

                Then you take a quarter...



                And put it into the payphone to call up your buddy to come to your house because there is a drunk girl there. You each take a drink from one of the cups and then ...



                shake hands, say good night, and return home because you are a good religious boy that would never do anything bad, oh and you are a virgin.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:50pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                It is not a drinking game

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:40am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

            I don't know if I would call that hysterical, but like art that is up for interpretation. He certainly did not do himself any favors by acting that way, and like you, I am not surprised either.

            Congress gets lied too all the time, and they do nothing about it most of the time and usually because it serves some end.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:56pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

              I say he was hysterical with tongue in check for obvious reasons.

              I have seen congress critterz get their panties in a twist just at the implication that someone they do not like lied to them ... and then - they just ignore plain nd outrageous violations when it is their dude messin up.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            stderric (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:15pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

            I thought Kavanaugh was being hysterical.

            As John Oliver observed, "I hate to say it, but I’m starting to think that men might be too emotional for the supreme court."

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

              I loved that statement!

              I don't agree with most of John Oliver's politics but he is hilarious and usually makes good points. Though I bet if he was a female the story would be different.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              stderric (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 3:57pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

              I get to keep 15% of those "Insightful" and "Funny" votes for myself, right?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:45pm

          if Kavanaugh was a Female

          Hi there, Mr. Incel! You may want to know that “female” is generally an adjective, not a noun, and using “female” as a stand-in for “woman” or “girl”—especially if you do not use “male” as a stand-in for “man” or “boy”—makes you sound creepy as fuck. This has been your helpful lesson of the day! 👋

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Padpaw (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:44am

        Re: Re: Makes sense

        I thought it was a much more convincing display than the fake crying Ford did.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

          She didn’t. You might want to get your eyeglass prescription and hearing aid batteries checked.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Christenson, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:28pm

          Kavanaugh's Convincing Display...

          I was convinced by Kavanaugh's display:
          a) He was an underage drunk in high school. That's not necessarily a disqualifier; most of my high school friends drank undereage, and so did I.
          b) He was lying about it in the face of the evidence of his yearbook. Renate alumnus? Beach week Ralph club???

          I've talked to some others that think he was showing all the signs of being hung over, too...so I speculate that he still has an active drinking problem which will lead to an interruption of his time on the bench fairly soon.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:42pm

          Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

          And here we see your true colors, of course.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:28pm

        Re: Re: Makes sense

        Just because rapelicans are the biggest snowflakes, and hypocrites..

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:52pm

        Re: Re: Makes sense

        Liberals are right to be angered over the GOP STEALING a SCOTUS seat from Obama.

        The American people did not choose to make Trump choose SCOTUS nominees, we voted for Hillary Clinton.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
          identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:05pm

          Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

          The GOP did not steal anything, they just won the politics.

          And we are NOT a democracy so Hillary needed to win the Electoral College instead of the popular vote.

          And yes, all of this IS the will of the American people. The government we have is the government we "collectively" ask for. You want to change that? go for it, it is a free country but you will fare much better if you first learn how it works vs running around with ignorant statements like that.

          Obama wasted his load on Obamacare and it cost him. Then he managed to piss off enough people (along with Democrats abuse of Bernie) to make America swing in Trumps direction. And SCOTUS nominees was one of the issues during the election so ahem... yea... we did choose to make Trump the person nominating judges to SCOTUS.

          Democrats could have likely beat Trump if they had any fucking sense but they don't, instead they ran a total loser cunt... Hillary!

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Baron von Robber, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:10pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

            Looks like it worked better than Drumpf and Putin thought.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:16pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

              When America is full of a bunch of indoctrinate morons like you... you fucking bet it worked well.

              Idiot lefties get to blame every position a righty takes as Russian propaganda never realizing that such claims equally mislead you as well.

              Everyone share ideas and concepts that the best and worst of humanity has had.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Baron von Robber, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                So triggered. Don't melt snowflake. That makes global warming real.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:01pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                Hey Comrade,
                How's the vodka this fall .. better than last year?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • identicon
                Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 3:53pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

                "When America is full of a bunch of indoctrinate morons like you... you fucking bet it worked well.

                pot, meet kettle...

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:19pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

            Not this crap AGAIN. The USA very much a democracy, not matter how many times you idiots whine that we are not.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 1:52pm

            The GOP did not steal anything

            Barack Obama did not refuse to give Merrick Garland a single hearing; the Senate did. Neil Gorsuch did not jump in line ahead of Merrick Garland; the Senate made sure the seat was open for him after the 2016 election (and after the scary Black man was no longer POTUS). Donald Trump did not, as far as I know, order the GOP to withhold the Garland nomination for nearly a year just so Trump could fill Antonin Scalia’s vacant seat on the bench; the GOP did that to make sure they could eventually seat a pro-life conservative on SCOTUS.

            The GOP stole a SCOTUS nomination from Barack Obama because he dared to nominate someone in the last year of his presidency—and, by Mitch McConnell’s own admission, because the Republicans held control of the Senate. If Mitch McConnell is willing to go on live TV and say the GOP held up the Garland nomination for the sake of partisan politics, what makes it so wrong to call what they did “stealing the Supreme Court”?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:04pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Makes sense

            Did not steal, ok definitions are good.

            They are huge hypocrites.
            No one likes a hypocrite.

            ... or a liar
            ... or a pussy grabber
            ... or a rapist
            ... or a sexual predator

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Nobody Interesting, 10 Oct 2018 @ 10:48am

    What?

    No, no, no. Art depicting sexual acts with children is illegal in all 50 states, dude. It's a felony. Doesn't matter if it's political speech or not.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Bamboo Harvester (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 10:54am

      Re: What?

      Yup.

      And it sounds like the cops handled it well. My local cops would probably have done something similar - "If you leave that up, someone who has had a child molested will likely vandalize your house. Or file a lawsuit. Or force us to arrest you."

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Gary (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:24am

        Re: Re: What?

        And it sounds like the cops handled it well. My local cops would probably have done something similar - "If you leave that up, someone who has had a child molested will likely vandalize your house. Or file a lawsuit. Or force us to arrest you."

        You understand that is the Exact Opposite of the job the police are supposed to perform, right?

        They should be there to say, "We'll keep an eye on your house because some people are grumbling." Not, "Well it'd be a damn shame if your house gets vandalized."

        That sign was not any sort of illegal graphical content - otherwise the police department would have said so clearly, instead they denied any sort of legal force.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:33am

          Re: Re: Re: What?

          "You understand that is the Exact Opposite of the job the police are supposed to perform, right?"

          Not entirely correct according to history.

          Keeping the peace is also a function of the police, which means you can totally be arrested for doing something totally legal but happens to still breach the peace. Or have you not been watching any news for the past several years?

          You can be arrested for pretty much anything, including for your own protection, yes I agree that is a bullshit reason, but unfortunately that is also seen as a valid excuse for some police departments and judges.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Bamboo Harvester (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:36am

          Re: Re: Re: What?

          It isn't? "Clearly"?

          She GAVE them the sign. They didn't seize it.

          My suspicion is that the cops warned her of the trouble it'd cause *to her and her family* if she left it up.

          Says right in the article that she told them to take it. Which kinda kills the headline of them "seizing" it.

          Maybe YOU don't think it falls under child porn (Graphic depiction of a sexual act on a child). Maybe a court would agree. After costing the woman everything she owns in legal fees fighting it.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:55am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What?

            "Says right in the article"
            Yes, the city manager (who wasn't there) said that. The owner of the sign says otherwise. What's your point?

            Also in that article that you clearly read, it says that an actual law professor and other unnamed legal experts says that it's protected speech. I'll take their opinion over yours.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:02pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What?

              You apparently did not comprehend what he posted, lets repeat it.

              "Maybe YOU don't think it falls under child porn (Graphic depiction of a sexual act on a child). Maybe a court would agree. After costing the woman everything she owns in legal fees fighting it."

              He offered no opinion of his own.

              "Also in that article that you clearly read, it says that an actual law professor and other unnamed legal experts says that it's protected speech. I'll take their opinion over yours."

              I know right? There is no such thing as two professionals with the same credentials that "disagree" on anything. I mean... why do we even have courts anyways? This shit should be easy.

              Do us a favor, go an post the same sign in you front yard and let us know how it all works out. I assure you we would all be very interested in the results.


              After costing YOU the legal fees fighting it!

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Whoever, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:56pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: What?

            She GAVE them the sign. They didn't seize it.

            BULLSHIT

            The simplest way to deal with the sign was to merely remove it from the front lawn and optionally put it in the trash. Why would the home owner ask the police to take it?

            The city's account is simply not credible. A much more likely explanation is that the police insisted on taking it so that the home owner would not put it back in place as soon as the police had left.

            Occam's razor suggests that the police are lying.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:03am

      Re: What?

      I know a forty something where that would be a reasonable cartoon representation of, never mind young adults of college age, so why did you jump to the conclusion it is a child being depicted.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Will B., 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:10am

      Re: What?

      Cite statute, please, bearing in mind that this cartoon was A) A cartoon, not an image of a real child, B) in no way explicit, and C) clearly protected political speech.

      "Art depicting sexual acts with children" when defined broadly can include classics like Lolita, which to the best of my knowledge isn't banned anywhere in the US. Explicit pornography involving real children is banned. (And of course, having sex with a real child is illegal - supposedly. Unless the person having sex with real children is a Republican politician. But no, this sign is clearly what's wrong with America...)

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 14 Oct 2018 @ 3:46pm

        Lolicon, Nabakov's classic, etc.

        Works that portray child sexuality, sex with children etc. etc. are currently in legal limbo. We have states in which it's legal so long as actual children weren't involved, and we have states in which it's illegal even if it's a bad stick figure drawing. In some states, whether or not your lolicon scene in your otherwise non-pornographic manga can be jailable or not depending on what county you live in, so it's good to know the local laws.

        But things have been very weird. In the 70s when NAMBLA was still a thing. We hadn't yet had the Satanic Ritual Abuse scare (which started the great pedophile scare in the 80s). The Tiny Treasures cologne adverts were not even blinked at, and stories about teens getting it on were common airport-pulp reading.

        Incidentally, all this stuff only matters regarding portrayals of sex with children. Many states actually endorse sex with children if it's licensed, id est, the partner marries the tyke first. We still have judge-endorsed child marriages in the US as young as 11-years-old, and yes they're expected to perform their bridal duties that young.

        In the 1990s, we still had 9-year old brides. Can't speak for the aughts. But prior to that, child marriage was entirely legal (with consent of parents or a judge) and far from being a rare thing. Protection of children from early marriage is one of those ways America hasn't yet been made great.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Will B., 20 Oct 2018 @ 1:39pm

          Re: Lolicon, Nabakov's classic, etc.

          All this waffling about state and county is pretty meaningless when we know where this event took place. I'm still waiting for a relevant statute that declares non-obscene, clearly-political depictions of stick-figure girls being felt up by elephants illegal.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2018 @ 3:11am

        Re: Re: What?

        "Cite statute"
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003

        "'Art depicting sexual acts with children' when defined broadly can include classics like Lolita, which to the best of my knowledge isn't banned anywhere in the US."
        It's been banned since 2003.

        There was even a famous case when Christopher Handley was the first to be charged under the new law. Not only was his life screwed up, even with the acts of "sexualization of minors" charges dismissed, the law still remains uncontested in court (who'd fight it?).

        No, the PROTECT Act ensures at any time, the government can pull out another ridiculous charge at any time.

        So if you have a copy of "Lolita" lying about... you've been warned.

        ***

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Uriel-238 (profile), 15 Oct 2018 @ 11:52am

          PROTECT act...

          I know since then the law's been challenged, but I can't say how successfully. Allan Moore's _Lost Girls,_ for instance, depicts child sexuality, but is not on the current challeged books list.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Will B., 20 Oct 2018 @ 1:26pm

          Re: Re: Re: What?

          From your own damned link:

          This decision was consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition in which the Supreme Court held that virtual child pornography was protected free speech, provided that the virtual depictions are not obscene. Obscenity, including obscene depictions of children, either virtual or real, is unprotected speech.

          United States district court Judge James E. Gritzner ruled that two parts of the PROTECT Act criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" were unconstitutional.

          The actual overview of the act:

          Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition.

          Regarding the Miller Test:

          Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

          Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[3] specifically defined by applicable state law,

          Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[4]

          The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

          So, once again: Cite statute, please, *bearing in mind that the portrayal is clearly not obscene, and is clearly protected political speech."

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      stderric (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:11am

      Re: What?

      I have to assume the arrest of Ann Telnaes and the editors of the Washington Post will be announced soon.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:34am

      Re: What?

      I am wondering why some folk are so offended by the poster
      ... does it ring a bit too close to home?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Padpaw (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:39am

      Re: What?

      That's what I thought.

      Having a sign implying the republican party supports molesting children seems like it would be breaking at least a few laws.

      Doesn't seem like a free speech issue when you are accusing someone of being a child predator.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        bob, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:11pm

        Re: Re: What?

        The owner of the sign was stating an opinion not a fact nor is she accusing in the legal system anyone of anything.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:12pm

        Re: Re: What?

        But is doesn’t. And even if it did it’s still protected free speech. How bout you take remedial civics class as you seem to be unaware of what constitutes free speech.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:06pm

        Re: Re: What?

        What law?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:20pm

        Re: Re: What?

        "Having a sign implying the republican party supports molesting children seems like it would be breaking at least a few laws."

        But you don't name any, so we can assume you don't actually know.

        "Doesn't seem like a free speech issue when you are accusing someone of being a child predator."

        Who is this "someone" you speak of?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Mike Masnick (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 3:07pm

        Re: Re: What?

        Having a sign implying the republican party supports molesting children seems like it would be breaking at least a few laws.

        It does not. It literally breaks no laws, because the First Amendment makes it clear that any law it would break would be unconstitutional. Please, please, please learn something about the First Amendment before making such dumb claims.

        Doesn't seem like a free speech issue when you are accusing someone of being a child predator.

        Uh. Seriously, you are flat out wrong. You should learn something about the First Amendment. This does not accuse someone of being a child predator, it is protected speech. You are wrong.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 3:14pm

        Re: Re: What?

        Having a sign implying the republican party supports molesting children seems like it would be breaking at least a few laws.

        By that logic, all the Christians who say “all LGBT people are pedophiles” would be breaking a few laws—but I have yet to see any of those Christians arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime for doing that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Tanner Andrews (profile), 11 Oct 2018 @ 1:32am

        Re: Re: What?

        Having a sign implying the republican party supports molesting children seems like it would be breaking at least a few laws.

        Depends on how you define law. Let us consider a few.

        (1) Observation of science, e.g. ``law of matire''. Nope.

        (2) Law of math, e.g. commutative law. Nope.

        (3) Law of the U.S. Nope, not even plausible due to First Amendment.

        (4) Law of Texas. Maybe, not licensed there, and Texas does some weird stuff. However, due to incorporation, Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697,707 (US 1931), any such weird stuff would be struck down. So, nope.

        (5) Law of the imagination of Padpaw. Well, maybe, I suppose, but that is a rather weak and surprising sort of law.

        Are you sure that you are not just full of something organic and odoriferous? Until that is answered, I doubt that we would benefit from exploring whether a political party that associates with Roy Moore can actually be defamed.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 10:52am

    So there were 6 zeros on the settlement check.... then the city manager spoke... I think we're up to 9 now...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Valkor, 10 Oct 2018 @ 10:53am

    Facts not in evidence

    Everyone knows that "Judge Kavanaugh's young daughter" is a girl without arms. Using her as a political tool is really beyond the pale...

    I hate grandstanding politicians.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Yudi Zerva-Sheesh, 10 Oct 2018 @ 10:53am

    Anti-police Techdirt: police should NEVER de-fuse a situation.

    "protected expression" overlooks the sheer fact that enraging people isn't wise.

    Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence. It's too bad that even if the accusation leveled in your headline is true, though you soon back off it, but the obvious way is to remove the sign.

    The First Amendment -- which foreigners don't even have written down anywhere -- still isn't absolute.

    I advise you test your notions in the UK where you apparently live, if call that living: just wear the wrong color jersey into a pub where ardent fans of the local football club hang out. And DO NOT then call the police to protect you, but keep insisting in your right. Enjoy.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:20am

      Re: Anti-police Techdirt: police should NEVER de-fuse a situation.

      objection: without outrage there will be no change

      This is essentially MLK Jr. and his issue with the white moderate. "Calm down and wait your turn". The system as it currently stands does not redress abuse or tyranny.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:37am

      Re: Anti-police Techdirt: police should NEVER de-fuse a situation.

      You seem to be twisting about just to maintain your pov in a world that disagrees.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Roddy (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:40am

      I have so many problems with this ridiculous post that I would like to carefully address all of them.

      "protected expression" overlooks the sheer fact that enraging people isn't wise.

      And? Pissing people off isn't a good idea, true. That doesn't mean you're not allowed to ever say anything ever.

      Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence.

      Back up a moment. Let's take a look at the "imminent violence" claim that didn't exist until you came along. Were there armed thugs on the property ready to shed blood if the cops didn't immediately step in and take action? No? Because established law--in fact, it literally IS common law--makes it pretty clear that anything short of a situation like that is not grounds for police intervention. Or any level of government intervention. (foreshadowing)

      It's too bad that even if the accusation leveled in your headline is true, though you soon back off it, but the obvious way is to remove the sign.

      The obvious way to...what? To prevent people being offended? To stop hypothetical violence that nobody has any reason to believe is imminent? Well, I've got news for you.

      The First Amendment -- which foreigners don't even have written down anywhere -- still isn't absolute.

      That middle part seems to be a total non-sequitur, but I'll agree with you on the rest of it. Yes, the First Amendment is still open to interpretation. We learn more about its reach with every major court decision. For example, this decision from last year, which affirms that Texas governor Greg Abbott did indeed violate the first amendment by removing a state-approved "nativity scene" parody. Note how it goes to great lengths to cite Matal v Tam, a supreme court decision that's barely a year old now. In fact, if it had been on the books just a little bit earlier, there would be no ambiguity about Abbott's personal liability in this situation (the court found he is liable regardless, but he's still appealing that decision because of course he is).

      Anyway, that is a practical example of exactly what happens when the government steps in to try controlling "offensive" speech. Quite a bit different from the picture you seem to be painting.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Valkor, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:46am

      Re: Anti-police Techdirt: police should NEVER de-fuse a situation.

      I might limit my expression because I am wise enough to not want soccer hooligans to pound me into jelly.

      I do not accept the assertion that I should limit myself because a police officer might do the same for something similarly legal.

      Back to this story, if cops had shown up, said that there were complaints and they were concerned for her safety, and would she mind doing something different with the sign, there wouldn't even BE a story. The fact that the police left with the sign in their possession doesn't support that scenario.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 7:44pm

        Association Football Hooligans...

        ...will pound you to jelly for calling it soccer.

        But this explains why I find most spectator sports a bit culty.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:14pm

      Re:member last week when you promised to leave

      Why do you hate the constitution?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:07pm

      "protected expression" overlooks the sheer fact that enraging people isn't wise.

      And yet, you keep coming back here every day.

      Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence.

      Two things.

      1. Please define “common law” as you understand it, so everyone is on the same page.

      2. Police officers do have the right to stop imminent violence, but they must still act within the restraints of the law—which means silencing perfectly legal speech because someone might incidentally get angry enough to throw a punch at the speaker is a First Amendment lawsuit waiting to be filed.

      even if the accusation leveled in your headline is true, though you soon back off it, but the obvious way is to remove the sign

      Again: The sign is protected speech. What makes the person who put it up responsible for the reactions of others? The reactionaries are the ones who cannot control their tempers long enough to just keep walking by; if the reactionary throws a punch at the speaker, the speaker should not be punished for getting hit in the face. Doing so is little-to-no better than blaming a female rape victim for her own rape by saying she dressed like she wanted sex.

      The First Amendment -- which foreigners don't even have written down anywhere -- still isn't absolute.

      Another two things.

      1. What the flying orange-and-blue blur do “foreigners” have to do with any of this?

      2. Yes, thank you for telling us something we already know.

      just wear the wrong color jersey into a pub where ardent fans of the local football club hang out. And DO NOT then call the police to protect you, but keep insisting in your right.

      It is absolutely a person’s right to wear, say, a Jacksonville Jaguars jersey in the middle of a bar full of Carolina Panthers fans. If the Jaguars fan gets beaten up over their shirt, they should not be blamed for getting beaten up; it would be no better than blaming a woman for being raped because she was wearing a skimpy dress.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      JMT (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:28pm

      Re: Anti-police Techdirt: police should NEVER de-fuse a situation.

      "Peace officers -- under common law -- are supposed to find some way to stop imminent violence."

      Please explain to the class why peace officers, presumably under your "common law", failed to immediately confiscate all the signs and torches being carried by those fine people protesting in Charlottesville. The outcome there was very predictable.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    3 ways, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:12am

    Either cops came and took it and officials lied about it. She did something with it lied about it being taken or someone who does not like the message impersonated one and took it and they actually have no idea and are telling the truth.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:19am

      Re:

      everyone lies, the trick if finding out which one is telling the least amount of lies or the least damaging lies.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Padpaw (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:48am

        Re: Re:

        I find when it comes to people happen that hate trump for whatever reason make the claim they are a victim. The "victim" teds to be found out as lying to gain sympathy or to smear their accusers.

        I am not talking about Ford and kavanaugh. There are plenty of examples I saw in the media after Trump got elected where people claimed they were victims of racism. Where it turned out they made the whole thing up to try and make republicans looks bad. Every single one of them got charged with filing false police reports, that's why it made the news.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:00pm

          "false police reports"

          Channeling Alex Jones: OR... it is actually a false flag operation by Republican intriguers to discredit Democrats/neutrals with legitimate issues regarding racism/class-ism.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:07pm

            Re: "false police reports"

            Well, not that I have any love for Republicans, but it's not hard to discredit Democrats.

            Most charges of racism are well beyond over cooked. And sure classism exists... the problem is you are practicing it right now.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Will B., 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:24pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          There are plenty of examples I saw in the media after Trump got elected where people claimed they were victims of racism. Where it turned out they made the whole thing up to try and make republicans looks bad.

          Cite them. Shouod be easy if they're as pervasive as you claim. (Also, isn't Trump the one saying the media are enemies of America? If so, why would you see these stories in "the media"?)

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:10pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          People are assholes, and you will find a few in every group ... and this is news to you?

          In addition, why do some people paint an entire stereotypical group based solely upon the actions of a few within said group?

          Because it is expedient and the end justifies the means - they are assholes.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 7:34pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Well the only one so far who'd falsely accused Roy Moore was that undercover operative from right-wing false news manufacturer Project Veritas.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Lizz V, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:54am

      Re:

      The city manager admitted the cops took the sign, so that's not up for argument, what is is dispute is if the sign owner was threatened with arrest or otherwise pressured to give it to them. It's a blatent 1A violation either way.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:18am

    Not so fast

    "It isn't and only someone hoping to see someone punished by the government for protected speech would make this claim."

    I agree with you that this picture is not CP, but that does not mean a judge will agree with you.

    According the the "definition" of CP "depictions" even if they are cartoons is still no bueno and clearly leaves it "open to interpretation". Considering the landscape around "guilty until proven innocent" today I would not be willing to test your theory legally even though I agree with it.

    The reactions during Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing is more than enough proof that things are coming off the hinges.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      Padpaw (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:49am

      Re: Not so fast

      people were throwing temper tantrums non stop ever since Hillary lost. This is nothing new on the political scene.

      I think for some groups they have been holding a 2 year long temper tantrum at this point over Trump being president.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:57am

        Re: Re: Not so fast

        what I like is that the same group that wants to crucify Kavanaugh would support Hillary who supported her husband and Bill has far more evidence of predatory male behavior than Kavanaugh.

        It just goes to my party before everything else accusation.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Not so fast

          Was there an investigation into said behaviors? Why did said behavior not become a national issue? All they had was he lied about a blowjob.

          Wow - so let us not investigate Kav because Bill ... something something.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:15pm

        Re: Re: Not so fast

        Yes while the president and his supporters do act like children on a daily basis. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Will B., 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:28pm

        Re: Re: Not so fast

        Oh hey, a reverse ButHillary.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:13pm

        Re: Re: Not so fast

        I see the list of people Trump wants to lock up is increasing.
        You think Kav will vote to lock up political opponents?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Christenson, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:17pm

      Re: Not so fast -- blurred lines

      Especially not in Hamilton, Texas, where the first amendment seems not to have reached, I would not want to test whether that sign is CP.

      But it is an excellent illustration of both a slippery slope and how dirty-minded we all are.

      An elephant is juxtaposed next to a nonspecific painting female child saying "help!". It is clearly the satiric bite that bothers us, neither piece of the image is in any way questionable. Pretty obviously, no harm to children is involved -- unless it is the very indirect harm of conveying that this kind of thing is actually acceptable with real people.

      Pretty obviously, one can make the image more and more realistic in any of a number of ways without actually harming any real children.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:42pm

        Re: Re: Not so fast -- blurred lines

        I agree that this is obviously a protected political speech, but we both know there is a judge that thinks otherwise and the "sensibilities" of many different people are easily offended to the degree that the 1st Amendment is now mostly trash and only available to those with the time, energy, and money to fight for it or part of a group ensuring their right to it but not others.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:12pm

          I agree that this is obviously a protected political speech, but we both know there is a judge that thinks otherwise

          We have appellate courts and the Supreme Court, as well as decades of case law on the matter, to help make sure one judge’s personal opinion on a political sign does not override a person’s First Amendment rights. Any judge who rules that sign to be “unprotected speech” is practically asking to have their verdict appealed and overturned in short order.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Get off my cyber-lawn! (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:33am

    Everything is bigger in Texas...

    including the F*&@ UPS.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:57pm

      Re: Everything is bigger in Texas...

      Well, we did sent Bush to the Presidency and created a bunch of spying and tyrannical laws that Obama took a lot of advantage of himself and supported.

      It's almost like Texas fucks it all up and the rest of you follow suit!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Gary (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 11:39am

    Porn

    If the police thought that a cartoon of an armless woman could be called "Child Porn" they wouldn't be stating that the police did not threaten to charge the homeowner. They would be proudly stating that they were told to take it down or face child porn charges. (Or seriously, if cops think CP charges are real, they would just arrest them without an option to remove sign.)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 12:39pm

    and there is nothing wrong with what's happening in the USA? who are you trying to kid? it's creating the same situations that happened in a country that was fought against 70 years ago! police state is definitely an understatement!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    bob, 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:28pm

    think of the children.

    Really if you look at it you will see the elephant is just holding onto the dress. Just like they hold tails and trunks of other elephants. After all the girl doesn't have arms.

    The little girl is trying to get help because the elephant is lost. Poor poor elephant, he is just sad, scared, and lonely. But only an armless girl has the compassion to help the little elephant.

    May we all put similar signs in our yards to remind us of our duty to help lost elephants. I know I want to.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    NeghVar (profile), 10 Oct 2018 @ 2:54pm

    Distasteful, but covered by the first

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 3:03pm

    Hopefully women will learn kung fu and aggressively defend themselves because it is apparent that the government is complicit in the harassment / abuse and will do nothing to stop it, make it worse they will.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 4:31pm

    RIP free speech in Texas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 4:54pm

    What a mess

    It's like Techdirt gets off with this much fighting.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anomalous Cowherd, 10 Oct 2018 @ 6:17pm

    Old usenet newsgroups

    alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.abuse.pachyderm

    alt.binaries.pictures.erotica.Groping.Old.Pedophiles

    GOP 's been dicking around for decades. Sad.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Oct 2018 @ 6:39pm

    When my daughter asked about the sign I told her the man that lived there was a convicted sexual offender and never be near him or his property under any circumstances. #mentoo

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dickeyrat, 11 Oct 2018 @ 5:19am

    We languish now in the Age Of Trump. The story describes how things are done in a Fascist dictatorship. Get used to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    me, 11 Oct 2018 @ 6:32am

    Sue all parties involved.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2018 @ 7:37am

    "Even if the homeowner offered to give it up, officers shouldn't have been there to ask the question, much less take her up on her offer."

    Nevertheless, it was very nice of the cops to offer a free PSRS (Political Sign Removal Service).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2018 @ 7:54am

    If this were a Banksy piece rather than a lawn sign it would be praised and scorned by many while becoming a part of history, possibly being sold for lots of cash.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John85851 (profile), 11 Oct 2018 @ 11:09am

    Party loyalty comes first

    When I started to read the quote from the city manager as: "It’s political season, and a citizen here placed a yard sign..." I thought he was going to talk about her right to free speech *especially* during an election year.
    But, nope, this is America in 2018, where party politics rule and rights are trampled to protect the party.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 11 Oct 2018 @ 12:25pm

    While I think that sign is in pretty bad taste, and I really take issue with saying someone is GUILTY with zero facts showing such. You know Innocent until PROVEN guilty!!!

    I'm all for a rapist being thrown into jail. But I could list a number of well-known cases where someone or a group of people were accused of RAPE, and it ended up being a LIE!!!

    If she was raped and we have ZERO facts now that shows that to be true, she should have called the police, then be taken to the hospital where evidence could have then been gathered. Not wait 30+ years later. This guy has also been through like 6 past FBI background checks over the years being a Federal Judge. Yet all that has been clean every time.

    This woman doesn't know what year it happened. Where it happened. When it happened. All the people she names were there have denied it happening or that he was ever there.

    This leftest don't care about her or the rape IF it happened. They only care about Trump not getting his pick. Because they hate Trump and anything he does and have non-stop been trying to stop anything and everything he does.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 11 Oct 2018 @ 1:18pm

      Innocent until PROVEN guilty

      That is a standard for a court of law. I can think Kavanaugh is as guilty as Bill Cosby, but my opinion means nothing in terms of what can be proven in a court of law.

      I'm all for a rapist being thrown into jail. But I could list a number of well-known cases where someone or a group of people were accused of RAPE, and it ended up being a LIE

      Yes, false accusations hurt the credibility of real rape survivors with real accusations. The point of movements such as #MeToo, then, is to ensure that the real survivors can make their accusations without being brushed aside or ignored. The police should investigate all such accusations for as much evidence that either proves or disproves the story. “Trust but verify” is what is being called for, not “believe all women no matter what” (nor “never believe any other women because one woman lied”).

      she should have called the police, then be taken to the hospital where evidence could have then been gathered

      She probably “should” have done a lot of things…but I cannot imagine how many of them would have made her a perfect, unassailable, wholly credible victim to you. This is largely what your opinion boils down to: “Because she is not the perfect victim—for whatever reason(s)—she is at least a liar.”

      This guy has also been through like 6 past FBI background checks over the years being a Federal Judge. Yet all that has been clean every time.

      The FBI cannot generally find what they do not know to look for, and neither Kavanaugh nor his associates apparently let on that Dr. Ford might ever have been a “problem” for him at any point. If only Kavanaugh, Ford, and that friend of Kavanaugh’s knew about the (alleged) assault, how could the FBI have ever learned about it by interviewing Kavanaugh, who had every reason to lie to/mislead the FBI about it?

      This woman doesn't know what year it happened. Where it happened. When it happened.

      And yet, she directly answered every question asked of her by the Senate to the best of her recollection, whereas Kavanaugh dodged and weaved on similar questions. Whether she can remember every exact detail some 40 years later does not make her story less credible; if anything, the fact that she willingly went before the Senate and answered all their questions says a lot about her credibility. A liar tends to avoid the possibility of being caught lying.

      Do I believe she was assaulted? Absolutely; she has nothing to gain by lying about that. Do I believe Kavanaugh was the one who assaulted her? I believe it is possible—and even likely. Do I think Kavanaugh should be convicted of a crime based on everything we know and everything that can be proven? No. Do I think he deserves his spot on the Supreme Court? Hell no—but not for the sole reason of my thinking he likely assaulted Dr. Ford.

      All the people she names were there have denied it happening or that he was ever there.

      [citation needed]

      This leftest don't care about her or the rape IF it happened. They only care about Trump not getting his pick.

      We can care about both. If Kavanaugh did assault Dr. Ford, he should not be a judge. If he did not assault her, he still should not be a judge based on the displays of anger and partisanship he put on display in his final hearing prior to his confirmation.

      they hate Trump and anything he does and have non-stop been trying to stop anything and everything he does

      Hey, the GOP did it with Obama. How long did Mitch McConnell hold up the Merrick Garland nomination, again?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.