[Wheatfield]

In St. Louis, a protest sign meets government arrogance - The Washington Post

I noticed this on another site I habituate and thought it might be of interest to our American friends.

[Parallax]

I liked this part:

St. Louis Alderman Phyllis Young is distressed that Roos’s speech might escape government control: “If this sign is allowed to remain, then anyone with property along any thoroughfare can paint signs indicating the opinion or current matter relevant to the owner to influence passersby with no control by any City agency. The precedent should not be allowed.”

We certainly can't have that! What the hell got into the people of St. Louis, anyway? They seem to think they have some right to express an opinion without clearing with the government first.

[Dma110]

I'm old enough to remember when "we the people" had rights. We are rapidly losing them.

[Nesster]

I'm old enough to remember when "we the people" had rights. We are rapidly losing them.

We are hardly losing them: all we need to do is to join together in a group, a corporation, a large business corporation, who will give us money in exchange for our time, and who will provide us health insurance in exchange for our money, and who will express our opinions for us in the appropriate manner to those elected and unelected officials who serve us in the various levels of government, and who will amplify our beneficial thoughts with advertising and think tanks, and who will attenuate our harmful ideas through political organization and the media. They will spend some of the money we help generate to ensure our elections are fair and balanced and favor those whose opinions are beneficial. They will spend some more of the money to select some of us, to raise us above the rest in a meritocratic manner, and to shower these selected ones with cash and stock, in order to provide the rest of us role models and motivation.

These groups will provide us child care. They will organize our annual United Way campaigns, and other charity. They will enable us to boast of our productivity. They will educate us in those responsibilities that come with our rights, and remind us that should we evade our responsibilities someone else will perform them instead.

[ihasa]

Quite right too. I am not against his right to free speech but he should comply with the rules on displaying signs and public artworks just like everybody else. Otherwise what is stopping anyone from airing whatever grievances they may have in this way, affecting neighbouring people? Presumably the due process is to make a planning application?

[Parallax]

I am not against his right to free speech but he should comply with the rules on displaying signs and public artworks just like everybody else.

And the code exempts certain kinds of signs from requiring permits. These include works of art, flags of nations, states or cities, and symbols or crests of religious, fraternal or professional organizations. And, of course, the government exempted political signs.

I interpret his as a political statement which, according to the article, exempts it from the ordinance.

[ihasa]

I interpret his as a political statement which, according to the article, exempts it from the ordinance.

Fair enough, I'm playing devil's advocate slightly here.

I would have thought the exception for political signs would have been intended for temporary lawn signs - not for very large, 'aggressive' permanent murals!

---

Last edited by ihasa; 04-06-2011 at 10:38 AM.

[JohnInIndy]

These groups will provide us child care. They will organize our annual United Way campaigns, and other charity. They will enable us to boast of our productivity. They will educate us in those responsibilities that come with our rights, and remind us that should we evade our responsibilities someone else will perform them instead.

That's the government's job after all.

And isn't his sign actually promoting abuse of the eminent domain laws with the double negative? "End" and the slash through it would mean not ending it.

[MRRiley]

The St. Louis sign code puts the burden on the citizen to justify his or her speech rather than on the government to justify limiting speech. And the code exempts certain kinds of signs from requiring permits. These include works of art, flags of nations, states or cities, and symbols or crests of religious, fraternal or professional organizations. And, of course, the government exempted political signs. So the exempted categories are defined by the signs’ content.

A sign saying...

"End Eminent Domain Abuse"

sounds like "political speech" to me...

And John... everyone knows what he meant even if he was clumsy in communicating it using a double negative...

[Parallax]

I would have thought the exception for political signs would have been intended for temporary lawn signs - not for very large, 'aggressive' permanent murals

That probably was the intent of the law. There is often a conflict between the "Spirit and Intent" of a law, and the letter of the law.

[Nesster]

A sign saying...
"End Eminent Domain Abuse"

sounds like "political speech" to me...

Actually, that sounds po-mo to me