D.C. Sued over Black Lives Matter Painted on City Streets

[VanceMack]

Ooooh, a racist right-wing activist organization has a problem with black people - stop the presses!

Maybe there just hasnt been enough kids killed for people to get 'the message'.

 

[maxparrish]

Exactly. Right wingers and Trumpkins can try to invent a new right - what can we call it? - how about The Freedom to Paint on Public Streets - but it is nowhere in the Constitution.

There is nothing new about the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C § 1983. Nor is there anything new in the authoritarian left being against the important human right under the US Constitution, and pretend its about "freedom to paint on public streets" or something.

I know y'all loath human rights for anyone to the right of center but because DC is allowing its streets to be used for the painting of expressive messages, which constitutes protected First Amendment activity, and denying the same right another group to display their alternate views clearly they are using state power to repress speech that is otherwise granted - including those that did not have even bother to seek a permit.

Their unwillingness to provide reasonable, non-arbitrary, content neutral processes and procedures to others for permits to also paint an expressive message is unconstitutional, just as it would be for any government which banned political views they disagreed with in public parks or auditoriums.

DC should lose...assuming their are 5 court justices willing to secure the rights due under the first amendment.

 

[MAGAnificent]

I'm not obsessed. I'm just talking about the subject of the thread. The man who founded the organization that this thread is about is racist. That's not an obsession. You're being rude claiming that it was.

The question is still valid. Why do you at this point in time have such an unhealthy obsession with Klayman or the so-called birther movement that the Hillary Clinton camp started? It was an issue in the 2008 and 2012 elections. It has nothing to do with the 2016 or 2020 election and this thread is about BLM and DC painting their slogan on a street. If you want to start a thread about your issues with Klayman and the birther movement, have at it.

 

[maxparrish]

The city isn't allowing other groups, the CITY painted the street.

It is CERTAIN that "Defund the police" was painted by others than the CITY and that it was unpermitted. It is less clear if the City itself painted the BLM message. IF they did, there is a plausible case that the city, as a city, can express its own views. However, at this point, I believe the evidence is that someone else did with there formal or informal approval by the Mayor.

 

[haymarket]

There is nothing new about the First Amendment and 42 U.S.C § 1983. Nor is there anything new in the authoritarian left being against the important human right under the US Constitution, and pretend its about "freedom to paint on public streets" or something.

I know y'all loath human rights for anyone to the right of center but because DC is allowing its streets to be used for the painting of expressive messages, which constitutes protected First Amendment activity, and denying the same right another group to display their alternate views clearly they are using state power to repress speech that is otherwise granted - including those that did not have even bother to seek a permit.

Their unwillingness to provide reasonable, non-arbitrary, content neutral processes and procedures to others for permits to also paint an expressive message is unconstitutional, just as it would be for any government which banned political views they disagreed with in public parks or auditoriums.

DC should lose...assuming their are 5 court justices willing to secure the rights due under the first amendment.

Right wingers who hate the message that Black Lives Matter are inventing nonsense and crap pretending that there are rights that in reality DO NOT EXIST. The right to what is not yours to paint a political message is one of those so called rights which do not exist.

 

[maxparrish]

Right wingers who hate the message that Black Lives Matter are inventing nonsense and crap pretending that there are rights that in reality DO NOT EXIST. The right to what is not yours to paint a political message is one of those so called rights which do not exist.

Yes...yes...I already mentioned that the authoritarian left is opposed to freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. as human right. But thank you for confirming it.

You see, freedom of expression means you can express all the crap and nonsense you like but not others. And its a fundamental principle that government cannot deny access to expression to one view, on behalf of another's view. If you allow Republicans to paint political messages on the streets, you have to allow Democrats to paint messages on the streets...or Communists, Nazi's, or anyone else.

How in the world did you get to learn so much stuff that is wrong (as well as immoral)?

 

[MAGAnificent]

When people talk about the fact that blacks are killed disproportionately to white people by cops in America, they're talking about a per capita number. Have a look.

• Police shootings: rate by ethnicity U.S. 2015-2020 | Statista

Also, black on black crime has nothing to do with your nation's desire to fix what's wrong your cops, but if you want to aid in that issue separately, I'm sure that two problems can be worked on at the same time, and I bet they'd be happy for your help, seeing as you seem to have a sincere and honest concern.

How about some intellectual honesty? Blacks are killed in confrontations with cops disproportionately to whites(per capita) only because blacks per capita end up in more confrontations with cops. It's not a race issue. It's an inner city poverty and despair issue. The primary issue is democrat politicians still holding onto failed LBJ era Great Society programs for nearly six decades. The continued crime and poverty in the inner cities is the legacy of those failed programs. It's time to try something else. Blaming cops is just a diversion. All of the areas where the rioting, looting, and confrontations with cops are going on are in democrat controlled areas and with democrat appointed police chiefs.

 

[haymarket]

Yes...yes...I already mentioned that the authoritarian left is opposed to freedom of speech, press, assembly, etc. as human right. But thank you for confirming it.

There is NO such thing as a right to paint a message on property which does not belong to you - and that includes you trying to put high gloss lipstick on that ugly pig.

 

[MAGAnificent]

What were my words in 2016, since you like to make up lies?

Yawn........you never declared during the lead up to the 2016 election that Hillary would be the victor? I have my doubts that you can honestly claim that you did not.

 

[haymarket]

. If you allow Republicans to paint political messages on the streets, you have to allow Democrats to paint messages on the streets...or Communists, Nazi's, or anyone else.

This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

And what this is is NOT a plug or an ad telling anyone to vote for a Democrat or a Republican or a Communist or a Nazi. That would be wrong to use city and public property to give unfair partisan advantage in an election to one party.

That is NOT what this is.

 

[maxparrish]

There is NO such thing as a right to paint a message on property which does not belong to you - and that includes you trying to put high gloss lipstick on that ugly pig.

A) the property belongs to all, including those you disagree with.
B) the public property is now dedicated as public messaging board, open to groups to post views.
C) Ergo, in principle, government that has no right to repress the use of sidewalks and roads to convey free speech (e.g. handing out literature, approval of marches) should have no right to deny the same access to public roads for a WRITTEN expression of a political view.

Now, I will grant you that as odious as it is, a local government does have a right to write its own political messaging - but that in principle is different than letting some express their views as opposed to others... especially objectionable when the government holds a monopoly on ALL road "billboards".

 

[maxparrish]

This is this. This is not something else. This is this.

And what this is is NOT a plug or an ad telling anyone to vote for a Democrat or a Republican or a Communist or a Nazi. That would be wrong to use city and public property to give unfair partisan advantage in an election to one party.

That is NOT what this is.

Absolutely this is what it is. It's political advertising for a viewpoint of BLM supporters. It is no less partisan than any other direct messaging on a political stance. Streets were not financed by taxpayer and bond monies to be political bulletin boards - to allow obliteration of traffic markers and other permanent and semi-permanent features for the sake of political advertising is what it is.

It is no different than allowing someone to set up a park display and billboards for Trump or the Alt-right but not allowing Biden or progressives set up a display or billboards. This has NOTHING to do with one's political views, it has EVERYTHING to do the commons being used by ALL the public, not those you like.

Unless there is a compelling government interest (which itself is a bogus but accepted standard) to repress those who disagree with BLM, then its a no brainer in fairness - let them message or stop the nonsense of turning our streets into messaging platforms.

 

[haymarket]

A) the property belongs to all, including those you disagree with.
B) the public property is now dedicated as public messaging board, open to groups to post views.
C) Ergo, in principle, government that has no right to repress the use of sidewalks and roads to convey free speech (e.g. handing out literature, approval of marches) should have no right to deny the same access to public roads for a WRITTEN expression of a political view.

Now, I will grant you that as odious as it is, a local government does have a right to write its own political messaging - but that in principle is different than letting some express their views as opposed to others... especially objectionable when the government holds a monopoly on ALL road "billboards".

Perhaps one can make an argument that city property belongs to all the citizens of that city in a group or collective manner - NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL OR PERSONAL MANNER. You cannot go into the city department of public works and commander a dump truck for the night or weekend under you ridiculous argument. Just the same, you cannot use the public streets for your unauthorized personal message. There is no right to do that.

By the logic of your argument, in cities that post anti-drug use signs , should we also also pro-drug use signs?

I know of few billboards that are owned by city municipalities. They are generally owned by private companies.

To be frank here, I really suspect you don't give a tinkers damn about this issue. You, and many other right wingers, are simply pissed off at BLM and hate that message.

 

[haymarket]

Absolutely this is what it is. It's political advertising for a viewpoint of BLM supporters. It is no less partisan than any other direct messaging on a political stance. Streets were not financed by taxpayer and bond monies to be political bulletin boards - to allow obliteration of traffic markers and other permanent and semi-permanent features for the sake of political advertising is what it is.

It is no different than allowing someone to set up a park display and billboards for Trump or the Alt-right but not allowing Biden or progressives set up a display or billboards. This has NOTHING to do with one's political views, it has EVERYTHING to do the commons being used by ALL the public, not those you like.

Unless there is a compelling government interest (which itself is a bogus but accepted standard) to repress those who disagree with BLM, then its a no brainer in fairness - let them message or stop the nonsense of turning our streets into messaging platforms.

Actually the two different things are very very different. Putting forth a message about an issue before society is far far different that a blatantly ad in support of a political candidate for public office. They are two different things entirely.

 

[maxparrish]

Actually the two different things are very very different. Putting forth a message about an issue before society is far far different that a blatantly ad in support of a political candidate for public office. They are two different things entirely.

The first amendment does not differentiate between speech in favor of a political stance vs. speech in favor of a candidate that represents a political stance.

 

[MAGAnificent]

Everything you posted is, again, essentially a lie. The south has been the source of the country's racism primarily for centuries. In the past, it was in the Democratic Party, for decades it's switched to the Republican Party, where the racists now live. The Democratic Party has never "welcomed back" the racists or their policies.

You do not have the foggiest clue. The south today is nothing like the south of the segregation or slavery era. And the south went republican over ideological and economic issues, not race. Racial bigotry in the south and elsewhere was a generational issue. Attitudes change over generations. Old bigots die off. To continue to claim that the south is now what it was during the segregation era is idiotic. The following link will teach you the history. It includes a short video...about 3 and a half minutes listing all of the dixiecrat senators and governors add which party. The percentage of those who returned to or remained in the democrat party was over 90%.

Urban Legends: The Dixiecrats and The GOP | Freedom's Journal Institute for the Study of Faith and Public Policy

You, like many Republicans, lie to try to hide the fact by yelling "Robert Byrd" a lot and misrepresenting him to try to say the Democrats are the party of the KKK in modern times.

Robert Byrd WAS in the KKK as a young man - *in the 1940's* - who had already left and renounced it when he started in politics in *1952*, he had joined because he “was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision—a jejune and immature outlook—seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions. ... I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened … it has emerged throughout my life to haunt and embarrass me and has taught me in a very graphic way what one major mistake can do to one’s life, career, and reputation.”

For decades in Congress, he governed FOR civil rights, and was well respected by civil rights leaders.

Are you really that gullible? While Byrd's hard heart from his klan days did soften over time, overall, the alleged change of heart was primarily for political expediency. And his so called governing for civil rights included filibustering the civil rights act for 18 hours. He did not want it passed.

Robert Byrd didn't go to the Republican Party - the south did. Byrd left the Dixiecrat racism. Many decades ago. All you have is lies and smears to try to hide the truth about how the racism in the country moved from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party long ago.

Obviously I hit a nerve with you in regards to Byrd. Read the actual history regarding Byrd rather then repeating left wing urban legend talking points.

Byrd once uttered during World War II: “I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. … Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.”

"When Lyndon B. Johnson was in the House of Representatives, he said that President Harry Truman’s civil rights program was “a farce and a sham – an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty.”
He continued: “I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill. … I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill.” When Johnson had become senator, he observed, “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days, and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness.”"

Walter Williams: Most racists were Democrats – Orange County Register

And once again, the level of racism that existed in the south when democrats controlled it, does not exist in the south today. It is you that is uttering lies.

 

[MAGAnificent]

You posted another lie, a straw man claiming I said ALL black people killed in confrontation are murder victims. I never said that.

You are showing you lack character, the way you use lies over and over and over trying to win an argument, because the truth shows you wrong, whether it's twisting the issue of too many black people killed wrongly by police into a straw man that EVERY black person killed is murdered, or that Robert Byrd proves the Democratic Party is the same party as when it had the racist south to smear it and hide Republicans' history, or other lies.

You use the term "lies so broadly that I doubt you actually understand what it means. If you disagree with something I post, the adult way of discussing it is to attempt to disprove it, not just shout "lies" over anything you disagree with.

 

[MAGAnificent]

When you answered who owns the street, that was when you were proven wrong. Again, you don't even understand the subject you're talking about but at least your confident in your ignorance.

He is very good at backing himself into a corner, then repeating the same nonsense over a dozen times hoping to wear you down.

 

[haymarket]

The first amendment does not differentiate between speech in favor of a political stance vs. speech in favor of a candidate that represents a political stance.

And you have your ability to speak out regarding both. Write a book. Write a play. Write a script for a TV show or movie. Just DO NOT pretend that you can paint your thought on what is not your property without gaining the permission of those who are legally responsible for its upkeep, safety and maintenance.

 

[maxparrish]

And you have your ability to speak out regarding both. Write a book. Write a play. Write a script for a TV show or movie. Just DO NOT pretend that you can paint your thought on what is not your property without gaining the permission of those who are legally responsible for its upkeep, safety and maintenance.

Already demolished that strawman...no point in you returning to it. I won't repeat myself.

 

[haymarket]

Already demolished that strawman...no point in you returning to it. I won't repeat myself.

First, you did no such thing.
Second, you still have no right to paint on municipal property. Perhaps you have heard of a graffiti related practice called tagging? Cities have laws against that sort of thing.

 

[Fishking]

Why are you so defensive that you insist on insulting me? Are you that insecure in your argument that you have to resort to such vitriol?

NOTHING is the exact same premise as there is NO citizens right to repaint messages on a municipal street. That so called right does not exist.

You cannot invent a right that does not exist and that is exactly what you are doing simply because the right wing does NOT like the BLM message. And that is rather pathetic.

Yeah - I know - the First Amendment. Sorry but that does not work. You are claiming the right to paint your message on property that is not yours. you have to try to appropriate property that does not personally belong to you to carry out this so called right.


Under the First Amendment you have a right to write a book. But you cannot walk into Harper-Collins Publishing and demand they assist your First Amendment right and they must publish it.

Under the First Amendment you have a right to write a Broadway play. But you cannot go to Broadway and buttonhole a theater owner or producer and insist that they must assist you in your First Amendment right by staging in their theater.

Your right to redecorate with a political message stops at the end of your property. So use it on your own property. Repaint your driveway ... repaint your roof ... use the walls of your home both inside and outside as a waiting canvas...... Carve your bushes into sculptures to get your message across. Just do it all to your property where your right to redecorate something stops.

You keep missing the entire point. It's not a matter of "The 1A gives people the right to pant a message on property that is not yours." That's not it. It's "The 1A gives people the right to equal access of speech that is afforded to others when the venue is public property." One group was given the greenlight to do this on public property. That means they have to do it for others or remove it so no one can.

 

[maxparrish]

You have a right to use the city park to express your views. You have a right to use the sidewalk to express your views. You have the right to form parade and express your views. NONE have a right to do any of that if it interferes with so much with government that it is a compelling state interest to disallow it. BUT if not, and if public property is permitted for use (eg a parade or graffiti with a message) then it is self-evident that if the City does not permit others with other views BECAUSE OF CONTENT it is free speech discrimination.

It can't be anything else. Look, are you old enough to remember Skokie? Here's a reminder:

In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause. Although the ACLU prevailed in its free speech arguments, the neo-Nazi group never marched through Skokie, instead agreeing to stage a rally at Federal Plaza in downtown Chicago.

I was pissed. I was appalled...how could they allow neo-Nazi's (the real ones, unlike today) to march down the streets of a neighborhood filled with SURVIVORS of the Holocaust ? It took me weeks to come to terms...the ACLU may be defending loathsome people, but they have an equal right to use the streets for messaging. IF it is opened up to some, it must be opened up to all.

I am a free speech fanatic, then and now. Read Nat Hentoff's book "Free speech for me, but not for thee" - at the time of his writing he was an aging new leftist who fought in the "liberal" free speech movement. He means FREE SPEECH, period.

So do I.

 

[lurchadams]

Sure you did. How convenient to suddenly come up with that sighting the day you responded to my post.





I don't buy it. My empathy is for all black lives, not just the ones killed in confrontations with cops. For instance the 8 year old girl killed just because her mama was driving her car too close to the barricades that BLM thugs had put up while occupying a Wendy's restaurant illegally....and the black kids killed in gang violence in Chicago over the weekend.....and the innocent black and white cops killed around the country who had nothing to do with George Floyds murder. Your empathy is phony.

Here's I took some photos of the event, and I accept your apology. They actually blocked the freeway entrance for several minutes so we all put our cars and parked and waved while they waved back. So great to live in a country where people from all walks of life want to effect positive changes.



The rest of your post are is just the paranoid, bigoted rantings a frightened person not comfortable with people of color getting "uppity".

 

[braindrain]

What religion is CHRISTmas based upon?

It’s still not establishing or prohibiting a religion. But keep trying.