What is Digg?127 Comments
- keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -18/+59So why can presidential and local office hopefuls spam our yards and public areas full of election signs? Because they have government support. And FTA, the military can do it too. Its messed up. The people do not have government support and never will because our free speech does not positively influence the government in any way. If he challenges it, hell get it thrown out, but this is selective enforcement. Probably from a biased officer of the law.
- KMye, on 10/10/2007, -3/+40I was laughing about how the ACLU was going to have a field day before I reread it and realized the sign wasn't in his yard, but in a park. "Impeach Bush" is protected speech, but just because of that doesn't mean he has a right to leave signs or bills saying it on public property. Now obviously the city is sticking it to him with the littering charge for causing a fuss challenging the fine.
- TheRealToma, on 10/10/2007, -8/+32As much as Id love to see the Bush come down, Id really hate to see a world where advertisers can just plant signs anywhere they want.
- atdigg, on 10/10/2007, -10/+30Selective application of the law is interesting, if you don't get a fine for "lost kitty" you shouldn't get one for "Impeach Bush"
- keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Activism is acticism is activism. Why bash someone for putting up for a good cause?
- psion01, on 10/10/2007, -4/+17Uh, I might be mistaken, but all those election signs you see on people's yards are either put there by the owners, or the owners allow the signs to be placed there because they are affiliated with that candidate's party.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -6/+18Don't forget about Dick.
- proliance, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Just don't put signs on telephone poles. I used to have to climb these things when I worked for the cable company and there is nothing more dangerous than getting a sleeve or glove hooked on a staple when gaffing a pole.
- Waskonator, on 10/10/2007, -21/+32impeach bush.
- clark24, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12Lazy ass should have stood in the park holding a sign or handing out fliers. That's what they are doing all over Chicago. How long do you think that sign would have lasted anyway. I absolutely agree with the message, but what he did is illegal.
- sfpfc, on 10/10/2007, -5/+14I don't care if he puts the sign in his yard, I actually encourage him to do it (I may not agree with it but his views, not mine) but placing in public areas = not cool
- Myko, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11That's really part of the issue - police aren't stopping people from posting other sides (Army recruiters, businesses, lost cat/dog signs) but are singling this gentlemen out for having an 'Impeach Bush' sign.
- kufu91, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11its still bs that hes getting a charge when everybody else who did the exact same thing aren't
- GirthAgain, on 10/10/2007, -9/+16"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Read this and then re-read it. After that, re-read your comment (If you want to impeach bush, great, but dont clutter up a public park), followed by a re-reading of what is posted above. Do ya see a problem with your line of thinking?
I imagine you are one of the 'yay yay Bush!" Republicans who fervently oppose anybody who wants to say anything negative about Bush, and unfortunately see no problem with completely ignoring the Constitutionally protected freedoms we used to have in order to do so. Where are your priorities, man? Are you so focused on hating democrats that you have no problem with the restrictions of freedoms?
- adrenaline33, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7If you are going to litter, don't ***** get caught. Seriously how long does it take to put a sign in the ground? Twenty seconds? I think you take a good look around you, put it in, and drive away. Idiot.
- aposter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Actually, sometimes they do. There was a case about 3 years ago where a candidate was putting signs up where ever he wanted. He wouldn't stop, so he was arrested for tresspassing.
- keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Damn right
- screensnot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6And just recently in Detroit, Fox2 News caught a candidate's brother sneaking around at night stealing the opponents' signs.
- Alegis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Yeah, our first amendment to advertise anywhere we want. Oh wai-
Read the article, or at the very least some of the comments above you. It has been pointed out several times it was NOT in his yard, but on public property.
Everyone advertising anywhere they want = bad. - dime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Kent: Killing Protesters Since 1970
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10"Selective application is how the law works."
I thought the whole point of democracy was to make laws that were fair so that they were applied evenly, to everyone. Boy was I wrong. I guess we shouldn't get offended when "Scooter" Libby or the Enron Guys walk or pay relatively petty fines. It's selective application of the law, if you've got enough money or are supporting Bush the law doesn't apply at all, just ask Gonzolas.
I hope he takes this all the way to the Supreme Court if he has to (even if it won't matter as the whole damned court is run by the Executive branch these days). This is really starting to get out of control.
I've already said this once, and if you don't get the reference, pick up a book for a change: "We are the dead." - EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Eh, regardless of the message, it is still littering. He can go out and spread his message about impeaching Bush, but that doesn't give him any special right to break laws. Law enforcement doesn't mind the occasional "yard sale" sign, but if people start to abuse their leniency with the littering laws then they are going to start enforcing. Just think, if anyone can post signs anywhere in public, how could we keep neo-Nazi's from posting propaganda? Next thing you know your local park turns into a photographic YouTube with police trying to keep the content regulated and papers, banners, and ads everywhere. It isn't censorship, it's moderation.
Also, who would clean all the ***** this would produce up? I sure as hell don't want to, and I don't want papers drifting down my streets like post-nuclear apocalyptic fictional futures. - MagCynic, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It doesn't matter if other people put up signs and got away with it. The guy admitted to putting up the sign and admitted to knowing that it was a crime. Pay the consequences for your actions.
- aposter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Umm... Stupid people run our country regardless of which party is in charge at the moment?
- spxiii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3...and if someone sees you, run!
- xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6On public property, yes. On your own private property, go ahead and say whatever you want.
- cliffzdude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4In my area these are called "snipe signs". They are illegal, but they do appear quite frequently. Every few weeks local code enforcement has city workers do a drive through where they appear the most and pull them up. Sometimes they find out who put a sign out and make 'em pay the duly required fine. Its selective, but only in that they just pick a few signs and hit those advertisers, its quite random.
I agree the selective enforcement is a bit absurd, but then again he shouldn't be adding to the urban blight with snipe signs. If somebody put up such a sign that was pro Bush, and was selectively enforced with prosecution, the community here would be *for* the enforcement. Talk about selective... - EuphopiaB, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Your argument is based on a fallacy. You are saying "if they can break the law, he should be able to, too". The solution isn't get everyone posting crap, its to notify law enforcement when you see political signs on public property, complain about it, or simply remove it yourself.
- kurtwinter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4In theory, he's wrong. In reality, the truth is common areas everywhere are used by political candidates. They should be fined for each poster with their names on it, as they aren't, neither should this guy. When DA's start prosecuting every candidate in election season, then they should go after this guy. Equal application of the law is a requirement for justice.
- Mearn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3When did "But everybody else is doing it!" become a legitimate defense?
- Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4my bad.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This is exactly it. Granted, I think the businesses should have to take down theirs too, but the point is valid.
- Salesti, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I dunno about that.....once, I saw a bumper sticker that said "Imagine whirled peas" (back when it was new humor), and I DID.....almost crashed iinto a fire hydrant. It was worth it, though.
- xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Exactly.
- xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Sorry about that ... won't happen again.
- zweben, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5And Gonzales.
- xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Good answer. I digg you up.
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3It's not whether or not everyone else put a sign there, but whether or not everyone else who put their signs their have permits. This guy did not have a permit and generally no one is going to care about a lost kitten sign. Since this guy is bitching about a lost kitten sign, he's obviously an ass and he needs to look into the other signs to see if they have permits to be there or else he should stfu.
- Hetman, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Buried for being double post and lame. Seriously dont put your ***** on public property unless you want a fine.
- Pake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The guys an ass for whining about a lost kitten sign and not looking into whether or not the other signs have permits. He's only assuming that no permits were given and wants to cry and use the "But everyone else!" whine to attempt to prove something.
- danswan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I've never understood the point of signs like that, or bumper stickers, or whatever. Seriously, no one cares about your opinions, and plastering them all over public land, or the back of your car isn't going to change anyone's mind about the subject. The only thing you're ensuring is that at least 50% of the people that read your political message think you're a freaking idiot.
That's it, that's all you accomplish. No one is going to wake up suddenly and say, "Wow, after reading your Pro Choice (or Pro Life, each are equally pointless) bumper sticker, I think I will go terminate my pregnancy!" - wshs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd have to agree with this. Nothing like brushing against a pole and ending up needing stitches and a tetanus shot. It got the point that my town starting giving people one night stays for it.
- leunghoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are right. Lost kitty =/= Impeach Bush. "Impeach Bush" is a political statement that, in turn, is protected by freedom of speech. Lost kitty? That's just litter.
- nanboya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wondering how long before takedown notices are issued for websites crying out for impeachment?
- jekylltech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Can somebody please tell me what LAW GW Bush Broke?
I want an actual law, with a source, not just a reply of 'he's a douchbag'. I am NOT a supporter of Bush, but I want to know why there is thus push to impeach.
PS: Bush did not lie about Iraq, he believed bad intel from the CIA and MI6, so he is gullible, but a liar. - Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Block to ban all green!
- gojeda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1While this person might have a point that other signs are permitted while his was not, that is still not a basis to get out of paying the fine.
Buried as spam. - tsteele93, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you believe that (and it could be arguably true) then the law needs to be changed, not the enforcement of the law. If the law is clear, then there is no problem. But when the law is broad, and selectively enforced, then you basically have a rule of law that is decided by the people in power, instead of the people.
- leunghoi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You're right. Impeachment accomplishes nothing, but criminal litigation does. If the Bush administration didn't lie their way into a war, up to 1 million would have been alive today. (Let's not mention torture.) We have to make sure no one, including future administration, is above the law. If we jailed Nixon then, we might not have Bush today.
- darthtrevino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Warantless wiretapping is a violation of your 4th amendment rights.
"Free Speech Zones" at political rallies are a violation of your 1st amendment rights. -
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is