Post subject: A Test of Free Speech At One's Residence
Posted: Thu Feb 10, 2005 12:20 am
Yeah Yeah Yeah
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
Display Stirs Controversy In Land Park
Soldier's Uniform Hangs From Noose In Front Of Home
POSTED: 7:58 am PST February 9, 2005
UPDATED: 1:43 pm PST February 9, 2005
SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Nestled in a quiet Sacramento neighborhood is a very loud political statement that is testing the very foundation of the right to free speech.
Hanging from a house in Land Park, a soldier's uniform in a noose dangles from a rooftop. The words "your tax dollars at work" are scrolled across the chest.
In a community full of patriotism, this view of the war in Iraq has not gone unnoticed.
"I think it's the ultimate sign of disrespect. We have troops dying for us," Land Park resident Mark Cohen said.
"(I'm) annoyed and disgusted. I think if this is the way someone feels they can find a better way to vent their opinions," Land Park resident Pete Miles said.
The homeowners behind the controversy are Steve and Virginia Pearcy. They released a statement saying, "There will always be people who are offended by political speech, and the most important forum of all ... is one's own residence. The First Amendment is meaningless unless dissent is allowed."
Some neighbors agree.
"Even if you don't agree with it, he has the right to state his opinion. I don't find it offensive at all," Land Park resident Cece Williams said.
The tension in the neighborhood has escalated into more than just a political feud.
The matter has been reported to the police department and to the city attorney. The city council has even heard about it, but says they can't solve the problem.
"Unfortunately or fortunately this is protected speech by the First Amendment ... so there is nothing we can do about it," Sacramento City Councilman Rob Fong said.
KCRA 3 received a call late Wednesday morning from the homeowner saying that a group of people had torn down the display. He said that what he did was not illegal, but what was done by the people who removed the display was.
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
While I find this a completely disgusting display of dissent and am happy some people found it in their hearts to illegally remove it, he does have the right to do it.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
PJDoll wrote:
While I find this a completely disgusting display of dissent and am happy some people found it in their hearts to illegally remove it, he does have the right to do it.
It's a fine line. What is so disgusting about it? They are saying that your tax dollars are contributing to dead soldiers. It's the truth. Granted, there are more tactful ways to say it, but to support people illegally coming onto their property and removing it isn't cool. How un-American does it get?
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
While I find this a completely disgusting display of dissent and am happy some people found it in their hearts to illegally remove it, he does have the right to do it.
It's a fine line. What is so disgusting about it? They are saying that your tax dollars are contributing to dead soldiers. It's the truth. Granted, there are more tactful ways to say it, but to support people illegally coming onto their property and removing it isn't cool. How un-American does it get?
I'm sorry, but if I knew someone that had died in Iraq, that image would be more that a bit disturbing. I support drug use too, and that's illegal. I guess I'm an equal opportunity illegal act supporter.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
PJDoll wrote:
I'm sorry, but if I knew someone that had died in Iraq, that image would be more that a bit disturbing. I support drug use too, and that's illegal. I guess I'm an equal opportunity illegal act supporter.
Just because you would feel that way doesn't mean it's the way everyone would feel. I would argue that someone who lost someone in Iraq might find ringing truth in such a display. Free speech doesn't always equal popular speech, and in times like these, dissent is important, even if it takes unpopular forms like this.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
I'm sorry, but if I knew someone that had died in Iraq, that image would be more that a bit disturbing. I support drug use too, and that's illegal. I guess I'm an equal opportunity illegal act supporter.
Just because you would feel that way doesn't mean it's the way everyone would feel. I would argue that someone who lost someone in Iraq might find ringing truth in such a display. Free speech doesn't always equal popular speech, and in times like these, dissent is important, even if it takes unpopular forms like this.
Of course someone else would feel differently. I didn't say everyone should be happy it was torn down, I said I was happy it was torn down. I am for dissent of this form of dissent.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
PJDoll wrote:
ElPhantasmo wrote:
PJDoll wrote:
I'm sorry, but if I knew someone that had died in Iraq, that image would be more that a bit disturbing. I support drug use too, and that's illegal. I guess I'm an equal opportunity illegal act supporter.
Just because you would feel that way doesn't mean it's the way everyone would feel. I would argue that someone who lost someone in Iraq might find ringing truth in such a display. Free speech doesn't always equal popular speech, and in times like these, dissent is important, even if it takes unpopular forms like this.
Of course someone else would feel differently. I didn't say everyone should be happy it was torn down, I said I was happy it was torn down. I am for dissent of this form of dissent.
Are you in favor of this couple protecting their property and blasting the next person who tears down their display with a shotgun?
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
Are you in favor of this couple protecting their property and blasting the next person who tears down their display with a shotgun?
No. You shouldn't shoot someone for distruction of property, especially if it is limited to outside property. However, if the people tearing down the display make a serious effort to get inside the home, all bets are off. Fire away.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:46 pm Posts: 9617 Location: Medford, Oregon Gender: Male
PJDoll wrote:
ElPhantasmo wrote:
Are you in favor of this couple protecting their property and blasting the next person who tears down their display with a shotgun?
No. You shouldn't shoot someone for distruction of property, especially if it is limited to outside property. However, if the people tearing down the display make a serious effort to get inside the home, all bets are off. Fire away.
I'd shoot 'em. And then I'd rub their blood and guts all over my face and body, and have my wife take a picture, blow it up, and put it on the front lawn with "JUST BECAUSE I'M LIBERAL DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T LIKE TO KILL PEOPLE" under it.
_________________ Deep below the dunes I roved Past the rows, past the rows Beside the acacias freshly in bloom I sent men to their doom
Are you in favor of this couple protecting their property and blasting the next person who tears down their display with a shotgun?
No. You shouldn't shoot someone for distruction of property, especially if it is limited to outside property. However, if the people tearing down the display make a serious effort to get inside the home, all bets are off. Fire away.
I'd shoot 'em. And then I'd rub their blood and guts all over my face and body, and have my wife take a picture, blow it up, and put it on the front lawn with "JUST BECAUSE I'M LIBERAL DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T LIKE TO KILL PEOPLE" under it.
Damn you! I just woke my cat up laughing so hard! Now I gotta feed her.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:14 am Posts: 37778 Location: OmaGOD!!! Gender: Male
ElPhantasmo wrote:
PJDoll wrote:
ElPhantasmo wrote:
Are you in favor of this couple protecting their property and blasting the next person who tears down their display with a shotgun?
No. You shouldn't shoot someone for distruction of property, especially if it is limited to outside property. However, if the people tearing down the display make a serious effort to get inside the home, all bets are off. Fire away.
I'd shoot 'em. And then I'd rub their blood and guts all over my face and body, and have my wife take a picture, blow it up, and put it on the front lawn with "JUST BECAUSE I'M LIBERAL DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T LIKE TO KILL PEOPLE" under it.
Um, that's illegal, man.
--PunkDavid
_________________ Unfortunately, at the Dawning of the Age of Aquarius, the Flower Children jerked off and went back to sleep.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:36 am Posts: 3556 Location: Twin Ports
punkdavid wrote:
ElPhantasmo wrote:
PJDoll wrote:
ElPhantasmo wrote:
Are you in favor of this couple protecting their property and blasting the next person who tears down their display with a shotgun?
No. You shouldn't shoot someone for distruction of property, especially if it is limited to outside property. However, if the people tearing down the display make a serious effort to get inside the home, all bets are off. Fire away.
I'd shoot 'em. And then I'd rub their blood and guts all over my face and body, and have my wife take a picture, blow it up, and put it on the front lawn with "JUST BECAUSE I'M LIBERAL DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T LIKE TO KILL PEOPLE" under it.
Um, that's illegal, man.
--PunkDavid
Killing's bad mmmmkay!
_________________ Rising and falling at force ten
We twist the world
And ride the wind
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 9:36 pm Posts: 833 Location: Detroit, MI
punkdavid wrote:
ElPhantasmo wrote:
PJDoll wrote:
ElPhantasmo wrote:
Are you in favor of this couple protecting their property and blasting the next person who tears down their display with a shotgun?
No. You shouldn't shoot someone for distruction of property, especially if it is limited to outside property. However, if the people tearing down the display make a serious effort to get inside the home, all bets are off. Fire away.
I'd shoot 'em. And then I'd rub their blood and guts all over my face and body, and have my wife take a picture, blow it up, and put it on the front lawn with "JUST BECAUSE I'M LIBERAL DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T LIKE TO KILL PEOPLE" under it.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:44 pm Posts: 8910 Location: Santa Cruz Gender: Male
PJDoll wrote:
where's your sock?
You should know
Anyway, I think I'm going to go put a pearl jam statue out in my front yard. Lets see what kind of action it gets. Will there be public outcry!? Stay tuned ladies and gents...
Anyway, I think I'm going to go put a pearl jam statue out in my front yard. Lets see what kind of action it gets. Will there be public outcry!? Stay tuned ladies and gents...
I will steal it. Not out of protest, but out of greed
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum