Judge Ignores First Amendment, Misreads Town Law, While Ordering Resident To Remove 'Fuck Biden' Signs

from the I-guess-we're-extending-ignorance-of-the-law-privileges-to-judges-now dept

A municipal court judge in New Jersey who apparently doesn't understand either the First Amendment or local ordinances has just ordered a resident to take down some f-bomb-laden signs from her yard. (h/t Peter Bonilla)

A municipal judge on Thursday ruled that a Roselle Park homeowner’s owner’s anti- President Biden flags including the F-bomb on her fence were obscene and must be removed because they violated a borough ordinance.

Roselle Park Municipal Court Judge Gary Bundy ordered the Willow Avenue homeowner to remove the signs with profanity within a week or face a $250-a-day fine. Patricia Dilascio is the property owner but her daughter, Andrea Dick, had the signs, three of which include the F-word, on display.

The signs, which can be seen in this photo, are certainly colorful in terms of language, and very definitely convey their owner's displeasure with the current regime. However, it would appear they do not violate the ordinance cited by the judge, who also claimed to be all for protecting free speech rights while issuing an order that violates those rights. According to Judge Gary Bundy, free speech is not "absolute" and the town's law does not "abridge or violate" the First Amendment rights of the signs' owner.

It is clear from state law and statutes that we cannot simply put up the umbrella of the First Amendment and say everything and anything is protected speech.

Well, that's true, but only if you insist on limiting your analysis to superlatives, as this judge did. The town's law does not abridge the property owner's First Amendment rights. But this application of the law certainly seems to. The phrase "Fuck Biden" -- which appears on three different signs -- doesn't actually violate the ordinance the town of Roselle Park claims was violated. The law forbids the public display of "obscene material." Here's the law's definition of that term:

The word "obscene" shall mean any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole:

a. Appeals to the prurient interest;

b. Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and

c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

Given the "and" between b. and c. and the phrase "when considered as a whole," these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene. "Fuck Biden" seems pretty clearly "political," even if the value of the sentiment is somewhat debatable. But there's nothing sexual or prurient about this use of the word "fuck," which would be taken by literally nobody to mean the property owner is suggesting someone should engage in a sexual act with the current President.

We certainly don't expect municipal courts to be run by Constitutional scholars or attorneys with years of experience defending civil rights, but we should expect appointed judges to at least keep up with the last 50 years of Supreme Court precedent (including some recent decisions) determining that the word "fuck" -- especially when used in conjunction with political issues -- is definitely protected speech.

But even the town's mayor seems to believe residents' rights end when public officials begin to get offended on behalf of rhetorical minors.

“Today was a win for the borough and decency,” Signorello, the mayor, said in a statement to NJ Advance Media. “While we respect the views of our residents, there’s no place for profanity by a school and school children.”

It was neither, Mayor Signorello. It was a win for people who still think the word "fuck" has the innate power to tear apart the fabric of society. It was a win for people that think the only speech that should be protected is speech they like or agree with.

The judge is no better.

The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

"It's a swear word" would be all the explanation most kids need. And most kids won't need an explanation because they're already familiar with the list of words not used in polite society. Judge Bundy seems to believe he's presiding over a Mayberry-esque community that still has milkmen and separate beds for husbands and wives, rather than a 2021 New Jersey town that's located in a state best known for mob violence, corrupt politicians, and residents considered only slightly less terrible than Philadelphians.

This is a dumb decision and it's supported by people saying even dumber things than the judge who blew this Constitutional call. The decision can be appealed and definitely should be. The ordinance doesn't say what the judge says it does, and the First Amendment still says what it has always said. For the moment, the signs remain up, which presumably means the imaginary uncomfortable family discussions of f-bombs will have to continue until this issue is finally resolved.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st amendment, free speech, new jersey, obscenity, political speech, roselle park


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:49am

    The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

    I really hate to break it to people (again), but reality it rate X. And no amount of hand wringing insanity will actually change that.
    Fundamentally: living in terror that children might one day learn about one specific portion of how our reality operates is... very insane( as in "to act in a manor contrary to reality"). Also is possibly makes you a tyrannical monster.

    PS: I'm not suggesting children be inundated with specific messages, or to not try and limit the scope of what they have to deal with on any given day... but... reality, it's real, and it's not going away.

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

    • icon
      z! (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:22pm

      Re:

      If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.

      Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.

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

      • icon
        allengarvin (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re:

        An HOA is not typically a state actor, bound by the first amendment. Some states do provide some speech-like protections for political signs--for instance, here in Texas, HOAs must allow you at least a single political sign around the time of elections: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.259.htm

        Likewise, during the Bush admin, Congress passed a federal law that blocks HOAs and condominiums restricting the display of the US flag.

        But in general, clauses restricting speech are allowed and are enforceable.

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

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:57pm

        Re: Re:

        "HOA's are not immune from the Constitution..."

        The Constitution is almost entirely a list of things the government is not allowed to do. HOA's are not governments, not matter how authoritarian they might act.

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

      • icon
        Tanner Andrews (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:30am

        Re: Re:

        And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable

        It is hard to get to ``unconstitutional'' in a contract between private parties.

        I can agree to do things for money, which things the government cannot compel me to do otherwise. For instance, I may work because people give me money, yet the government cannot directly compel me to work.

        I can also refrain from doing things for money. For instance, I could agree with a neighbor that I will not bring trespass or otherwise bar him from use of a certain portion of my property, though government insisting that I do so would be a taking. The term is ``easement'' for those of you keeping score at home.

        I can agree not to say certain things, for instance a non-disclosure agreement or a non-disparagement agreement, though the government could not stop me from revealing facts or unfavorable views. Or I can agree to say certain things: famous people often endorse products in return for money.

        The government has little to say about these things because the entities involved are not state actors.

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

  • icon
    ECA (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:56am

    Did we really?

    Need to find 1000's of jobs for Uneducated people, that we hire Judges and police and politicians that seem to not even understand our own laws, regs and Common senses.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:57am

    I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line? If they want to keep the signs, fine but cover up the obscene language.

    Therefore, F**** the Prez would be fine but cover the UCK up or take them down.

    I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

    Otherwise, make the case that the F word is not bad and we can add the following to the first grade reader.

    Jack fell down, broke his crown, and said "I've had a F***ing bad day."

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:00am

      Re:

      It doesn't matter what you feel like. That's the law.

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

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:17am

        Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

        The law vs morality. Compromises must be made.

        An argument can be made that free speech is not infringed by requiring the Letters UCK be covered up.

        Any reasonable adult would understand that F*** is not praise.

        It allows the homeowner to have their signs, to get their message across, and to protect the young and innocent.

        tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:25am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          If they don't know what the word means, then exposure to it doesn't make them less innocent.

          If they do know what the word means, then exposure to it also doesn't make them less innocent

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:29am

          An argument can be made that free speech is not infringed by requiring the Letters UCK be covered up.

          It’d be a terrible argument, sure, but it could be made.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:36am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Are these the same children of people who aren't concerned about them knowing that you can grab them by the pussy?

          Or that white supremacists are fine people?

          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, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:22pm

            Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

            Was wondering how long before Techdirt commenters would bring up the two subjects they’re most obsessed with: sexual fantasies about D. Trump, and those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock.

            My answer: about an hour. So you guys showed some restraint. Congrats!

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:07pm

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              Its about quadruple the time it takes one of you idiots to misrepresent the First Amendment. So ya know people who live in Klan houses and all that.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 12:23am

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              "sexual fantasies about D. Trump"

              You have a very strange, broken, mind if you think that referring to Trump's boasts about committing sexual assault means that the person criticising them is the one with a problem.

              "those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock"

              That rock being the white supremacist rallies in support of Trump that were being referred to.

              Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?

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

              • icon
                Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:19am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally cor

                "Why is reality so hard for you to grasp that you feel the need to attack people who refer to it?"

                Because when reality won't back the assertions of the alt-right they think reality is a liberal lefty and deny it.

                It's like trying to talk to an ISIS zealot at this point. Bringing them facts is just asking for them to go all "Jahid! 🤯" on you.
                And yea, they'd misspell their own slogans and get them backwards which at least puts even ISIS ahead of them in that regard...

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:08am

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              So they are the same children, then?

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

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:02am

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              sexual fantasies about D. Trump

              Pointing out something Trump actually said that was necessarily sexual in nature is not a sexual fantasy about Trump.

              those kkk nazi evil bad guy white soopremaciztssss that are hiding behind every rock

              You think they’re hiding? Or rather, you think that we think they’re hiding? They’re marching proudly.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:31pm

              Re: Re: Re:

              You're not in any shape to start throwing stones from your castle of glass, Hamilton.

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

          • icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:48pm

            Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

            Well, grab them by the pussy is only a thing because Media decided to replay it 24/7. So any dem claiming ‘for the children’ can shut up.

            And trump denounced the white suprematists. It was the others he was talking about.
            It’s very clear in the transcript.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:19pm

              Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct

              Yes, it was very relevant that in the run up to an election the positions of one of the major candidate was known, especially since he was running for party that has previously impeached a president for lying about a consensual sex act. Boasting about sexual assault would appear to be newsworthy, no matter which party the candidate was running for, but it was particularly relevant there.

              It makes a lot more sense for the media to not "shut up" about that than it did for the right wing press to be so up in arms about Benghazi or emails, for example.

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

              • icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:16am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally cor

                Relevant?
                But the laptop wasn’t?

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

                • icon
                  Toom1275 (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:50am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally

                  Why would a fraud spun up by Giuliani's Russian handlers be relevant to anything other than a criminal investigation or Giuliani?

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

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 1:07am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor

                    Oh, you’re still ignoring your tiny bubble. The laptop proves a direct connection. One the FBI is now investigating, among others.

                    When they can’t ignore it anymore MSNBCNN will fill you in on the most basic of it.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 6:01am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      "The laptop proves a direct connection"

                      To people stupid enough to believe Rudy at face value, sure. The jury's out for the rest of us.

                      "One the FBI is now investigating, among others."

                      We will await the results of their investigation, and any court verdict made as a result. They're just a bit busy now dealing the proven criminals in Trump's orbit, but I eagerly await anything that places the claims in the realm of reality, rather than the desperate fairytale to placate the cult that it sounds like it is.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 5:58am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally

                  We're yet to see proof that the laptop exists, assuming you refer to Hunter Biden. Until proof exists, we can assume it's the desperate fiction that it sounds like it is.

                  That's way less relevant than Trump confessing to sex crimes on tape.

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:27am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally

                  "But the laptop wasn’t?"

                  At least verify a little of what you're talking about. Some shady repairman went to Rudy Giuliani with a laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), which contained emails without a certificate they claimed were written by hunter biden, and who no one could answer how they even got it.

                  Yeah, it's not relevant if I produce a set of "evidence" which amounts to a spreadsheet where I've typed "I Iz Guilti. Sijnd Huntr Biden"

                  But it's really relevant when a presidential candidate admits to being a sex predator right before the election. Particularly so in view of his unfortunate earlier utterings about Epstein who he described as a terrific guy who, like Trump, loved women and liked them young.

                  Lostinlodos, are you even aware of scale and context?

                  Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives. Not as blatantly as Trump employing his inept relatives to jobs with extreme qualification requirements, but certainly not good.
                  Nevertheless there's no indication that Joe had anything to do with either Hunter's employment or whatever Hunter was up to.
                  What we do have is Trump on record trying to blackmail a foreign government into producing dirt on Hunter and his dad.

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

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:46pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor

                    “ laptop they claimed they got from Hunter Biden (unclear how), ”
                    It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned.

                    “ What we do have is Trump on record trying to blackmail a foreign government into producing dirt on Hunter and his dad.”
                    Uh, where?

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

                    • identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:03pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned.

                      Did you know that they took the word gullible out of the dictionary?

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

                      • icon
                        Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:40pm

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equat

                        Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe.

                        Compute, laptops, servers, in later times phones… people forget, people don’t like the price, whatever the reason.

                        Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence.

                        I know when tiger direct stores went under there was a fair amount of abandoned equipment that was sold in the liquidation.
                        Tiger was know for their clearance shelves of abandoned equipment long before that.

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

                        • icon
                          PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 3:20pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e

                          "Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe."

                          It's not hard to believe that such a thing that happened, in a general sense.

                          It's hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then.

                          "Ask anyone from geek squad how often it happens. I often worked in small shops. It was a regular occurrence."

                          In the UK, Gary Glitter was exposed as a paedophile because he took his PC in to a major retailer to repair and they spotted his chid porn collection. The difference between that and Hunter? Evidence. Where is the evidence? The same place as all those fake ballots and Trump's tax returns, I presume... Again, it's an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence. Where is it? What have you seen that the rest of us haven't that makes this believable?

                          In the absence of evidence, Occam's Razor suggests that it was a Hail Mary pass from a desperate campaign that realised their attempts to suppress mail voting hadn't worked and they remembered they got traction from computer stuff before... only they couldn't get anything as compelling as Hillary's email server to counter Trump's admitted crimes.

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

                          • icon
                            Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 3:57pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n

                            “Where is the evidence? “
                            I believe with the FBI at the moment

                            “The same place as all those fake ballots”
                            I doubt the exist

                            “Trump's tax returns”
                            Private, none of our business.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 5:44pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              I believe with the FBI at the moment

                              Prove it.

                              Considering nobody wants to touch it with a 10 foot pole, I would guess that the whole laptop story was just a steaming, stinking pile of 💩!!

                              I mean it's Rudy "I spread covid with my farts" "I book pressers between a porn shop and crematorium" Giuliani, who has about zero credibility now-a-days.

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

                          • icon
                            Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 10:40pm

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does n

                            "It's hard to believe that it happened in such a way where such obviously damning evidence (which has never been revealed) just so happened to occur weeks before an election where such things being true could have helped a specific political candidate and made it into the hands of someone with the track record of Rudy, especially given his conduct since then."

                            You keep omitting that your hypothetical son of politican is a crackhead. When you include that detail its not had to beleive.

                            Crackhead gets high breaks his laptop. Crackhead takes it to a repair shop the next day. Crackhead goes home, gets high, and forgets all about the laptop.

                            When you include the crackhead part its not a far fetched story.

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

                            • identicon
                              Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:19am

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal do

                              Crackhead gets high

                              And do tell, what verifiable proof do you have that Hunter Biden was high on crack at the time this all "supposedly" took place?

                              You just keep adding more and more to the story to make you sound less gullible.

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

                        • identicon
                          Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 5:34pm

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not e

                          Given how many times that’s happened at shops I worked at… it’s not hard to believe.

                          That is understandable.

                          But believing the incredible story about Hunter's laptop, well, that takes a huge leap of faith, or just plain gullibility.

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

                    • icon
                      PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:04pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      "It was dropped off for repair, and abandoned."

                      To a random shop on the other side of the country, then completely forgotten about until the shop owner decided to inform Rudy Giuliani in the final weeks of Trump's campaign.

                      Nobody's saying it's not possible, only that it's an extraordinary story that requires extraordinary evidence that has so far been lacking. Sort of like Trump's claim that 8 million votes were faked, and all the other con games you apparently fall for so easily with zero supporting evidence.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 1:59pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to mor

                    Let's even rewrite the story...

                    The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up. Close to a year later, very close to the election, the laptop happens to make it into the hands of a close confidant and ally of the opposing candidate, who presents the claim (but not the evidence) that the laptop is credible enough to kill his opponent's chances.

                    You don't have to mention the party, or even the country, in the above claim before people smell bullshit. Meanwhile, it's supposedly equivalent to a recording of the opposing candidate admitting to sex crimes?

                    Time will tell if there's anything there, but how anyone no predisposed to a certain position can take it seriously is beyond me.

                    "Hunter Biden is an unfortunate case of ineptitude coat-tailing on the fame of relatives"

                    Yet, not as blatant or deadly as the Trump family members inserted into prominent political positions. Even if they had concrete evidence of nepotism, it would pale in comparison to what we know about Ivanka and Jared.

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

                    • icon
                      Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 4:24pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technically legal does not equate to

                      "The son of a prominent candidate currently leading in polls is claimed to have gone to a random repair centre on the other side of the country with a laptop full of incriminating evidence, but never goes back to pick it up."

                      Your hypothetical conveniently left out that the son was also a crackhead which makes the scenario far more believable.

                      High crackhead breaks laptop, takes laptop to computer repairman, crackhead completely forgets entire incident. Not very far fetched once you include that whole crackhead part.

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

                      • icon
                        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 8:25am

                        “I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don’t trust coincindences.”

                        I have a few questions for you:

                        • What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was on any kind of drugs when he allegedly dropped off the laptop?

                        • What proof do you have that Hunter Biden was, at the time of this alleged event, addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug? Hell, what proof do you have that Hunter Biden is currently addicted to crack cocaine or any other kind of drug?

                        • What proof do you have, beyond the say-so of the computer repairman and Rudy “Four Seasons Total Landscaping” Giuliani, that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden?

                        • Why would Hunter Biden have taken his laptop to a computer repair shop so far from his home? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)

                        • Why would he have left incriminating evidence on the laptop from the time of the dropoff to any time before the story broke? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)

                        • Why did he never pick up his laptop later? (“He was on crack” is not an acceptable answer.)

                        • Why would the computer repairman⁠—who had expressed support for Trump and right-wing ideology on social media⁠—first go to Rudy Giuliani, a known Trump agent, instead of the press or even law enforcement?

                        • Why were the emails alleged to have been found on the laptop presented in a way that didn’t show off the metadata that could help prove the emails were legit?

                        • Why has no one else ever seen the original emails and confirmed their veracity (or lack thereof) using that metadata?

                        • What could possibly explain the timing of the release of the “Biden laptop” story (less than a month before the election) beyond someone in the Trump campaign saying “we need another October Surprise”?

                        • Why did the reporters for the New York Post refuse to sign their names to a story with potentially huge political implications?

                        For me to believe the “Biden laptop” story is anything but bullshit, I need to see some extraordinary evidence. You haven’t provided any. So answer the questions and show me that extraordinary evidence. I want you to make me believe the story without insulting my intelligence or asking me to lower my own. If you can’t do that, don’t bother trying. Your gullibility isn’t my problem to fix.

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

        • icon
          Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:03pm

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Whose morals? Yours? Morals are not absolute, regardless of what you've been taught.

          Law vs. morality: a false dichotomy.

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

        • icon
          ECA (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 3:14pm

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          Laws started with morality.
          Then the LAWS had to cover everything we created, supposedly to protect the consumer. then they Leaned Back the other way, NOT in favor of the consumer.
          The one with the biggest pockets Wins?

          Morality= BE NICE TO EACH OTHER, Dammit.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 5:56pm

          Re: Technically legal is the best kind of legal

          "The law vs morality. Compromises must be made."

          Do you want to know, how I know you don't understand how the First Amendment works?

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 5:11am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          "tldr: We could protect both free speech and the children."

          Technically...not really. If you are allowed to swear in public then it's hard to make the case that you aren't allowed to write it in your front yard either.

          And if you aren't allowed to swear in public...you have a precedent where offensive speech is under government censorship.

          In practice, of course, it's usually the landlord (private property owner) which tells you to take the fucking sign down (from their property) with the law staying right out of it.

          In the OP judge Bundy has made an interesting judgment which appears to have no backing in law, unless Ms. Dick completes the signs with printouts from lemonparty.

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

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:57am

          Re: Technically legal does not equate to morally correct.

          “Legal does not [equal] morally correct,” is a completely accurate statement, but everything else you said suggests you don’t understand what that means.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:04am

      I am very supportive of free speech, but where do we draw the line?

      At the place where legal speech turns into illegal speech.

      I sympathize with the parents who don’t want their kids to see swear words. But that shouldn’t let them infringe the rights of others. The speech is legal; someone else’s feelings about that don’t get to say otherwise.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:18am

      It's four letters, not a literally magic word

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

      Ooh, I've got some bad news for you if your kids are going to be interacting with society at all...

      Either you'll explain it or someone else will because 'little TImmy/Suzy never hearing the word 'fuck''' is not a viable option for anyone who isn't insanely sheltered from birth to death.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:24am

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

      Our village idiot Koby will be by shortly to explain how much he disagrees with you because freeze peach.

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

      • icon
        Samuel Abram (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:14pm

        Re: Re:

        Though in this case, Koby would be right because it's actual government censorship and not private website moderation.

        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, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:29pm

        Re: Re:

        The irony of a gal who flippantly refers to one of the most important founding principles of the USA as “freeze peach” calling Koby an idiot… hoo boy.

        “Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear and you know with utter certainty you’re dealing with a sniveling anti-American degenerate oxygen thief coward. (Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          If the pants on head fits. Or in your case the pillowcase...

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:10am

          Re: Re: Re:

          “Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear and you know with utter certainty you’re dealing with a sniveling anti-American degenerate oxygen thief coward.

          You seem triggered, snowflake...

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:30am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "The irony of a gal"

          Interesting... The user didn't provide any personally identifying information, and as far as I can tell their writing style isn't as obnoxiously and uniquely ignorant as to identify them unlike OOTB/whoever their current attempt to get around the spam filter is. So, it's interesting that you know who this AC is down to their gender and comment history.

          "“Freeze peach” is one of those Leftist newspeak terms you hear"

          No, it's something that's used to mock the type of idiot who claims to be for free speech while demanding that their political opponents don't have it.

          "(Very often a White kid with dreadlocks.)"

          The real world is easier to deal with if you adjust to reality and not invent strawmen to attack at every opportunity. You might learn something occasionally, let alone actually be able to communicate with other people without being so depressingly angry all the time about people correctly noting that you have no real argument.

          Go on, try it. Address the actual ideas someone states, and don't immediately default to the cartoon you've been sold to you by people who profit from your impotent and unfounded outrage. You might become a better person for it.

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

    • icon
      Mike Masnick (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:43am

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you.

      It's really not that hard. First of all, most kids won't care, won't notice, and it won't matter. For the few that do, you can easily say "that's a curse word that means something not nice," and the kids will forget about it and move on. At least that's been my experience.

      Hiding it doesn't help. Teaching kids that it's impolite does.

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

      • icon
        DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:38pm

        Re: Re: Mike Masnick's comment

        I would suggest not saying "...a curse word that means something not nice". Instead, for a youngster, "It's a word describing something boring that sleepy adults do" and look bored while explaining that. Don't lie really, and don't make a big deal of it or risk sparking the child's unwanted attention at this time. If the child knows the parent is generally honest -- because it's true! -- later on (say, 8 years later) the subject can be approached in more detail w/o calling a perfectly, natural activity "not nice" (or nasty, forbidden, warped, god hates it, etc.).

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

      • icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:50pm

        Re: Re:

        Or tell them the truth of what it means, the history, and why it’s considered such a powerful negative word.

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

    • identicon
      cpt kangarooski, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:52am

      Re:

      It's not obscene language.

      For obscenity you must test for whether 1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards would find the sign to appeal to the prurient interest, 2) whether it depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct as specifically defined in law; and 3) whether the sign, taken as a whole, lacks serious political value (there are other things too, but here it's clearly political).

      Here it fails on 1, fails on 2 ("fuck" has a lot of meanings, not all sexual), and fails on 3. Conclusion: it's no more obscene than this comment, a booklet providing you with instructions on setting up and programming a VCR, or the US Constitution. It is arguably less obscene than the Bible (due to the inclusion of the Song of Solomon).

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:50pm

      Re: Ahem

      Ahem

      Fuck your feelings

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

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:12pm

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds

      Ahh this old chestnut. Here's your answer: old enough to ask, old enough to know (age appropriate). If the little six year olds are asking what that word is, I'd be surprised they're looking at the signs, but there you go. When mine were 6, they were more interested in reading books or playing with toys in the car.

      cover up the obscene language.

      There's lots of caselaw on this, but let's ignore all that because reasons. I ask you, who is to determine which language is obscene?

      Let's try an experiment. Which of the following words do you think are obscene:

      • Stuffed
      • Wichser
      • Git
      • Screwed
      • Groom
      • Smush
      • Merde
      • Prick
      • Piss
      • Crippled
      • Damn
      • Bastard
      • Fecker
      • Jesu s

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:41pm

        You forgot “moist”.

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

        • icon
          Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 4:42pm

          Re:

          Moist? Wet? Seriously how can that be used offensively, Even in reference to a specific body part.
          Should that not be a compliment?

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

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:00pm

            Re: Re:

            Moist? Wet? Seriously how can that be used offensively

            It's a reference to this phenomenon:

            https://blog.hubspot.com/marketing/why-do-people-hate-the-word-moist

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

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:28pm

              Re: Re: Re:

              Ok,
              So that’s actually a thing lol. Locker room never crossed my mind. To each their own.

              So that’s two that totally stumped me.
              Think I did well with the rest.

              I love linguistics. Word etymology.
              Language in general.

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:34am

            Re: Re:

            "Seriously how can that be used offensively, Even in reference to a specific body part. "

            Context.

            There's an old story on how a bunch of game developers at some point tried to make their online children's game perfectly proof against trolls and "offensive" language while still allowing communication. They had dozens of expert consultants replacing every type of offensive word or grammar considered possible as a euphemism. Then they sat a bunch of teens down to test it.

            They knew they'd lost when a fourteen year old, within minutes, pounded out the sentence "I want to shove my giraffe up your kitten".

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

      • icon
        Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 4:41pm

        Re: Re:

        Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex

        Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker. Though the slang refers to jacking off the intent is more “stop wasting time {by jacking off}.”

        Git, from get, means idiot

        Screwed, again is generally accepted as a sexual term, get fucked, fucked, but actually has roots in the act of literally being screwed, a term from early assembly lines. As in, having a screw or rivet fastened to you.

        Groom comes from the act of grooming in one sense and is generally used as a solo verb for acclimating someone else o something. Such as with child grooming.
        But, as a directed insult it cooks from old Goth based languages such as old Norse and Icelandic. Ghrom, and gromar, Where it means to be a a manservant.

        Smush I’m not familiar with and am having trouble finding.

        Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with.

        Prick from pricken from prich. Use as a word for penis dates back centuries. As a term for people it comes from the male sex drive. Single minded, begot simple minded.
        Somewhere that got twisted into the modern rude, bad, etc.

        Piss locally offensive. From Pissin, from pissen, from pis’on to wet, make wet, or to water.

        Crippled, physically injured. Not sure the entomology.

        Damn: from damnin. As a verb to damnate. More generally to be in a point of damnation

        Bastard: out of wedlock. From bastred, without.

        Or from baster (broken), as bastarde, illegitimate,

        Fecker is a localised version of fuck.
        But on its own means size or force. Comes from Fech.

        Jesu s a mythological figure. A convergence of various half human gods or heroes of the time. All who sacrificed their life for the survival of humans.
        Though some of the aspects of it, birth-death-rebirth, come from Isis which itself comes from many earlier west Asian and North African believes.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:23pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Stuffed tends to imply forced anal sex"

          Erm, not really, unless you're doing something very strange with a chicken or implying that when someone says they're stuffed about a dinner then they were doing something else very wrong.

          "Wichser is Dutch, British equivalent is wanker"

          So, a word that's used in multiple contexts and can even be a joking term of endearment?

          Half the other words you list have many similar non-sexual meanings and if you focus on the sexual one over and above the others, that says more about you than it does someone questioning whether they count as obscene.

          "Merde crap? Another I’m not familiar with."

          Merde is French for shit.

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

          • icon
            Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:37am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex.

            Verify your target:
            I didn’t make the list. I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by any of it.

            Let’s go to the root of the article: and not the less than accurate movie docu version.

            Fuck, is directly descendent from Fuche. First attributed in print to 1404. A shortened version of fluchend. Which is early Dutch English for be Filleted.
            Based on a punishment method of spearing a person on vertical triangle and allowing the body to split.
            That itself probably, by majority opinion, comes from the Aramaic term, in Latin letters, phuc, divide. Which comes from the Arc-sumi word phu-ch-n. Or phc’n. To spread, or divide. As found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
            .

            When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don't give a fuck)

            But when it comes to linguistic history, I take rod in my secondary master’s. Mythology has long been a personal passion..

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

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:40am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Speaking of fuck
              Fuck you autocorrect

              *rod pride.
              How the hell that’s mistyped… but wherever.

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

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 6:05am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "Stuffed, as in get stuffed, is a well know slang for forced anal sex."

              So, if you add a word that wasn't in the original description and make an assumption based on that extra word, it's offensive? Context is still a thing. you're clutching pearls every time you see a copy of Stuff magazine or link to the website of that name, you're being disingenuous again.

              "When it comes to short WoT reply’s I don’t care about typos and autocorrect. (I don't give a fuck)"

              Whereas, the word "fuck" on its own is considered offensive to many people without context.

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

              • icon
                Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                I didn’t say it was offensive. None of those words should be offensive, including fuck. People need to move on from such thin skin reactions.

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

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:01pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Someone agreeing that those words weren't offensive by themselves would go with the original implication saying exactly that and move on. You chose to individually nit pick every definition, and even admit you were too lazy to search for the ones you didn't immediately recognise.

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

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:34pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    ‘I pointed out the stupidity of being offended by it’.

                    Words are only powerful if you allow them to be.
                    There are words I won’t say like c**r, n k*, etc. Racial abuse terms.

                    But the list posted is quite dry and stupid.
                    I have fairly quick reply to most of that list. I did look up one I didn’t know: couldn’t find the other one quickly so ignored it.

                    Don’t be so uptight. I was having fun with a generic ‘omg look’ list.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 6:32pm

      Re:

      You're actually not supportive of free speech at all and in the future you should refrain from making that false claim.

      If you don't want kids to ask you tough questions don't have kids. I'd imagine most kids have heard the word fuck by age 6 anyways. Maybe talk with them about it before they go to school and start using it not understanding what it means.

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

    • icon
      Tanner Andrews (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:55am

      Re:

      I don't feel like explaining to little six year olds that see that sign what the word DUCK spelled with a F means, thank you

      Lots of lawyers do not feel like explaining to ignorant Jersey judges what Cohen v. State of California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) means, either, but the file is going to land on some lawyer's desk and he is going to have to do it anyway.

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

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 10:39am

      Re:

      From my experience, when a kid finds a new word, swear word or not, they have one of four reactions:

      1. They ignore it entirely.

      2. They ask someone what it means.

      3. They look it up (online, in a dictionary, or in an encyclopedia).

      4. They use it—frequently or sparingly—in a similar context as how they learned it.

      1 is pretty straightforward: since they don’t ask about, learn the definition of, or use it, there is nothing to handle. It’s basically as if they never learned the word. If they ignore it, you don’t need to worry about it.

      Those in 2 are generally satisfied with anything along the lines of, “It’s a bad word,” “Never use that word,” or “I’ll tell you when your older.” Those that aren’t will generally stop asking eventually and possibly go into 3. Either way, no need for you to explain what the word means at all. You should probably not say, “I don’t know,” or ignore them, as that will lead them to persist or ask someone else, or transition to 4. Other than that, though, it’s fairly straightforward.

      Similarly, those in 4 will generally stop if told to by an authority figure. They may then ask what it means (transitioning to 2) but they generally don’t keep asking once told it’s a bad word or something. Again, no need to explain its definition.

      As for 3, there is naturally no need for you to tell them what it means if they are successful in their search. If they give up before that, they’ll go into 1 or 2, maybe 4, but those can be addressed accordingly. Now, you may reasonably not like the idea of them succeeding, but the specific problem of you having to explain what it means would be nonexistent. Plus, kids aren’t going to be traumatized by learning the definition of the ‘F’ word; they might be grossed out, bored, or curious about the act it describes (which you should be able to handle the same way you would when a child asks where babies come from), but generally they can handle it. This category is relatively rare, anyways.

      So, really, it’s not difficult to handle a kid who learns the ‘F’ word. And, frankly, no matter how hard you try, it’s fairly likely that they’ll see or hear it somewhere by middle school or junior high (likely earlier), so you should learn how to handle it.

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

    • icon
      Lostinlodos (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:41pm

      Re:

      Actually, do you have or know anyone that has kids? That’s not far off from what they really do say. Lol.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:59am

    The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child.

    I've heard lots of kids using the word, even kids that looked to be under 10. I think most children already know what it means.

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

    • icon
      DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:42pm

      Re: ...most children already know what it mean

      Most children, if they "know" the word, know it is one that upsets adults and so is fair game to use. Adults can easily be smarter than children and should practice that, in a gentle manner, at every opportunity. There's a reason kids want adults to be upset. Figure it out, neutralize it (with love and respect) and win the round.

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

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:13pm

      Re:

      How else are we going to clutch our pearls and cry, "Won't something think of the children?" as we faint on the couch.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:01am

    Can't wait to see this one going up the ladder of law.

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

  • identicon
    Pixelation, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:07am

    "Fuck Biden" Eew!

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

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:14am

    Only one thing to say really:

    Fuck Judge Gary Bundy and Mayor Signorello.

    Hopefully the homeowner has the funds to appeal this and a higher court who actually knows the relevant laws gives this ruling and judge the hearty benchslap they deserve.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:18am

    Fuck cheer

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

  • icon
    Miles (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:21am

    Is it illegal to shout F#%k in a crowded theater?

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

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:15pm

      Re:

      It is 100% legal to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, as long as you believe there's a fire.

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

      • icon
        sumgai (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 2:56pm

        Re: Re:

        Yes, you won't be faced with a criminal charge of illegal speech. But believing there really was a fire won't get you out of facing the consequences for what happens after said speech.

        Knowing there was a fire and alerting others to it will only likely earn you a "Get out of jail free" card, not a guarantee.

        Old proverb: For every speech, there is an equal and opposite consequence. Sometimes it's only criticism, sometimes it's much less palatable. And no, salt will not be provided, you must bring your own.

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

        • icon
          nasch (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:59pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Knowing there was a fire and alerting others to it will only likely earn you a "Get out of jail free" card, not a guarantee.

          What could you possibly be convicted of for yelling fire in a building that is actually on fire?

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

          • icon
            sumgai (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 9:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Probably 30 years ago, maybe longer, I gave up on predicting what a smart lawyer could come up with vis-a-vis a civil cause of action (a tort, if you will). Please don't press me further, my sense of reality is already fragile as it is.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 4:51am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            What could you possibly be convicted of for yelling fire in a building that is actually on fire?

            A judge with a bone to grind, a prosecutor with a quota to fill. Give them enough time and resources, plus a team of lawyers that pound the table in just the right way, I'm sure they'll think of something.

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

  • icon
    NoahVail (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:26am

    a 2021 New Jersey town that's located in a state best known for mob violence, corrupt politicians, and residents considered only slightly less terrible than Philadelphians.

    I take strong issue with this assertion. New Jersey, where a FU followed by forcing your car into a guardrail is considered a polite hello (looking at you Brunswick), is a far more terrible place than Philly could ever hope be.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Philippe, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:29am

    Such fine citizens and neighbour

    You have such fine citizens and a good neighbours that they have to plaster their property with profanity to advertize their political views.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:32am

      Their speech is legal. How you feel about their speech⁠—and about them⁠—is irrelevant.

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

    • identicon
      Glen, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:35am

      Re: Such fine citizens and neighbour

      So?

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:10am

      Re: Such fine citizens and neighbour

      "You have such fine citizens and a good neighbours..."

      Well, no. From what we've seen so far the Trump cult consists of outright deplorable people if anything.

      "...that they have to plaster their property with profanity to advertize their personal worth as human beings."

      Fixed That For You.

      If you have issues with a political figure then you can certainly plaster your property with whatever you like to show where you stand. How you make your views known is how others discover whether they want to hear what you have to say or not.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:35am

    owner's displeasure with the current regime

    Tim, you probably shouldn't be using the word regime with the current president. TFG, yes, but considering the dictionary definition:

    re·gime

    noun

    1. a government, especially an authoritarian one. "ideological opponents of the regime"

    I wouldn't call the Biden admin "authoritarian", but that would be a perfect definition of the Trump admin.

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

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:36am

    I don't see this as unreasonable

    First off, I'm an independent.

    I don't see a problem with taking these down. The ordinance may have been written poorly, but that is another issue. The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value. You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that. That will convince no one. You need the "why". Use a few brain cells and actually make an argument.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:38am

      The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value. You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that.

      What makes “fuck Biden” any less political than “fuck Biden because he isn’t Trump”? Be specific in your reasoning.

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

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:10am

        Re:

        To convince anyone to change their political affiliation (aka. "the goal"), you need to provide specific reasoning why a politician is a poor choice. Niether of your examples is compelling. Having said that, it makes much less of a difference now then it used to, seeing that most of the sheeple are of the, "party is all, screw the country" variety.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:24am

          Neither example has to be “compelling”. “Fuck Biden” is a political statement. So is “fuck Trump”. Whether they come with reasons attached is irrelevant. I see no reason to censor such speech⁠—regardless of why people say it.

          And for disclosure purposes: I voted for Biden. Dissenting speech is legal, and I encourage dissent⁠—even if I don’t necessarily agree with it. Dissent against the government is political speech, and it can be expressed as simply as “fuck Biden”.

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

          • icon
            Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:53am

            Re:

            Apparently it does have to be compelling, judging by the outcome. We'll see how the appeal goes.

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

            • icon
              Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:01pm

              Apparently it does have to be compelling

              This is what the law in question says:

              The word "obscene" shall mean any material, communication or performance which the average person applying contemporary community standards existing within the municipality, would find, when considered as a whole:

              a. Appeals to the prurient interest;

              b. Depicts or describes in a patently offensive way sexual conduct as hereinafter specifically defined, or depicts or exhibits offensive nakedness as hereinafter specifically defined; and

              c. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

              At no point does the law say the political message must be “compelling” to avoid being obscene. It says that the message must lack “political … value”. I would say that “fuck Biden”, offensive as it may be to some, absolutely has political value.

              This ruling will be overturned on appeal. Of that, I have little doubt⁠—especially in the wake of the “fuck cheer” case.

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

              • icon
                Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:14pm

                Re:

                I suppose in the land of "believe whatever the hell you want", I have had to adjust my standards for credibility of one's conviction.

                Most only have a political opinion because some politician gave it to them. Said politician only has that particular opinion to cater to their party's lunatic fringe, in the pursuit of the ever so precious 51st percentile of vote. Actual knowledge, or common sense isn't even a consideration anymore, for the professional political view. They're just being a lemming.

                You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech. This isn't about free speech. This is about a free audience for drivel. Audiences aren't free, or a right. Trump found that out really quick. "This Trump internet portal costs money to run? Shut that shit down." This is another example. An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.

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

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:39pm

                  You're confusing the letter of the law regarding political speech, with the intent of actual political speech.

                  No, I’m not. A political message can be as short as two words⁠—“fuck Biden”⁠—or the length of an essay. All that message needs to do is express a political opinion or stance. Is “fuck Biden” more or less political than “fuck the draft”?

                  This isn't about free speech.

                  Except it is.

                  This is about a free audience for drivel.

                  No one is obligated to look at the signs or do anything that would expose themselves to those signs. Whether the signs garner an audience is irrelevant; the speech remains protected no matter how many people see it.

                  An appeal costs money. They will have to spend some to continue.

                  So what? Some people believe their principles⁠—and the law⁠—are more important than money. In this case, an appeal would be the right thing to do regardless of the costs.

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

                  • icon
                    Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:25pm

                    Re:

                    You missed the point... They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes. And I don't think free speech is as free as it used to be. A whole segment of the population has been indoctrinated. Both sides to a certain extent, but the worst stormed the Capital. Their speech may not be as free [anymore], as you believe it to be.

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

                    • icon
                      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 7:33pm

                      They're going to have to spend money for the appeal, before I give their argument any merit beyond post election sour grapes.

                      Just so we’re clear: You don’t believe their argument has any merit because you don’t agree with their speech, despite all the actual caselaw and precedent going their way outside of this one wayward ruling, and you’re not willing to even consider their argument unless they pay for an appeal?

                      Dude, I voted for Biden, and even I think they should’ve won this case. What the fuck does that say about you.

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

                      • icon
                        Samuel Abram (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:22am

                        Re:

                        Dude, I voted for Biden, and even I think they should’ve won this case.

                        Same here. I voted for Biden, and I do think Judge Bundy should not have ruled as he should in this case. There's a difference between disliking the speech and thinking it should be penalized by the government.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 11:21am

          Re: Re:

          Given that this person chose a two-word sign as their message medium, what makes you think it was intended to convince anyone? I suspect it to be purely expressive, in which case it does an admirable job of showing me who I don't want to talk to.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:43am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that.

      This has nothing to do with disliking a politician. They do it to show off their degree of stupidity in a futile attempt to do something they call 'owning the libs.'

      'Owning the libs' just a contest between themselves to see who can be the biggest asshole.

      The word Fuck is incidental.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:58am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      I don't see a problem with taking these down. The ordinance may have been written poorly, but that is another issue. The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value. You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that.

      Would you have a problem, legally speaking, if the homeowner was standing in their yard and shouted the words at every passer-by?

      If so, why? If not, then why would it be a problem to put it on a sign if it's not a problem to say?

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

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:13am

        Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

        A person shouting in their front yard is going to tire. They won't be there for long. (Less then a day.)

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:33am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

          So if they remove the sign every night, and replace it every morning, it would be fine?

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

          • icon
            Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:56am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

            If a person has that much conviction to do that, so be it. The patriot takes down their flag every day at sunset, don't they? Go big, or go home.

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

      • icon
        DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:56pm

        Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

        Someone standing on their own property and screaming political insults, or playing loud acid rock music, or testing new mega speakers for their car, or slaughtering a fearful cow or... at any time of day, is potentially disturbing the peace and neighbors have the right to summon the police. If the screamer/player/tester/butcher drives a loud car or motorcycle at midnight down "their" street, call the police on that, too (not that they'll come; police need more sleep than neighborhoods sometimes). The s/p/t/b may decide to sue the busybodies and may get a "goodman" lawyer with big promises... but some video and a local TV report about the noise will trump the claims against the busybodies. So, Noisy, choose with care your hill to die on.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:45pm

          Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

          Where I live, the noise ordinance is "if it can be heard 150 feet away, it's too loud." And even then, that noise level is only unlawful when sustained, and during certain hours of the night. I'm fairly certain it would be quite easy to not be that loud.

          In any case though, it's not about volume. It's "do you consider it appropriate for the government to tell someone that they can't speak certain words within earshot of another person?" and if you do, why? Which words, and why those words? And if you don't, and the words can be spoken without issue, then why can't they be on a sign?

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:01am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      Yeah, this isn't about disliking a politician.

      It's about a group of people who are competing to be the biggest asshole so they can 'trigger' liberals. Nothing more, nothing less.

      Using the word fuck is just incidental.

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

      • icon
        Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:04am

        It's about a group of people who are competing to be the biggest asshole so they can 'trigger' liberals. Nothing more, nothing less.

        And their speech is still legal.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:16am

          Re:

          Agreed.

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

        • icon
          Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:29am

          Re:

          I see 2 problems with the "their speech is still legal" argument for signage, in cases like this.

          1) A HOA is not a state actor. 1st Amendment restrictions don't apply.
          2) You agreed to their rules when you bought the house.

          Moral of the story... Don't buy where there is a HOA, if you don't want to deal with their bullshit.

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

          • icon
            Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:31am

            That would be relevant if an HOA was involved in this case.

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

            • icon
              Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:58am

              Re:

              That is the ONLY thing in their favor here. If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.

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

              • icon
                z! (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:19pm

                Re: Re:

                If it was an HOA, they wouldn't have a prayer.

                Well, no. HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are. And including unconstitutional clauses in a contract does not make them enforceable.

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

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:54pm

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  And to which part of government do HOAs belong, because constitution defines whet the government can do, and does not apply to private entities.

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

                • icon
                  Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:50am

                  Re: Re: Re:

                  "HOA's are not immune from the Constitution, no matter how much they may think they are."

                  I hope you were just getting confused there; A Home Owners Association is most definitely not covered by any article of the constitution which contains the words "Congress shall make no law...".

                  As a private entity they're very free to set up a standard Code Of Conduct and as long as that code doesn't touch on race, religion sexual orientation or purely illegal requirements it can contain just about any demand a signee must adhere to.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:50pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    IIRC that depends. If they do enough governmenty things, like provide roads and security and stuff, they can legally be considered government for some purposes. (And keep in mind also that some cities require HOAs for any new developments - a government mandate that a group exists probably impacts the determination on whether what the group does can be considered government action.)

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

                    • icon
                      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:41am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      "If they do enough governmenty things, like provide roads and security and stuff, they can legally be considered government for some purposes."

                      That's not how it works. For a private entity to be considered "government" it must in many aspects be considered a direct extension of government. That's not exactly easy to swing.

                      Barring a direct formalized chain of command putting the body politic in ultimate charge of said private entity that entity can not under any law be considered part of government.

                      Even military contractors under almost permanent indenture still aren't "government".

                      "...some cities require HOAs for any new developments..."

                      A state can demand that homeowners form an association, yes. That doesn't make that HOA a government entity.
                      This...isn't really rocket science.

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

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:54am

            Re: Re:

            Roselle Park Municipal Court is not an HOA

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

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:21am

        Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

        Exactly my point. It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII", when it fact their true purpose for using it was for self-notoriety via "shock value".

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:58am

          Re: Re: Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

          "It's like those a-holes you used to see on the internet chat boards that used a swastika as their icon, claiming "it meant other things before WWII"..."

          Has to be noted though that their use of the Swastika, winged odal, confederate flag, or other symbol of hate is still fully legal - as in the use of them can not be banned by a government entity.

          Chat boards being private property the argument of those deplorable fuckwits are most often still countered by a hearty "Enjoy the tender caress of our banhammer. See you never!" from the moderators and owners who aren't beholden to 1A.

          Now, a person's front yard? That is the property of that person. They're the ones setting the rules for what constitutes acceptable behavior. They're free to set up a sign containing whatever they like which doesn't directly conflict law. And the law is very much on the side of saying or writing the word "Fuck".

          The alternative, by extension, is...not good.

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

    • icon
      That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:46am

      You should

      That it might not involve a compelling argument does not make it no longer a political statement, sometimes all you feel like is making clear that you really don't like a particular politician and the fact that that may not be terribly convincing really shouldn't matter in a case like this.

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

      • icon
        Dan (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:04pm

        Re: You should

        But the lack of that makes it pointless. Which is what I see is the judges main point of reasoning here. I'm only saying that I can see where the judge is coming from.

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

        • icon
          Stephen T. Stone (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:08pm

          the lack of that makes it pointless

          So what? It’s still political speech and it’s still protected speech. The judge was wrong to rule that it wasn’t.

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

        • icon
          That One Guy (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:27pm

          Re: Re: You should

          'Pointless' to you but again the fact that it may not be a particularly compelling piece of political commentary does not mean that it isn't political commentary.

          By the argument of 'non-nuanced political statements don't count and therefore aren't protected speech' a town could issue a flat out ban of signs that comprise nothing more than a politician's name and the year they are running for election since all such signs do is show support for said politician but includes no argument in favor of them, and really those signs are just eyesores so they're better off prohibited anyway.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 3:41pm

          Re: Re: You should

          Oh I can see where the judge is coming from. He’s still fundamentally wrong though.

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

    • icon
      JasonC (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:21pm

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      Violating someone's Constitutional rights is certainly unreasonable.

      You should read the various links within the article and educate yourself on why this is protected speech, and the precedents handed down by SCOTUS over the years.

      I'd suggest you start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

      It doesn't matter whether the sign lacks political 'value' in your eyes. It's expressive speech and 110% protected by the 1A. Speech doesn't need to be a compelling argument to be protected.

      Just like "Fuck the Draft."

      As a fellow independent, your position and ignorance on this subject is embarrassing.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:52pm

      Re: It’s number one for a reason.

      Allow me to rebut your entire post in three words.

      The First Amendment

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

    • icon
      TaboToka (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:21pm

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      First off, I'm an independent.

      Why do some people see the need to loudly proclaim they're disavowing being a republican (cough) I mean stating they're independent?

      I'm about as far left as you can get and I don't go around starting off all my arguments with "First, I'm as left as you can get without swimming to Hawaii"

      Maybe it's just me.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:44am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      "I don't see a problem with taking these down."

      There is a free speech issue at hand. Consider the precedent of, say, swearing in public? Combined with the fact that the law as such does not allow for it what we have is a judge who issues a blatantly unconstitutional directive from his pulpit - and setting the precedent that bad language merits government interference.

      "The signage at issue, certainly lacks political value."

      Well, the only value I can see is that it serves to inform the neighborhood of the general demeanor of the resident. But that's not exactly worthless in itself.

      "You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that."

      You most certainly can. It certainly won't serve to convince others of anything, but you certainly can do it that way. And lamentably, for some 30% of the US citizenry that's enough.

      The people kissing the ring of Dear Leader are the same people who cheered GWB and Cheney when they tried to advocate for torture and start a war of aggression. Beyond "owning the libs", fear of the other, and holding daily Two Minutes Hate sessions visavi the current icon of adversity they don't have an agenda.

      These people have been in it for decades purely in order to feed their grievance addiction. Nothing more. That's the start and end of their "politics". Someone to hate, eventually replaced by someone to hate even more.

      "Fuck Biden" is the summary of their political platform, the same way it used to be "Fuck Obama" and "Fuck Clinton".

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

    • icon
      Tanner Andrews (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:03am

      Re: I don't see this as unreasonable

      You don't just show your dislike for a politician in this way and leave it at that. That will convince no one.

      The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. In City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) they said that expression in yard signs is unique because of the way it identifies the speaker. Id. at 55. The identity of the speaker is important, they said, _id. at 56fn14, citing Aristotle, 2 Rhetoric Bk 1 Ch 2. A yard sign ``may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media'', Gilleo at 55, but its mere presence is part of the message.

      You might consider an anti-war sign in a veteran's yard, id. at 56, or a sign saying no more than ``Vote for [Challenger]'' in the yard of one of the mayor's children. Closer to home, you might consider a sign promoting socialism in the yard of a wealthy person, Gilleo at 57, or a sign saying ``socialism sucks - biden blows'' in the yard of a person benefitting from federal mortgage assistance.

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

  • icon
    Shel10 (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:06am

    less terrible than Philadelphians.

    I resent your statement about Philadelphians. Therefore, you have the opportunity to fuck yourself.

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

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Jul 2021 @ 11:16am

    which would be taken by literally nobody to mean the property owner is suggesting someone should engage in a sexual act with the current President.

    Not even an elderphile would take it that way? He's old enough that he should be appealing...

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

  • icon
    Bloof (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:20pm

    What a stupid hill to die on for all involved.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    DebbyS (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 12:31pm

    Here's an idea...

    Think of it as practice toward how the Dems will us the Repubs' own actions (in reaction to Jan 6 and defending the destructive perps) to destroy that political. Jill Biden and some of her good friends gather and make some very artistic yard signs using the same verbiage as in the original "illegal" signs. They might add the ability to cover up parts of some words, but leave that up to the homeowner. Along with reporters (and Secret Service, of course), the ladies approach the homeowner and give her replacement signs, affirming her correct use of the First Amendment.

    Ms. Biden will go on to say something like "Of course, I'm the most recent one for many years to have f'd Joe Biden, and it's always been great fun. I guess it's sad that you will never get that chance, but, hey, you can exercise... your First Amendment rights, you should have no fear to do that and Americans should support you like we Bidens do." Maybe add something about #45 probably turning up to use the occasion to promote himself, but I'm sure Ms. Biden will be very careful in her choice of words... and Repubs will rush to insult her but yet again look like spoiled children. But that's just my idea! I voted Green, so whatever happens I know will be interesting.

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

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 1:00pm

    "there’s no place for profanity by a school and school children"

    Please to install monitoring devices in all homes with children so you can make sure no parent exposes their child to worse. Make sure you monitor them online to make sure they children are not exposed to profanity online.

    "The judge, while handing down his ruling and sentencing, rhetorically asked if a balance could be found between the homeowner’s freedom of speech and a mother having to explain what the f-word means to their child."

    Nope. There is no balance, there is just rampant morality run amuck form the bench.
    I once again bring up my when a Judge blows a 1st Amendment ruling in this way, they need to be off the bench until someone figures out if they had a stroke because they've forgotten the bedrock of the nation.

    Something something Jersey Shore... your arguments are moot.

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

  • icon
    sumgai (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 2:42pm

    We do have some problems here

    First, what if the whole community agrees that "X" is immoral, obscene and offensive in the extreme, and should be made illegal?

    Second, where is it written that all communities must have the same standards? Come to that...

    Third, when the Supremes use the word "community", do they really mean the whole country, where they hold final say? Or are they using the common term, thus speaking to myriad small enclaves of society, and hoping that no one objects too loudly? (The Amish and Mennonites might have a few words on the topic, for example.)

    In that light, I went out and researched what the Constitution had to say about obscenity, morals, offensiveness in public, and other such tidbits. It turns out that.. well fuck it, I'll just give you the link, and you can have as much fun as I did:

    https://time.com/4700835/sex-and-the-constitution/

    Don't let that link's title put you off, it's really all about "muh feelz", from 245 years ago up until today.

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

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    Chozen (profile), 20 Jul 2021 @ 10:37pm

    What a horrendous legal interpretation?

    "when considered as a whole"

    "these signs would need to violate all three clauses to be considered obscene"

    Asinine simply asinine! So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene? This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.

    "when considered as a whole" means to take all factors into account that doesn't mean that one single factor cant sway the entire decision on its own.

    It's like sports judging. Take boxing for example considered as a whole rounds a scored based on "clean punching, effective aggressiveness, ring generalship, and defense."

    That doesn't mean the the fighter that wins the most of the 4 wins the round. A fighter can be so dominate in clean punching that the other criteria don't matter.

    "Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 1:31am

      Re:

      Dude, you don't even know the difference between a public house and public housing.

      Idiot.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:30pm

        Re: Re:

        Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.

        Children children children. Mike has made you into a bunch of children.

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

        • icon
          Toom1275 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 8:09pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          [Projects facts not in the evidence]

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 10:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.

          And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing? No matter the amount of rooms a pub has to rent, it will never be a public housing.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Chozen (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:52am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "And how is this even relevant to conflating public house with public housing?"

            No you are conflating centuries. Using the wrong term for the wrong century. You confused a 21st century pub with 16th century public houses which were the public housing of their time and usually had to offer some set number of rooms/beds to be licensed.

            Now you are too ignorant to recognize you mistake.

            The original poster who may be you had the mistake pointed out immediately.

            "Although, I would ask whether the AC you responded to means accommodation or if he meant "public house" as in "pub"."

            You used the ancient word "public house" with the 21st century meaning for "pub" which are two differnt things.

            A modern pub evolved from the medieval-renaissance "public house" but they are not the same. If you use the older term you imply the older definition.

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

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 11:29pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          So, you defence for being an idiot before is that you were using some legal definition of the term rather than the clearly intended colloquial term?

          That might not be the defence you think it is, especially as you used that "mistake" to launch into nonsense about how people aren't allowed to ask party guests to leave their own homes without a contract and police backup.

          Even if you were right, you were still hilariously wrong immediately afterwards.

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

          • icon
            Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Even if you were right, you were still hilariously wrong immediately afterwards."

            Well, at least Baghdad Bob stays true to form;

            1) Starts off by claiming expertise in area X.
            2) Proves he hasn't a clue about area X.
            3) Gets put on the spot and immediately lies about what he said or otherwise deflects blame while breaking out the ad homs.

            Most village idiots would be getting a clue by now.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:19am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "Dude, you dont even know the difference between a 21st century pub and a 16th century public house. "

          So...after failing to present Munn as the be-all, end-all argument as to why Facebook ought to be considered public property you now want to present an even older failing argument which also doesn't show anything you want it to show?

          A Pub still isn't required to perform the same process of eviction a landlord needs to, no matter how many irrelevant examples to the contrary you try to showcase.

          "Children children children."

          Every accusation, a confession with you, isn't it?

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 1:15pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          It was common that a public house by law had to offer a certain amount of rooms and/or beds for rent to be granted a license.

          Public House

          A pub (short for public house) is an establishment licensed to serve alcoholic drinks for consumption on the premises. The term public house first appeared in the late 17th century, and was used to differentiate private houses from those which were, quite literally, open to the public as 'alehouses', 'taverns' and 'inns'.

          Public Housing

          Public housing is a form of housing tenure in which the property is usually owned by a government authority, either central or local.

          There should still be no confusion between the two. Just because a "pub" could also have rooms to rent, it can no way be construed as property owned by the government.

          Idiot.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:20am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            Oh look he is using Wikipedia again. You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore.

            "After the Restoration in Great Britain there was a trend toward more extensive, better controlled drinking premises, and magistrates, who supervised licensing matters, started to insist that licensed premises should be equipped with stabling (previously confined to inns) and lodgings."
            https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/9qVj08mAiJ/

            I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging. But in the days of true public houses lodging had to be offered to be licensed. Now zip it.

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

            • icon
              Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 7:44am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              "You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore."

              And will you look at that, we actually live in the 21st century, not the 16th.

              "I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging. But in the days of true public houses lodging had to be offered to be licensed. Now zip it."

              So your assertion is that you win as 16th century british law gives you the argument as to why a social platform moderating a post should be held to the same standards as a landlord evicting a tenant?

              I think we've all seen you shooting your own argument in the crotch a few times now, but that one takes it just a few steps further.

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

              • icon
                Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 11:35am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                "So your assertion is that you win as 16th century british law gives you the argument as to why a social platform moderating a post should be held to the same standards as a landlord evicting a tenant?"

                I'm not the one who used the bull$^$^ example!

                The truth is an individual is allowed to use force on another when force is not being used against them or another. So the examples are moot. That entire thread was bad example after bad example because fundamentally it cant be justified legally.

                It doesn't matter if they are a customer, tenant, guest etc. etc. if they entered your property legally you cannot use physical force to kick them out. You can be like a bouncer at a dive bar and take the risk but that doesn't make it legal.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Jul 2021 @ 10:12am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh look he is using Wikipedia again. You are again using 21st century definitions. A 21st century Pub evolved from a public house but they are not the same thing anymore.

              You are still the idiot who is trying to conflate public house with public housing. Notice the difference in spelling?

              Please locate one example of "public housing" that was used to describe a "pub, inn or tavern". And the term "public housing" has to be explicitly used instead of "public house". And it can come from any century.

              I'll wait.

              Also, as a side point, even Wikipedia has a notice for people like you who do not seem to understand the difference between the words "house" and "housing":

              "Public house" redirects here. It is not to be confused with Public housing.

              But yet, here you are, still confusing the two.

              Now zip it.

              Why? Tired of me calling out your stupidity?

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

            • icon
              Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 12:53pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

              “ I don't see too many Pubs these days that offer stabling and lodging.”
              Someone hasn’t visited me he American south west. Or much of Northern Europe, or Russia. Or China. Or Japan.

              Bars with lodging exist all over the world. In some areas in large numbers.

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

              • icon
                nasch (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 1:58pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Bars with lodging exist all over the world.

                When was the last time you saw a bar with a stable?

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

                • icon
                  Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:25pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  The winter before covid in northern Arizona.
                  Just south of Page. Us 89. Burgers were $6. Room for $30. I didn’t stay but they did have stables attached. Likely for canyon riders is my guess.

                  They’re popular enough for them to still be around. BBB, beer barbecue, and bed.

                  No, it’s not 1930, or 1830… but they do exist.east of the SN range they’re easy enough to find if you go looking for them.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:34pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Oh, I hope to be allowed to travel again to the point where I can see such strange things. I'm getting itchy just not being able to confidently book a regular film festival I used to go to when the tickets go on sale tomorrow, let alone see a stable at a bar. But, that specific point isn't central to the argument being made by the person he was replying to.

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

              • icon
                PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:08pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                Bear in mind that the person above is not arguing the definition of pub in good faith. He's trying to backtrack from his assertion in other threads that since you need to jump through legal hoops to evict long term tenants from rented accommodation, you need to do the same to eject an unruly guest from a pub or private home.

                He's just trying to avoid responsibility that he misunderstood the term "public house" when he first read it, and launched in completely the wrong direction in response.

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

                • icon
                  Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 2:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  Ah, understood.
                  Legal issues.

                  Didn’t mean to misdirect your discussion, I just happen to like such “inn” locations. By whatever name it uses. Pub, saloon, inn, bbb, wayside… a hidden gem in travel.

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

                  • icon
                    PaulT (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 3:22pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    All of those things sound good, and I hope to return to travel soon in order to see them. Until then, just be aware that in a response to this specific user with reference to "pub", we're talking about a particular argument that doesn't hold water.

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

                    • icon
                      Lostinlodos (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 4:00pm

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Hoped we can get vacation travel ID worked out so we can start doing so. Looking forward to those “passports”. Shows I used my brain. And I don’t have to worry about copying my vax card or bringing it along or whatever.

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

                • icon
                  Chozen (profile), 23 Jul 2021 @ 10:45pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                  No if you remember correctly the sites 4 stooges were trying to come up with some kind of example where property rights allowed a person to use physical force to remove someone. We went from in a restaurant, in a bar, in your home, in a public house. You couldn't get through your thick skulls that its never legal to use force to remove person who entered legally unless force is being used upon you or in defense of someone else.

                  No matter what examples you can think of its never legal.

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

                  • identicon
                    Anonymous Coward, 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:39am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    We went from in a restaurant, in a bar, in your home, in a public house. You couldn't get through your thick skulls that its never legal to use force to remove person who entered legally unless force is being used upon you or in defense of someone else.

                    No matter what examples you can think of its never legal.

                    Completely wrong, again, you idiot.

                    Once you tell somebody who is on your private property that they are no longer welcome on your private property, then you can use whatever force necessary to remove them. It's called trespassing.

                    Five seconds on google came up with this Texas law:

                    Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property

                    (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
                    (emphasis added)

                    And I am sure there are plenty of other states with something similar. Hell, the pro 2A states probably allow you to shoot somebody once you tell them they are trespassing.

                    So, wrong again.

                    Are you getting tired of constantly being schooled here?

                    Also, at some point you should just quit digging as each new comment just reenforces that you are an idiot who knows nothing about that of which you speak.

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

                    • icon
                      Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 1:02am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                      Ability to shoot is not just red states.
                      The difference is in blue states you tend to have to give fair warning first. Red states tend to be shoot on site no warning.

                      The funny aspect of that is red states tend to have less cases of trespassing.

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

                  • icon
                    Lostinlodos (profile), 24 Jul 2021 @ 12:59am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                    Wait, what?

                    I don’t know where you live but it is 100% legal to drag a person kicking and screaming from private property in nearly every part of the US.

                    Ow, that ability is limited by permanence doctrine. But depending on the state that’s from 2 weeks to 90 days.

                    Permanence is a thorn in the side of extended/long-term lodging.
                    It why some states only have a few dozen (Cali) and some states have thousands (Nevada, Wisconsin…)

                    Until that point is crossed I can youse whatever method of physical removal I want within equal force law.
                    That means I can only guide the drunk crying meltdown to the door, the the fist swinging drunk maniac can be all but dragged by the hair.

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

    • icon
      Stephen T. Stone (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 3:12am

      "Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked.

      “Close enough” only works in horseshoes, hand grenades, and moneyshots in porn. When the law is involved, all boxes must be checked⁠—doubly so when the law involves speech. So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene. It might offend people, but that alone isn’t enough to allow government censorship.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:14am

        Re:

        "So yes, speech that is “purely prurient” but “does have a political or artistic value” wouldn’t qualify as obscene."

        So a picture of Joe Biden on his knees fellating Xi Jinping would not be obscene as it has serious political value?

        We all get the metaphor and the serious political meaning of the metaphor but that doesn't mean such a picture isn't obscene.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 2:19pm

          Re: Re:

          “So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene?”

          By definition if it’s purely prurient it wouldn’t have political or artistic value. I’m sorry no seven year old were around to explain the concept to you. It would save you the self inflicted public humiliation.

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

          • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
            icon
            Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:28pm

            Re: Re: Re:

            Oh child I already gave you an example. Biden on his knees fellating Xi. That is purely prurient but also a clear political metaphor.

            Why is this site populated with children. Oh thats right Mike is a "L"ibertarian but runs his site like an authoritarian.

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

            • icon
              nasch (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 8:01pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              That is purely prurient but also a clear political metaphor.

              If it's partly political, then it cannot be purely prurient. That's what "purely" means.

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

              • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
                icon
                Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 8:59pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

                It is 100% prurient. It is a prurient metaphor, child.

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

                • icon
                  Stephen T. Stone (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 3:29am

                  A sexualized image can be both prurient and political. To be “purely prurient”, it can’t be political. That’s the difference between, say, Pam Anderson posing naked for Playboy and Pam Anderson posing naked for PETA.

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

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:58am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Oh child

              Why do you have to call people child?

              Are you some sick fuck with pedo fantasies?

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

            • icon
              bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:15am

              Re: Re: Re: Re:

              Technically, “purely prurient” could either mean:

              1. Only serves prurient interests and has no other value, meaning, interpretation, or purpose; or

              2. Cannot be interpreted to not be significantly prurient.

              The way you’re using the term suggests you mean definition 2. The others are using definition 1, which necessarily excludes anything that has even the slightest amount of political and/or artistic value. It’s unclear which is meant in the relevant law, but regardless, both of the following are true:

              • Under definition 1, something cannot both be purely prurient and have some artistic and/or political value. Therefore, anything that has artistic and/or political value would not be “obscene” under the relevant law no matter how prurient.

              • Under definition 2, something can both be purely prurient and have some artistic and/or political value. If that’s the case, then under a plain reading of the relevant law, such a thing would not be obscene.

              Either way, something that has artistic and/or political value would not be obscene under this law, regardless of how prurient it is. We can argue whether or not that ought to be the case under the law, or whether the law should change, but this is about what the law actually says, not what we want it to say.

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

        • icon
          bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 11:03am

          Re: Re:

          It’d depend on the context, but generally, that wouldn’t be “obscene”, at least as the term is explicitly defined in this particular statute.

          You have to understand that the legal definition of “obscene” is distinct from the colloquial definition we generally use.

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

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 21 Jul 2021 @ 6:13am

      Re:

      "Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. Jesus Christ how does this tripe get through.

      I'd suggest looking up the word 'whole.'

      HTH

      '

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:16am

      Re:

      ""Considered as a whole" does not mean all boxes must be checked. "

      It actually does considering that it's what the law says.

      Then again you've tried to argue that putting a comment on Facebook should be considered similar to renting a damn apartment or house so I'm not exactly surprised at your kindergarten-level of legal logic.

      "It's like sports judging."

      It really isn't. And even the example breaks down given that the analogy you insist on here would be said sports judge deciding that a fist missing by three inches should still be considered a "hit".

      Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
      I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good.

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 12:50pm

        Re: Re:

        "It actually does considering that it's what the law says."

        That is not what the law says. You are taking the word "whole" and ignoring the word "considered."

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

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        Chozen (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 12:55pm

        Re: Re:

        "Honestly, Baghdad Bob...you really need to stop trying to argue from assumed authority.
        I mean, don't get me wrong; it's usually pretty amusing to watch you clown around. Aside from making readers snicker and smirk at you I don't really see these masochistic exercises of yours doing you much good."

        I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you, which isn't saying much. I don't make these absolutist religious arguments. I operate in the real world which is very grey, even on constitutional issues. Its very easy to give examples that falsify your absolutist religious arguments because your arguments have to be correct 100% of the time.

        You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do.

        That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.

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

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 22 Jul 2021 @ 5:52am

          Re: Re: Re:

          That is your problem. You are blinded by religion. I recognize that I'm dealing with a religious zealot. Not someone engaging on actual thought.

          Whoooo boy! You should run a drive-in with that kind of projection.

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

        • icon
          Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 6:38am

          Re: Re: Re:

          "I don't make these absolutist religious arguments."

          Law is a religion to you? No, Baghdad Bob, the issue we're having is that you think law is subject to your personal opinion. It's not. When it says "and" it means all points must apply and when it says "when considered as a whole" nothing else is suggested or implied. Wording of law is absolutist and if you think otherwise I advice you never to sign any contracts without competent legal counsel.

          "I never claim to be an authority just smarter than you..."

          I would never be daft enough to try to compare a platform owner or pub owner evicting patrons with a landlord evicting tenants. Nor was I the gormless lackwit who doubled down on it.

          "I operate in the real world which is very grey..."

          Not where legal issues are concerned and particularly so not where the law has been quite clearly spelled out. The only gray area left is the bit where a presumptive claimant offers to deal in equity and good faith rather than rely on the contract body.
          Which you'd know if you in fact "operated" in any area where you need more than a handshake to close a deal.

          "You make simplistic absolutist statements like 'The government cant force a private company to host speech' all I have to do is give the examples where they alredy do. "

          You have failed to provide a single example so far which wasn't based on a false premise...but by all means keep bragging about all the "proof" you can deliver about Russel's Teapot.

          "That is your problem. You are blinded by religion."

          Ah, since you've got absolutely nothing except ad hom you fall back on spurious rhetoric and marginalization? True to form, Baghdad Bob, true to form.

          I can only hope for your sake that you're just trolling here, because in that real world you describe you end up wondering what happened when the repo men come help you with your personal bankruptcy.

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

    • icon
      bhull242 (profile), 22 Jul 2021 @ 10:59am

      Re:

      So something purely prurient that does have a political or artistic value wouldn't be obscene?

      That is correct. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the people who wrote the local codes.

      This is just another example of this pathetic blog writers making up their own rules.

      Actually, it’s a plain reading of the laws at issue. Do you not understand what “and” means?

      "when considered as a whole" means to take all factors into account that doesn't mean that one single factor cant sway the entire decision on its own.

      That applies in, say, the “fair-use” test, where the values are weighed against each other and was explicitly defined as such, or where the factors are connected by the word “or”. In this case, we have a conjunction of factors, not just a list of factors or a disjunction of factors. That means that all of the factors have to be met.

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

  • icon
    Shaun Wilson (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 2:50am

    The closest any of the signs come to the "purient interest" standard of the law (and to be clear it is still well off) is the "Socialism sucks, Biden blows" sign - in that I could see a bunch of 10 year old boys pointing to the sign and gigling after having it explained by an older kid. Even this is a stretch, along the lines of "rational basis review" where anything even cocievable (even if irrational) counts.

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

  • icon
    Dank710 (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 5:33am

    No laws agaisnt being white trash

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

  • icon
    mechtheist (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:03am

    What about the children?

    I was born in 1958, so back in the early '60's I was definitely a children, I lived in a small Texas farming community, went to a Catholic School, my mother made sure we only went to movies cleared by the Catholic Church's rating system's cleanest rating, it was AI, 'A' came with some I, II, III IIII subcategories if I remember correctly, which were listed in every Sunday's bulletin. Needless to say, this was a pretty sheltered existence, not very far removed from Mayberryesqueville, and I can't remember how young I was when most kids I knew used 'fuck' regularly but it was maybe 2nd grade. Do most folks simply forget what it was like when they were kids? If merely seeing the word 'fuck' somehow traumatized a kid, then virtually every kid today would require massive doses of Thorazine.

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

    • icon
      Scary Devil Monastery (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 7:35am

      Re: What about the children?

      "If merely seeing the word 'fuck' somehow traumatized a kid, then virtually every kid today would require massive doses of Thorazine."

      Yes, well...I posit that were your parents from the early 60's to meet the current crop of american evangelicals the first thing they'd be greeted with would be a "Repent, Sinners!!".

      American puritanism hasn't aged well.

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

  • icon
    Skylos (profile), 21 Jul 2021 @ 10:27am

    Definition of Fuck

    Its contextual, padowan. In this case, it is an imperative verb that means "Invalidate and dismiss with anger".

    Now, is that really SO HARD to explain?

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


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Make this the First Word or Last Word. No thanks. (get credits or sign in to see balance)    
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

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