• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Texas police confiscate yard sign depicting GOP elephant with trunk up a girl’s skirt

 
 
 
ZiprHead

ZiprHead

Looney Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
46,982
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Don't be a dick.
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410249-texas-police-yard-sign-depicting-gop-elephant-with-trunk-up-a?__twitter_impression=true

"A woman in Hamilton, Texas, is speaking out after local police removed a yard sign she made in protest of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court after multiple sexual misconduct allegations were brought against him.

Marion Stanford told The Washington Post in an interview released on Saturday that police confiscated a sign she made depicting an elephant, the Republican mascot, with its trunk up a girl’s skirt."
 
Since it has social value (political) it does not meet the definition of obscene. It also is not very explicit, no nudity except the Elephant.

In any case, since this is an actual free speech issue, we can be sure all those right-wing alt-right free speech warriors will defend this woman.
 
I'm not clear on the message of the trunk up the girl's skirt. Is that intended to mean the members of the GOP like to molest little girls? Or is it symbolic of the GOP getting their nose in women's private, sexual business (like abortion, birth control, etc)? Initially, that would seem the more likely one to me, but the person appears to be a little girl, and not an adult (or even near adult). And why does this girl not have any arms? Is this implying the GOP goes after armless girls because they know they can't fight back? :p

At any rate, the sign should not have been confiscated just because some GOP snowflakes got triggered.
 
thebeave said:
I'm not clear on the message of the trunk up the girl's skirt. Is that intended to mean the members of the GOP like to molest little girls? Or is it symbolic of the GOP getting their nose in women's private, sexual business (like abortion, birth control, etc)? Initially, that would seem the more likely one to me, but the person appears to be a little girl, and not an adult (or even near adult). And why does this girl not have any arms? Is this implying the GOP goes after armless girls because they know they can't fight back? :p

At any rate, the sign should not have been confiscated just because some GOP snowflakes got triggered.
Click to expand...

The image itself was created during the Roy Moore scandal. Still apropos today for the reasons you cite and more.
 
It's a very clever sign and absolutely protected political speech. I hope the ACLU get on this. It's a slam dunk that the police violated the woman's freedom of speech. The city manager needs to also get a strong lesson in the first amendment also.
 
ZiprHead said:
thebeave said:
I'm not clear on the message of the trunk up the girl's skirt. Is that intended to mean the members of the GOP like to molest little girls? Or is it symbolic of the GOP getting their nose in women's private, sexual business (like abortion, birth control, etc)? Initially, that would seem the more likely one to me, but the person appears to be a little girl, and not an adult (or even near adult). And why does this girl not have any arms? Is this implying the GOP goes after armless girls because they know they can't fight back? :p

At any rate, the sign should not have been confiscated just because some GOP snowflakes got triggered.
Click to expand...

The image itself was created during the Roy Moore scandal. Still apropos today for the reasons you cite and more.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure this wouldn't stand suit in court.
 
Thumpalumpacus said:
Pretty sure this wouldn't stand suit in court.
Click to expand...
It'll never even make it to court. The cops who took the sign, and the supervisor back at the station who presumably told them they could take it, should all be in jail for petty theft; but DAs suck at prosecuting cops.

Oh, you meant the court case for her to get her sign back and an injunction to stop the cops from taking it again. Yeah, that'll probably need a lawsuit. :rolleyes:
 
ZiprHead said:
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/410249-texas-police-yard-sign-depicting-gop-elephant-with-trunk-up-a?__twitter_impression=true

"A woman in Hamilton, Texas, is speaking out after local police removed a yard sign she made in protest of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court after multiple sexual misconduct allegations were brought against him.

Marion Stanford told The Washington Post in an interview released on Saturday that police confiscated a sign she made depicting an elephant, the Republican mascot, with its trunk up a girl’s skirt."
Click to expand...

But they didn't tell the whole story.

The real reason the sign was confiscated is that it was a depiction of Bill Clinton wearing his Elephant Halloween costume. Get your facts straight.
 
Bomb#20 said:
Thumpalumpacus said:
Pretty sure this wouldn't stand suit in court.
Click to expand...
It'll never even make it to court. The cops who took the sign, and the supervisor back at the station who presumably told them they could take it, should all be in jail for petty theft; but DAs suck at prosecuting cops.

Oh, you meant the court case for her to get her sign back and an injunction to stop the cops from taking it again. Yeah, that'll probably need a lawsuit. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I wonder if you could ask for (and not have it simply denied by the juduge) say $100k in damages for the lack of prosecution, to be waived if they were convicted/plead guilty to stealing the sign within one year of the verdict.
 
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Since it has social value (political) it does not meet the definition of obscene. It also is not very explicit, no nudity except the Elephant.

In any case, since this is an actual free speech issue, we can be sure all those right-wing alt-right free speech warriors will defend this woman.
Click to expand...
The right? You mean the left?
 
fast said:
Don2 (Don1 Revised) said:
Since it has social value (political) it does not meet the definition of obscene. It also is not very explicit, no nudity except the Elephant.

In any case, since this is an actual free speech issue, we can be sure all those right-wing alt-right free speech warriors will defend this woman.
Click to expand...
The right? You mean the left?
Click to expand...
You're not very good with sarcasm, are you? ;)
 
Looks like she's engaging in free speech to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom