Public Murals and Free Speech on Public Forums

[Trausti]

There is not a single candidate/official who runs on a BLM platform. They are not the same thing. I apologise that this is so complicated for you.

Equating a movement with a campaign leads to an irrelevant result. They are both political speech. I apologize that this is so complicated for you.

Nope.

Uh, yes. Political speech is not limited to elections.

 

[Elixir]

Stupid, stupid Americans.

"(___________) lives matter" is not political. It is ideological, yes, but not political - unless one wishes to posit that the notion that lives matter is exclusively a Democratic Party idea that is opposed by Republicans.
MAGA is a campaign slogan. THAT is political. It says America is not great, but it was - at some time in the past, notably when slavery was legal. And that IS a position that is exclusive to Republicans (and some libertards), and is opposed by Democrats.

 

[Patooka]

Nope.

Uh, yes. Political speech is not limited to elections.

I guess everything is political then. Give me a ring when the tits and dongs murals come out.

 

[skepticalbip]

Nope.

Uh, yes. Political speech is not limited to elections.

I guess everything is political then. give me a ring when the tits and dongs murals come out.

Any organization (or person) that is advocating pro or con government action, passing of laws, enforcement of laws, or repeal of laws is advocating a political cause. Their message is a political message.

A message, "eat at Joe's", is not a political message as it has nothing to do with government action.

 

[Patooka]

I guess everything is political then. give me a ring when the tits and dongs murals come out.

Any organization (or person) that is advocating pro or con government action, passing of laws, enforcement of laws, or repeal of laws is advocating a political cause. Their message is a political message.

I don't have a problem with that definition. So long as that definition clearly outlines a distinction between a political statement/movement and electioneering/campaigning.

 

[skepticalbip]

I guess everything is political then. give me a ring when the tits and dongs murals come out.

Any organization (or person) that is advocating pro or con government action, passing of laws, enforcement of laws, or repeal of laws is advocating a political cause. Their message is a political message.

I don't have a problem with that definition. So long as that definition clearly outlines a distinction between a political statement/movement and electioneering/campaigning.

That would be a distinction without a difference. Both would be political statements that carry equal protection under the law.

ETA:
I think you are implying that the campaign slogan used by Trump supporters, "Trump 2020", or Biden supporters slogan, "Build Back Better", isn't really advocating a government action. They are. The slogans are shorthand for their support of the candidate's platform of government actions the candidates are proposing.

 

[Patooka]

I don't have a problem with that definition. So long as that definition clearly outlines a distinction between a political statement/movement and electioneering/campaigning.

That would be a distinction without a difference. Both would be political statements that carry equal protection under the law.

Maybe they shouldn't. In fact I'll make it clearer; I don't think they should and making that distinction could fix a lot of issues with the US perpetual campaign cycle pervading every aspect of government.

 

[skepticalbip]

I don't have a problem with that definition. So long as that definition clearly outlines a distinction between a political statement/movement and electioneering/campaigning.

That would be a distinction without a difference. Both would be political statements that carry equal protection under the law.

Maybe they shouldn't. In fact I'll make it clearer; I don't think they should and making that distinction could fix a lot of issues with the US perpetual campaign cycle pervading every aspect of government.

I think we had a little cross post while I was adding my "ETA:" where I had anticipated what you may be thinking.

ETA:
I think you are implying that the campaign slogan used by Trump supporters, "Trump 2020", or Biden supporters slogan, "Build Back Better", isn't really advocating a government action. They are. The slogans are shorthand for their support of the candidate's platform of government actions the candidates are proposing.

Just as 'Black lives matter" is a political slogan that shows the person using it supports the political agenda of that organization.

 

[Patooka]

Maybe they shouldn't. In fact I'll make it clearer; I don't think they should and making that distinction could fix a lot of issues with the US perpetual campaign cycle pervading every aspect of government.

I think we had a little cross post while I was adding my "ETA:" where I had anticipated what you may be thinking.

ETA:
I think you are implying that the campaign slogan used by Trump supporters, "Trump 2020", or Biden supporters slogan, "Build Back Better", isn't really advocating a government action. They are. The slogans are shorthand for their support of the candidate's platform of government actions the candidates are proposing.

Just as 'Black lives matter" is a political slogan that shows the person using it supports the political agenda of that organization.

Black Lives Matter started in July 2013, outside of any election cycle. No one is running for election on a purely BLM platform. In that regard it is very similar to the Tea Party. Right until the moment Republican candidates campaigned as Tea Party candidates like Allen West. That's what turned it into a slogan. Personally, I think equating civil rights movements with campaign slogans is disingenuous and potentially dangerous. To comment on the example of "Build Back Better" - it's Biden's slogan so it should be disqualified. It's also an uninspiring slogan but that's more of a critique than anything else.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think we had a little cross post while I was adding my "ETA:" where I had anticipated what you may be thinking.

Just as 'Black lives matter" is a political slogan that shows the person using it supports the political agenda of that organization.

Black Lives Matter started in July 2013, outside of any election cycle. No one is running for election on a purely BLM platform. In that regard it is very similar to the Tea Party. Right until the moment Republican candidates campaigned as Tea Party candidates like Allen West. That's what turned it into a slogan. Personally, I think equating civil rights movements with campaign slogans is disingenuous and potentially dangerous. To comment on the example of "Build Back Better" - it's Biden's slogan so it should be disqualified. It's also an uninspiring slogan but that's more of a critique than anything else.

Politics and political agendas are much more than just election campaigns.

 

[Patooka]

I think we had a little cross post while I was adding my "ETA:" where I had anticipated what you may be thinking.

Just as 'Black lives matter" is a political slogan that shows the person using it supports the political agenda of that organization.

Black Lives Matter started in July 2013, outside of any election cycle. No one is running for election on a purely BLM platform. In that regard it is very similar to the Tea Party. Right until the moment Republican candidates campaigned as Tea Party candidates like Allen West. That's what turned it into a slogan. Personally, I think equating civil rights movements with campaign slogans is disingenuous and potentially dangerous. To comment on the example of "Build Back Better" - it's Biden's slogan so it should be disqualified. It's also an uninspiring slogan but that's more of a critique than anything else.

Politics and political agendas are much more than just election campaigns.

I agree. That's why I believe "Black Lives Matter" and "MAGA 2020" should be viewed differently. One's a slogan, the other is a civil rights movement.

 

[skepticalbip]

Politics and political agendas are much more than just election campaigns.

I agree. That's why I believe "Black Lives Matter" and "MAGA 2020" should be viewed differently. One's a slogan, the other is a civil rights movement.

Both are political slogans. One shows support for the political agenda of the BLM organization. The other shows support for the political agenda of the Republican party organization.

The fact that you agree with one and oppose the other is irrelevant under the law.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Politics and political agendas are much more than just election campaigns.

I agree. That's why I believe "Black Lives Matter" and "MAGA 2020" should be viewed differently. One's a slogan, the other is a civil rights movement.

Both are political slogans. One shows support for the political agenda of the BLM organization. The other shows support for the political agenda of the Republican party organization.

The fact that you agree with one and oppose the other is irrelevant under the law.

Nope. One is an issue advocacy group while the other is a political campaign of an individual. Those are different in nature. As such, the law treats the associated organizations differently with different tax designations, for example.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Both are political slogans. One shows support for the political agenda of the BLM organization. The other shows support for the political agenda of the Republican party organization.

The fact that you agree with one and oppose the other is irrelevant under the law.

Nope. One is an issue advocacy group while the other is a political campaign of an individual. Those are different in nature.

And they are both political speech, unlike "tits and dongs". That can be political speech, for instance if you were advocating for changing the law to allow public nudity. But right now it isn't. So yes, one is issue advocacy and the other is candidate advocacy, but they are both political speech and the same in nature that way.

As such, the law treats the associated organizations differently with different tax designations, for example.

Ah, so your standard of truth is "government says so."

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

And they are both political speech, unlike "tits and dongs". That can be political speech, for instance if you were advocating for changing the law to allow public nudity. But right now it isn't. So yes, one is issue advocacy and the other is candidate advocacy, but they are both political speech and the same in nature that way.

As such, the law treats the associated organizations differently with different tax designations, for example.

Ah, so your standard of truth is "government says so."

Fuck off and stop slandering me. My standard of truth in context is that when a person makes a claim about law, laws should be considered, not yiping on the Internet by wiener dogs. If I had my way, tits and dongs would be free speech, too. So suck it!

 

[Derec]

This action seems like kowtowing to terrorism.

Bullshit! It's all about viewpoint neutrality by public officials.

MAGA 2020 is obviously a political campaign slogan and should be rejected on that grounds.

"Black Lives Matter" is also very political, given that it's an openly Marxist organization that is viciously anti-police.

Imagine if anytime a public service notice was put up on council property and someone said you should put up my private message such as" ISIS is great" or similar message, claiming free speech; or for the reason the council removed the BLM sign because they thought they would then have no obligation to also permit a hate speech sign. They could simply reject it on the grounds that it is hate speech and as I said as a political campaign slogan.

#BLM is a political movement, and their slogans are not "public service notices". I do not think cities should paint political messages on city streets either. What NYC and Washington DC did with #BLM slogans is idiotic!

 

[Derec]

You have a point. I would argue that BLM is more of a civil rights movement and MAGA 2020 is an ostensibly political one.

Both are political. The latter is Republican, while the former is Marxist.

To argue that #BLM (which is not just a sentiment that "black lives matter" but includes policy demands and the like) is not a political movement is either intentionally dishonest or incredibly naive.

 

[Derec]

So is this life now in the US? Any minority gets a little recognition and a small group of white people whine, "But what about us white people? We have rights too!"

Shouldn't white people have rights too? Or is that too politically incorrect for the contemporary left?

 

[Derec]

I can't wait to see if this spreads to New York where the mayor has assigned 27 police to guard one mural there.

Which is especially stupid given the rise in shootings and other crime in NYC.
But then again de Blasio is an idiot.

 

[Derec]

No, MAGA is a blatantly political slogan. BLM is a humanitarian message,

Both are political slogans. Just like MAGA is not just a sentiment about wanting to improve America, #BLM is not just a sentiment about black lives mattering. Both of these are slogans which have been made popular by their respective political movements. In the case of #BLM, they are anti-police and pro-thugs such as Michael Brown or Patrick Kimmons ("protesters" in Portland even tried to establish a "Patrick Kimmons Autonomous Zone"). They don't just protest police brutality or unjustified shootings, but they protest (and often riot, loot and burn things) even when police did nothing wrong, as in the case of the 27-year old Rolling 60 Crips gang member who shot two other bangers before getting shot by police.

meant to counter the remnants of damage from "separate but equal" and "segregation now, segregation forever" and "As a class, I say it boldly; there is not a happier, more contented race upon the face of the earth." Etc.

Bullshit! All the remnants of those things vanished long before most of these rioters were born! No, what they seek is the revival of black radicalism of Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army or the Republic of New Afrika. That's why they glorify black extremist murderers like Joanna Chesimard (aka Assata Shakur).