digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Man faces $500 littering fine for putting up "Impeach Bush" sign

newsnet5.com — A northeast Ohio man is in trouble for displaying his thoughts on President George W. Bush. The Kent homeowner wants the president impeached, but how he voiced that opinion could cost him $125 and possible hundreds more. "I was charged with advertising on public property, a violation of Kent city ordinance...

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Monolith4, on 10/10/2007, -40/+28What an idiot. He knowingly breaks the law ("everyone else is doing it, so i should be able to too!") and then complains about his fine.

    If you want to impeach bush, great, but dont clutter up a public park with your art-class signs.
    • 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, -3/+9Damn right
      • wusupdoe, on 10/10/2007, -15/+13An old man using signs to voice his political opinion =/= A little kid asking for help trying to find their cat.

        Selective application is how the law works. It's at the discretion of the officer or government on whether to enforce the law based on a per situation basis. This is why you generally won't get a ticket for going 1 mph over.
        • 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."
          • GonzoLiga, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You sure were wrong. And naive.

            The aspect of social acceptability is underconsidered in the US.

            Personally, I could care less about an impeach Bush sign or a lost kitty sign (might look for the cat, though) on public property. I'd start caring about all of them if there were so many that they began polluting the area.
      • xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Exactly.
      • tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Lost kitty =/= Impeach Bush. Once you allow for political signs, you open the flood gates. I don't want that crap anywhere but on private citizens' lawns. They should all be fined for political or money-making signs, but not the lost cat signs. There's a big difference..
        • sirbeta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It really is the same thing, you're just choosing to look at them in two different lights. One is more personal and you would feel more heartfelt for the person, not wanting to crush their hopes of ever finding their lost kitty (also who ever said only little kids put up these signs? -- referencing Wusupdoe, not the person I'm replying to now) - the other is a political position. They are both violating the same laws, yet only one gets punished. While I may not find it to be right (I've put up my fare share of lost cat signs) - in reality both or none should be delt with more severely than the other. But by all means, vote me down all you wish.
        • 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/+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.
    • 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?
    • tugger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1America, land of the free...


      /s
    • 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.
  • 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.
    • dirtysanchez01, on 10/10/2007, -19/+4how about instead of being a whining turd, this guy put up a sign that actually makes a statement. how about not wasting the plastic he made that stupid pointless sign out of, and put in the effort to show support for a political candidate that he feels more represents his feelings. impeachment accomplishes nothing but giving an already slow, argumentative, time wasting, top heavy government an excuse to accomplish even less than they usually do. this guy should make a meaningful statement. make a difference. instead he's only willing to put in enough effort to bitch and whine about what he doesn't like. probably cause he's not intelligent enough to form his own opinions of how he thinks things should be. it's much easier to be a sheep and jump on the nearest bandwagon.
      • keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15Activism is acticism is activism. Why bash someone for putting up for a good cause?
      • 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.
    • 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.
    • donwilson2, on 10/10/2007, -5/+5Because it's trash. All campaigning signs are trash.

      Especially Ron Paul stuff.
  • 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.
    • 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
      • 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.
    • Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Actually, I would think with it being public property, as in owned by everyone, it would be a great place to actually state your case and express your opinion freely.
    • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3what they're mad at here, is that the police pick and choose, when they want to enforce this, ordinance.....which as the kids lawyer said you can't do....
    • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 10/10/2007, -5/+2you have a right to put political messages almost anywhere.
  • Waskonator, on 10/10/2007, -21/+32impeach bush.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • xanspar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0It's more like an angry rant than an ad or a poster for a lost kitty.
      • Mearn, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3When did "But everybody else is doing it!" become a legitimate defense?
        • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It didn't. However, there are laws in some places against selective enforcement, which, ironically, are selectively enforced.
          • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ran out of edit time. I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished. He littered. That's a crime for which there is no legitimate excuse. However, the punishment does not fit the crime. The city did not spend $500 cleaning up his sign. He did not cause $500 worth of damage to the park.
          • Pake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's $500 because it's there to PREVENT people from thinking of doing it. Same reason you see signs on the highway that say anywhere from $250 to $1000 fine for littering. If it was $5, then no one would give a ***** because the price is cheap.
          • wshs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1A reply to pake:

            Doesn't matter what the intent is. It's still excessive. I can see $50, maybe even $100, which is the legal cap for a littering fine in Kent (101.99). I'm sure either are still a damn good deterrent. But when the punishment for something so minuscule exceeds the punishment for blocking a fire lane ($40, 351.99b), something with the potential of killing people, there's a serious problem with the laws. The funny part is, they only went for the littering charge because the prosecutor wouldn't prosecute him for unlicensed advertising. However, Kent's littering ordinances dictate that litter is any of a list of items, none of which a sign would match (521.08j). Hopefully this chap has a good lawyer.

            Replied here due to the ***** "your session has expired" error.
    • Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Um off-topic, as this isn't advertising
      • KingGorilla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0You sure he wasn't selling Bush's baked peaches?
  • dallascorbin504, on 10/10/2007, -13/+6damn storm troopers trying to protect the Darth Lord!
  • 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, -5/+4Yes, but others shouldn't get away with the same thing and then the cops single this guy out because of his message.
      • xanspar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0He was the only one putting up a ranting sign!
    • Myko, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Yes, but others shouldn't get away with the same thing and then the cops single this guy out because of his message.
    • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1once again another person misses, the point.
  • xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -19/+13What this liberal pig doesn't understand (and the only reason I call him a pig is because he he's bitching about something rediculous, not bedcause of his political views - there are just as many conservative pigs *cough*Ann Coulter*cough*) is that signs like "LOST CAT" or "FOR SALE" or "BABYSITTING BY AMY THE HIGHSCHOOLER" are overlooked by the town because they don't draw any kind of attention; there isn't a passionate debate about "LOST CAT" or whether Amy can be a good babysitter. However, when someone trys to do something controvercial, like the political statement this guy is trying to make, the town should be in all its right to enforce. If there was a RUDY 2008 sign right next to it, then I put all my support behind him, but as long as there are no other political signs, I say he keep his political views limited to his own property and not deprive Amy of her babysitting business or deprive little Tommy of seeing his new kitty ever again.
    I'm sorry, I think I rambled but I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make...
    • xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3On top of all that, even if there were other political signs, regardless of party, this sign was not in good taste. It was negative and something a town probably wouldn't want; whereas most political signs you see are positive about a candidate (they usually leave the negative stuff for TV, and sometimes the paper).
      He could have made it positive and something like "Save our troops! Bring them home!"; however depending on the area, I still think that any political sign, especially with a highly controvercial issue like that should be taboo on public property.
      • Toshibi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4So, we should only be allowed to say things that people agree with and will not cause a controversy? ***** that, this is America where we (used to) have the right to say everything from advertising to dissenting opinions. Why should we just roll over and let a few people like the TV News and the News Papers say what's on our minds.

        • xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6On public property, yes. On your own private property, go ahead and say whatever you want.
      • xanspar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1We shouldn't be stapling our political opinions all over taxpayer property. It could get really messy.
    • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0that's not what the ordinance is genius, it's all ads, doesn't matter what they say, it's all ads..you can't pick and choose what you're gonna enforce.
    • 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.
    • crillbilly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Look Maw! I posted on this here internets!
  • Bdog2g2, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5Damnit, the administration has one more tool @ their disposal to quell our protest....Littering Fines!!!! Is their no mercy?
  • 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.
    • xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Sorry about that ... won't happen again.
    • Frosty122, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4my bad.
    • 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.
  • lapseofreason, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2This is an interesting article. Thanks for the read.
  • drafhk, on 10/10/2007, -9/+8Stop bitching and moaning. As long as it's illegal, it doesn't matter if they don't make an exception for him and do for others. It's the same idea as if you get busted for DUI and get 6 months jailtime and your friend gets let off with 4 weeks probation. You have no room to complain because you shouldn't have done it in the first place. Ironically, you all are the types who think the ACLU is justified for suing public ordinances that display anything deistic. It works both ways bitches.
    • dreamlayers, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What a stupid comment! Punishment is supposed to be proportionate to the severity of the offense, and the law is supposed to treat people equally.
  • drkansm, on 10/10/2007, -14/+2god damn republicans! Their Everywhere!!!
    • crillbilly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2god damn democrats! They Smell!!!
  • JeremyRobertsen, on 10/10/2007, -10/+5And The U.S. citizens get to pay $83 some odd billion dollars for putting him in office. OUCH!
  • compgeek, on 10/10/2007, -12/+5and this is why the US is going to hell in a handbasket because of people getting robbed of their 1st ammendment rights. Viva Canada :D
    • 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.
    • crillbilly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Dont flame him guys, its his first time on the internetz
  • musicfreakcc, on 10/10/2007, -8/+6Because I live in Georgia, I have to deal with the species every day. Republicans are hopelessly stupid.
    • acid0426, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Are you calling everyone in Georgia a Republican?
    • xl22k, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4So are Democrats ... what's your point?
      • aposter, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Umm... Stupid people run our country regardless of which party is in charge at the moment?
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • drafhk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Your second paragraph, of course, refers to Mexico.
  • 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.
  • jellygraph, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3obviously... anything that bears Bush's name is trash
  • spyd3rweb, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."

    Dear law enforcement, Keep it up.
  • n3w5wh0r3, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Protesting =/= Advertising.
  • 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.
  • DeFex, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2freedom used to be FTW!
    remember freedom?
  • RaggTopp, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Actually, during election time I usually see LOTS of political signs posted on PUBLIC ***** PROPERTY. You people are liars if you say you've seen political signs posted ONLY on private property. Yes, you are FULL OF *****.

    I've always been disgusted by this practice. You see them on the exit ramps from the highway, and posted up on PUBLIC property all around polling locations and the major roads leading to them. The largest clumps are ALWAYS on PUBLIC ***** PROPERTY.

    Wait, let me say that again....PUBLIC ***** PROPERTY. Get it?

    If posting political signs is legal, how the ***** is him posting an impeach bush sign illegal?
    • 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.
    • xanspar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Wow, take a pill.
    • screensnot, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2It's not legal in any case.

      People putting "Elect CandidateX" on public property can and do get caught/fined. They just don't make the news. This guy put up a more controversial sign, making it more newsworthy.

      Also, more controversial usually means more likely to get attention by anyone, including law enforcement.
  • 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.
  • kolobcreek, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2He should face vandalism
  • 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.
  • dime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Kent: Killing Protesters Since 1970
  • JeremyRobertsen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What if he had stated in a yard sale sign that Bush should be impeached? :) Then it's just creative advertising. Could he argue the right to assemble. :)
  • Sgurdcrimp, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1If you're stupid enough to get caught, don't complain.... it is against the law to leave anything without permission....

    but yeah, impeach bush
  • 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...
  • screensnot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1"Any press is good press."

    True for prosecutors also, right?
  • nanboya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Wondering how long before takedown notices are issued for websites crying out for impeachment?
    • Salesti, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The instant that taxpayer money pays for them, instead of the current site owners. But for now, pay your bills and holler away!
  • 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!"
    • 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.
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Holy *****, there actually ARE practically-minded people on digg. You are exactly correct, danswan.
  • Nurf, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0uggg.. i just understand how they call it littering when it is on his own property
    • saigumi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't know how diggers call it "Reading an article" when they didn't even have 1 word pass into their eyeballs.

      It wasn't on his lawn, it was in a park.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • Tweekster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The courts say otherwise, try again
    • vSuperLuminal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Hilarious. The ridiculous ***** that darthtrevino answered with is the best answer you will ever receive to that question, jekylltech. Puts the whiney "Impeach Bush!" argument in perspective, doesn't it.
      • darthtrevino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If you want to admit that the Bill of Rights is ludicrous, I'll concede defeat.
  • 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.
  • stewbo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Ha Ha!
  • krupawan5618, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1This is so wierd, but I saw that sign when I drove through Kent...I laughed when I saw it...

    I had to comment because the chances were so unlikely...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.