Public Murals and Free Speech on Public Forums

[Derec]

Stupid, stupid Americans.

Not all Americans, surely ...

"(___________) lives matter" is not political. It is ideological, yes, but not political -

If it's ideological, then it's political.

unless one wishes to posit that the notion that lives matter is exclusively a Democratic Party idea that is opposed by Republicans.

Not all politics is electoral/party politics.

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.

No, it doesn't say that.

On the other hand, #BLMers have positions such as "fuck the police" and "pigs in a blanket, fry them like bacon".

 

[Patooka]

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.

I would take it a little further and put limits as to when slogans could be displayed in public areas, much like the legislation regarding electioneering near polling booths. But I recognise that

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

Huh? How does a civil rights movement become an endorsement for a particular type of government? That's absurd.

 

[Derec]

Huh? How does a civil rights movement become an endorsement for a particular type of government? That's absurd.

First of all, it's not a "civil rights movement". It's an extremist movement opposed to police and in support of black thugs such as Patrick Kimmons (who shot two people before police shot him).

As to them being Marxist, #BLM co-founder Patrice Cullors admits that #BLM has "ideological frame" and that she and her fellow co-founder Alicia Garza are "trained Marxists".

That fits well with demands of many of the #BLM "protesters" to smash capitalism and the like.
'

#BLMers also support Black Liberation Army (an even more violent offshoot of the Marxist Black Panthers) cop murderer Joanne Chesimard.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is that what I said? Hint: no, it wasn't. Allowing a BLM installation isn't necessarily endorsing BLM.



What does any of this have to do with what I said to you?
"Hey City Hall: I saw you let someone put up a temporary mural for Veterans Day. I'd like to put up a mural of tits and dongs."
"Unfortunately that violates our policy on..."
"If you let one thing go up you have to let anything go up. TITS AND DONGS NOW YOU TYRANNICAL FUCKERS!"
"Sir, please calm down."
"I'll drop the mural issue for now. But I noticed there was a statue of our town's founder in a local park. If that statue can go up then you have to let me display my statue of Stalin skullfucking Abraham Lincoln in the park. It's very tastefully done, I assure you."

There is no requirement to allow all things in all contexts. That's not what neutrality means.

If the government opens up a forum for a group to express it’s view, it is open to everyone. This isn’t hard, dude. This may be an outdated reference, but EVERYONE gets to be on the public access channel.

That's not what they did, "dude". But even if they did, open to everyone doesn't mean all content approved. It never has.

But you can't single out based on whether you agree with it. Speech is speech, you can regulate based on the general nature (commercial vs political, for example), but not on whether you like it. Locally we have had repeated trips through the court about the city trying to prohibit the distribution of prostitute ad flyers--but you can't ban them without also banning restaurants handing out ads. Every attempt got stomped on by the first federal (non-elected) judge to hear the case.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

That's not what they did, "dude". But even if they did, open to everyone doesn't mean all content approved. It never has.

But you can't single out based on whether you agree with it. Speech is speech, you can regulate based on the general nature (commercial vs political, for example), but not on whether you like it. Locally we have had repeated trips through the court about the city trying to prohibit the distribution of prostitute ad flyers--but you can't ban them without also banning restaurants handing out ads. Every attempt got stomped on by the first federal (non-elected) judge to hear the case.

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging in the same sense of presidential campaign slogans just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

 

[skepticalbip]

That's not what they did, "dude". But even if they did, open to everyone doesn't mean all content approved. It never has.

But you can't single out based on whether you agree with it. Speech is speech, you can regulate based on the general nature (commercial vs political, for example), but not on whether you like it. Locally we have had repeated trips through the court about the city trying to prohibit the distribution of prostitute ad flyers--but you can't ban them without also banning restaurants handing out ads. Every attempt got stomped on by the first federal (non-elected) judge to hear the case.

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

You apparently have never visited the BLM web page and actually read it. Either that or you have no idea what the terms "political movement" and "political speech" means.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

You apparently have never visited the BLM web page and actually read it. Either that or you have no idea what the terms "political movement" and "political speech" means.

Politician campaigning and advertisement is not the same as issue activism. If someone wanted an ALL LIVES MATTER mural and politicians said, "no, you are stupid," then that would be a violation of neutrality. In most towns, there are designated public space areas for politician advertising that are equally usable and do not include the road. In other words, area A is for any political candidate. Area B is for any issue advocacy. Opposing views receive equal treatment even if views in different categorizations are treated differently. Right?

Also, again, there have been traffic law complaints about BLM murals across the country. The city officials said they removed it because yellow paint may be a hazard, i.e. they seemed to have caved to conservatives, racists etc to remove the mural. Now, you are presuming they are lying. Please show your proof they are lying.

 

[skepticalbip]

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

You apparently have never visited the BLM web page and actually read it. Either that or you have no idea what the terms "political movement" and "political speech" means.

Politician campaigning and advertisement is not the same as issue activism.

One is political speech advocating support for the political agenda of the candidates running and the other is political speech advocating support for the political agenda of the political activist group.

ETA:
If an issue activist group had a slogan "eat less sugar" but were not pushing for people to vote to elect politicians who would outlaw or regulate sugar use. then they would not be a political movement. However if they were advocating for laws regulating sugar then they would be a political movement.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Politician campaigning and advertisement is not the same as issue activism.

One is political speech advocating support for the political agenda of the candidates running and the other is political speech advocating support for the political agenda of the political activist group.

ETA:
If an issue activist group had a slogan "eat less sugar" but were not pushing for people to vote to elect someone who would outlaw or regulate sugar use. then they would not be a political movement. However if they were advocating for laws regulating sugar then they would be a political movement.

So what. I already explained how issue advocacy is not the same as politician campaigning. I already explained how opposing views are treated equally: Politician advertising belongs in area A, regardless of politician. Issue such as BLM or ALM can be used for murals outside area A where such issues are opposing. Therefore, opposing views are treated equally.

In addition to this, conservatives and racists etc were complaining about traffic laws and risks. City officials said they caved to this and it had nothing to do with content. How do you know they are lying?

 

[skepticalbip]

Politician campaigning and advertisement is not the same as issue activism.

One is political speech advocating support for the political agenda of the candidates running and the other is political speech advocating support for the political agenda of the political activist group.

ETA:
If an issue activist group had a slogan "eat less sugar" but were not pushing for people to vote to elect someone who would outlaw or regulate sugar use. then they would not be a political movement. However if they were advocating for laws regulating sugar then they would be a political movement.

So what. I already explained how issue advocacy is not the same as politician campaigning. ....

And I already explained to you that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You being incapable of understanding what is politics and what isn't is a shame.

I attempted to demonstrate it in a way that I thought even you could understand with the "eat less sugar" example but, apparently, I overestimated your objectivity.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So what. I already explained how issue advocacy is not the same as politician campaigning. ....

And I already explained to you that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You being incapable of understanding what is politics and what isn't is a shame.

I attempted to demonstrate it in a way that I thought even you could understand with the "eat less sugar" example but, apparently, I overestimated your objectivity.

You are writing past yourself by over-simplifying things and not accepting legal categories that are different. Categories exist among different kinds of political things!!! A politician advertisement is in a category of politician advertising. And issue advocacy is in a different political bucket of issue advocacy. Both can be political speech but somehow you are not able to grasp this. I've already explained to you so many times now that there are different tax statuses for example under the law for political campaigns and for issue advocacy. "Eat less sugar" is not an example of a political category and so it is irrelevant....unless it also happens to be a slogan of a food politics group that wants to ban large sodas etc.

Let's try this again....

Let's suppose there is a town that has a caged area for Big Cats. Dogs have to be leashed. Small cats that are pets do not need to be leashed. These are the town ordinances. Now, someone shows up next to city hall with their little cat. It's a black cat and it makes racists mad. They are crazy.

One of the racists shows up next to city hall with an unleashed White Siberian Tiger. She gets arrested for endangering the public. Racists (and conservatives) start screaming that she was discriminated against because all pets are allowed in public spaces at all times and conditions. Now, someone on the Internet tries to explain to one of these screaming conservatives that there is a designated area for Big Cats and that if she brought a small cat with her to city hall, it'd be okay. So no one was actually discriminating against her.

Person B on the Internet, another conservative, starts screaming about dogs, "Dogs are pets! You being incapable of understanding what are pets and what aren't is a shame! I attempted to demonstrate it in a way that I thought even you could understand with the 'dogs have 4 legs' example, but apparently, I overestimated your objectivity."

1. Are you able to tell what is wrong with Person B's argument? Please explain what is fallacious about it to demonstrate that you are able.

Next, I've asked you repeatedly to prove that the Trump fan was actually discriminated against when other Trump fans across the country complained that the BLM murals are dangerous to traffic because they are painted in yellow. The city officials explained that was why they removed them.

Here's an example of feedback about traffic to the NYC (not Redwood) murals:
‘Black Lives Matter’ Murals Are Nice, But Unsafe, Traffic-Choked Streets Betray Mayor’s Lack of Concern

This kind of feedback was part of a national strategy that I observed in other places such as facebook law enforcement groups where racists said the people doing it shouldn't be on the road except to be SPEED BUMPS!!!!!!

2. Where is your proof that the city officials were lying?

 

[ruby sparks]

To me that's a clear traffic hazard and should not have been allowed for that reason. I can't believe it was allowed either side of a pedestrian crossing. It's bound to distract approaching drivers, especially in yellow.

 

[skepticalbip]

So what. I already explained how issue advocacy is not the same as politician campaigning. ....

And I already explained to you that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. You being incapable of understanding what is politics and what isn't is a shame.

I attempted to demonstrate it in a way that I thought even you could understand with the "eat less sugar" example but, apparently, I overestimated your objectivity.

You are writing past yourself by over-simplifying things ............

I was oversimplifying things in an attempt to find something that even you could understand.

Your special pleading arguments (like religious nuts use) is tiresome.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are writing past yourself by over-simplifying things ............

I was oversimplifying things in an attempt to find something that even you could understand.

Your special pleading arguments (like religious nuts use) is tiresome.

1. Are you able to tell what is wrong with Person B's argument? Please explain what is fallacious about it to demonstrate that you are able.

2. Where is your proof that the city officials were lying?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

That's not what they did, "dude". But even if they did, open to everyone doesn't mean all content approved. It never has.

But you can't single out based on whether you agree with it. Speech is speech, you can regulate based on the general nature (commercial vs political, for example), but not on whether you like it. Locally we have had repeated trips through the court about the city trying to prohibit the distribution of prostitute ad flyers--but you can't ban them without also banning restaurants handing out ads. Every attempt got stomped on by the first federal (non-elected) judge to hear the case.

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging in the same sense of presidential campaign slogans just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

Political issues are still political even if they aren't for a candidate or party.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

You apparently have never visited the BLM web page and actually read it. Either that or you have no idea what the terms "political movement" and "political speech" means.

Politician campaigning and advertisement is not the same as issue activism.

And 7 days is not the same thing as a week.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 28695

To me that's a clear traffic hazard and should not have been allowed for that reason. I can't believe it was allowed either side of a pedestrian crossing. It's bound to distract approaching drivers, especially in yellow.

Seconded. I don't like any road markings that aren't relevant to drivers, but I especially don't like that it's yellow. If they're going to do it it should be green.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging in the same sense of presidential campaign slogans just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

Political issues are still political even if they aren't for a candidate or party.

That doesn't have to be relevant. Suppose hypothetical town Restrictedville with Republican Mayor Adolf Smith enacts a law that public area A is for candidate signs and public area B is for issue advocacy. In a sense, Restrictedville may not be content-type neutral depending on some other factors, but they remain content neutral. For example, each political candidate and each fan of political candidates has the same exact opportunities within public space, completely independent on whether they are promoting Trump, promoting Biden, Vermin Supreme or whoever AND each issue advocacy group and its proponents also have the same opportunities as each other. It's only when you cross content types that there may not be the same level of opportunity but this is because different content TYPES are different structurally. For example, every year there is a voting season that goes crazy with signs and the signs become a distraction to drivers etc. So, the town may have decided to restrict this content type to specific areas of driving where drivers are less accident-prone while driving. Meanwhile, issue advocacy may be so rare a thing to make murals on public spaces that the town may allow permits to do so for a specific amount of time so that streets are not full of murals year long, frequency determined empirically...

Now whether or not I personally agree with such restrictions is irrelevant, the question is whether they are discriminatory (or not neutral to content), which in this hypothetical situation, they are content neutral.

But honestly, this is only an abstract concern. The city officials said they removed the mural because of complaints about traffic risk. One can see that conservatives have been complaining about traffic risks, too. We ought not assume just because a single person asks for a MAGA mural and the city erased the BLM mural that the one was because of the other. There is another plausible alternative.

 

[zorq]

Politician campaigning and advertisement is not the same as issue activism.

And 7 days is not the same thing as a week.

You're right! It's not the same.

I have slept at my friend's house for 7 days... always on a Saturday. I didn't sleep there for a week. I slept there for 7 days. Just because things have significant similarities doesn't make them equivalent. Details are important.

I'm so glad you were able to see the light on this.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

I am not singling out based on whether I agree with it. I've been very clear. I don't ascribe to the silly notion being bandied about in this thread that 'BLM' is political messaging in the same sense of presidential campaign slogans just because politics is incidentally involved. By that standard, 'Together, anything is possible' is a political message. I don't equivocate so brutally that slogans such as 'Yes we can' or 'Make America great again'--slogans directly linked to promoting candidates for office--are the same as any message someone can somehow lump into being part of political conversations of the day.

This isn't comparing ads to ads.

Political issues are still political even if they aren't for a candidate or party.

You aren't arguing against a point being made.