ACLU sues South Park
posted at 1:03 pm on February 20, 2008 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Not that South Park. This one. And for once, the ACLU has it right.
For now, Joseph Rudolph can display a sign supporting Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential run on his front lawn in South Park. Whether it will be allowed to stay there will be decided in U.S. District Court.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit on Dr. Rudolph’s behalf yesterday in the Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh, challenging a section of South Park’s code that restricts the display of political signs in the township to 30 days before an election. That would mean Dr. Rudolph couldn’t put up his sign until March 23, in advance of Pennsylvania’s April 22 primaries.
“Freedom of speech applies all year round,” said Witold “Vic” Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, “not just 30 days before an election.”
Read the rest. Doesn’t this 30 days code sound an awful lot like McCain-Feingold?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Oh my God! They sued Kenny!
SoulGlo on February 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Chickens come home to roost
Kini on February 20, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Geez…I saw this headline in my RSS feed, and damn near pooped myself.
Thanks Bryan.
StoutRepublican on February 20, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Funny thing, I was just thinking back to what Bill Clinton said the other day, “They think that women and doctors should be put in jail if they have an abortion”.
What would the Dem’s response be? “They want to put average citizens in jail for running that political ad 30 days prior to an election”.
HarryStar on February 20, 2008 at 1:11 PM
I can’t stand CFR.
The best I can tell from this article, the violation is town law, not voluntary association, like a home owner’s association. Here’s a case I hope the ACLU wins.
Spirit of 1776 on February 20, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Not at all…McCain/Feingold focused on finance, this is simply a sign.
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Bastards!
pilamaye on February 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM
I doubt they would have helped a Fred! supporter.
infidel on February 20, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Can’t show a political ad 60 days before a federal election under McCain/Feingold, right? It’s the same thing.
amkun on February 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM
When does the next season start?
Hiney Von Pewps on February 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM
I understand why towns have these laws. Whenever I visit my mom in east Tennessee, I always pass a very large Kerry/Edwards billboard. It’s been four years folks–time to take it down! This is a full-sized billboard too, not a rinky-dinky thing.
And personally, I don’t want to live in a neighborhood where there are thousands of yard signs everywhere the whole year ’round. Looks trashy.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Democrats piss me off.
Dr.Cwac.Cwac on February 20, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Don’t give the ACLU too much credit here. You think they’d be doing it for someone who was supporting a conservative? They’re protecting their candidate.
I agree with the action being taken, but the ACLU isn’t doing it in the interest of Constitutional rights, but rather for Obama-lama-ding-dong.
Lone Star on February 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM
I somehow doubt the ACLU would have worked up any outrage if the sign had been touting one of those evil right-wing monsters (McCain, Huck, Mitt, Fred, etc.)….
No need to praise those hypocrites for being hypocritical yet again.
MrScribbler on February 20, 2008 at 1:24 PM
I may be wrong, but didn’t McCain/Feingold only prohibit TV & Radio ads sponsored by 527’s and corporations? Print ads…including lawn signs…were never mentioned. Don’t get me wron, I think Mc/Fein was a bad piece of legislation…
JetBoy on February 20, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Personally, I like the “Impeach Him/Them” signs that are dotting the landscape around here (Maryland).
They are the liberal, “feel-good”, heart-on-my-sleeve/can’t-do-a-thing/no-leg-to-stand-on answer to the American Flag flown on my front porch.
I think you can find one in the trunk of every new hybrid car.
ej_pez on February 20, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Does the code apply to private property or public property/city owned property?
Mazztek on February 20, 2008 at 1:33 PM
God, for a second I was spooked. Pathetic, I know.
It IS CFR, and we’re about to have the guy who created it as our “better” choice for president.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM
The local or state DA should have already settled the matter, the ACLU is just another expression of hope.
Speakup on February 20, 2008 at 1:58 PM
I was excited when I read the headline, because I couldn’t wait for the inevitable South Park episode about it.
Yoosaion on February 20, 2008 at 2:01 PM
in mccain feingold, the 1st amendment gets lost behind “big money” and “best politicians money can buy” etc. all smoke& mirrors. The south park case strips all of that away and exposes speech regulations for what they are.
BillLalor on February 20, 2008 at 2:03 PM
No way they would do it for a conservative politician’s sign.
I too was hoping it would be about the cartoon so they would blast off against the ACLU!
Grafted on February 20, 2008 at 2:09 PM
I think there is more to it too. But this is part of it. Never heard the ACLU challenging McCain-Feingold in court. BUT IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Andy in Agoura Hills on February 20, 2008 at 2:11 PM
you want political signs up year round? you’re sick dude. this 30 day rule sounds reasonable. another ACLU asskickin coming up.
DrW on February 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM
They need to worry less about political signs 30 days out from the election. They need to fix a real “pre-mature ad problem” facing this nation.
They should outlaw Christmas decorations, over-hyped sales, and non-stop carol music earlier than 30 days out. Now THERE is something where I support the suppression of annoying speech.
Faith1 on February 20, 2008 at 2:26 PM
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Yeah, damn freedom is so untidy at times. Freedom means I have the freedom to say what I want when I want for as long as I want. (fire in crowded theater and all that besides). If I want to have a Regean/bush 1980 sign up in MY yard It is MY right. I could care less if it looks like trash or not. You don’t like it? Don’t look at it. I also have the right to paint my house lime piss green if I want.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:26 PM
you want political signs up year round? you’re sick dude. this 30 day rule sounds reasonable. another ACLU asskickin coming up.
DrW on February 20, 2008 at 2:18 PM
another socialist in the making…
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM
They should outlaw Christmas decorations, over-hyped sales, and non-stop carol music earlier than 30 days out. Now THERE is something where I support the suppression of annoying speech.
Faith1 on February 20, 2008 at 2:26 PM
And another socialist stands up to be counted…
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I somehow doubt the ACLU would have worked up any outrage if the sign had been touting one of those evil right-wing monsters (McCain, Huck, Mitt, Fred, etc.)….
No need to praise those hypocrites for being hypocritical yet again.
MrScribbler on February 20, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Yeah but it matters not why they did it. If the case is ruled unconsititutional then it sets precedent for ALL political speech including CFR. thus the liberals will once again destroy themselves. It’s like watching Tom and Jerry cartoons. The cat is the liberal of course…
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Yow. I really hate it when I agree with the ACLU!
morganfrost on February 20, 2008 at 2:37 PM
I think the issue here is less about freedom of screech, more about homeowners association bylaws getting stretched to cover communities. The same people in Sou’Park (using my Pittsburghese) who are upset over a Barry O sign would also be upset if you left the outdoor Christmas lights year round (and trust me, they’re there).
thirtypundit on February 20, 2008 at 2:38 PM
thirtypundit on February 20, 2008 at 2:38 PM
Yes, a bunch of busy bodies that failing to have enough money to buy the entire neighborhood thinks they can decide what the rest of the people can and cannot do. I hate these people more than anyone else. If not for them we would still live in a free country.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM
Tricky Bryan, Tricky! (I wouldn’t be surprised if the ACLU does sue the cartoon on a regular basis.)
I have mixed feelings about this. I absolutely hate those dang political signs cluttering up the place. I wouldn’t mind a bit if they made a law saying that you can’t put them up anywhere in road right-of-ways or other public property.
And I am completely disgusted by the fact that those signs that almost never communicate anything about the candidate’s policies or qualifications do seem to influence voters.
But I’m a hardcore property rights guy; I think if the property owner wants to paint Obama’s picture to cover his whole lot and outline it in flashing neon, he should be able to do it.
LegendHasIt on February 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM
My take as well..
Or not putting your dog on a leash, etc.
Chakra Hammer on February 20, 2008 at 3:09 PM
So, put up a large Cross in the front yard and see what happens..
Chakra Hammer on February 20, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Funny how the ACLU can find the time to sue when an Obama supporter is denied their “rights” but are never present when the “offensive material” is an American flag, a nativity scene, the Cross, or space to protest the killing of unborn life without harassment. Not to mention a city government’s decision to bash the military by supporting anti-war protesters.
To paraphrase Michelle Obama. I’ve been watching liberals all my life and I have never have been more disgusted than I am in 2008.
highhopes on February 20, 2008 at 3:16 PM
NO, that’s why I CHOSE to live in a subdivision where there are STANDARDS. I CHOOSE to live in nice, attractive surroundings. I CHOOSE not to live where cars are on blocks.
So go ahead, paint your house piss green or pinko commie red for all I care–but not in my sub where people have CHOSEN to adopt a few reasonale standards.
And if you’re dumb enough that a yard sign swings your voting habits, I feel sorry for you. Somehow I don’t equate having a yard sign up for more than 30 days to freedom of speech.
So pipe down, spanky.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Wow; Perfect example of Homeowners Association type people.
Exactly why I’d never buy property where there is a homeowners association. You people are welcome to live in your little enclaves of conformity. But I got some news for you: your ‘right’ to run people’s lives ends at the borders of your enclave.
You don’t like what the rest of us say? Well, start your own forum and you can have the authority tell people to pipe down over there.
LegendHasIt on February 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
NO, that’s why I CHOSE to live
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 3:24 PM
No you CHOSE to LIVE in a FREE country. That means you take the good with the bad when it comes to that freedom. Just because a bunch of people get together and decide how everyone is going to live within a subdivsion means that’s it. That is why we have an outline of stated rules called a consititution. It forbids people like you to take away my rights because it’s trashy, it offends you, or it decreases you property vaules
And it appears from your above statement that you would be painting your house commie red before anyone else.
I will take freedom with all its warts before “standards” any day of the week.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:47 PM
But I got some news for you: your ‘right’ to run people’s lives ends at the borders of your enclave.
LegendHasIt on February 20, 2008 at 3:40 PM
It really doesn’t extend that far except in their minds…
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 3:56 PM
Listen hardliners–I live in a small 1200 foot home. I don’t live in an “enclave” and I don’t “run people’s lives”. Most homeowners’ associations rules are pretty simple–mow your freakin’ lawn, don’t leave trash around the house, blah, blah, blah. I grew up in freakin’ South Chicago as a kid–in the Ghetto, literally. If you wanna live like a jackass, go ahead, but that doesn’t give you the FREEDOM to crap on my property value that I work my ASS OFF to maintain.
If you equate FREEDOM with being a freakin’ slob, your priorities are messed up.
And you say, “if you don’t like how my house looks, then look away,”…WTF is that supposed to mean? You have the crappiest house on the block and I gotta live next to you and somehow IGNORE you? Be real, spanky.
I worked my ass off to never have to live in poverty and I’ll be damned if I’m gonna live next to someone that feels it’s his FREEDOM to devaulue MY property so he can make a point.
What, are you 12 or something, spanky?
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 4:16 PM
So sparky, your property value means more than my freedom? that’s good to know. what else is more important to you than my freedom? Maybe we can sell some more of our freedoms down the river for a few more bucks. what if the Chineese offers you 500,000 if you allow them to “lead the nation”. Would that property vaule be enough for you to sell YOUR freedom?
Last time I looked if you don’t like your neighbor you have the freedom to move.
I worked my ass off to never have to live in poverty and I’ll be damned if I’m gonna live next to someone that feels it’s his FREEDOM to devaulue MY property so he can make a point.
I think you are living in the wrong country, you want the police state country across the ocean.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 4:25 PM
Right, and when McCain and Feingold jointly sued the FEC in 2005 to regulate political communications on the internet (blogs, e-mail, etc.) that was finance too, right? The courts approved the lawsuit, so it must have been (although the FEC carved out an exemption; which should last until a new President appoints a new FEC Commission).
Maybe it was similar to “just a sign” at that point?
Or are yard signs less costly than e-mail or a blog?
Of course, if you look at the FEC regulations on finance, it isn’t the outlay cost, but the calculated expected value of the benefit to a candidate that matters… and that calculation makes the tax system look simple.
For example, if you hire a secretary at $6/hr for a week to do mailers, and spend another $60 on materials, you’re out $300. If the candidate pulls in $250,000 in donations from your mailer; then that is the basis for the fine. Not the $300.
So how much is the relative gain in popularity, votes, and advertisement from his yard sign (based on location, traffic, etc.)? This has nothing to do with the $25 cost of the sign, and everything to do with the possible benefit the sign could entail. At least by the rules under McCain-Feingold, and the current FEC rulings.
Or, as the FEC would have to consider once McCain gets the internet regulated… what is a clickthrough link to a campaign website worth? Do you need to track the dollar value of all donations and the originating website of the donation to properly assess fines?
But don’t worry, I’m sure I must be wrong somehow. I don’t see how or where, but I’m sure I’ve missed something somewhere.
Oh, and some light reading. From 2005 (before the lawsuit was ruled on, and before the FEC exemption), and interview with a FEC Commissioner on this topic:
http://www.news.com/The-coming-crackdown-on-blogging/2008-1028_3-5597079.html
I’m sure the FEC Commissioner and I have no idea how this works, and you’ll explain how we got it completely wrong.
gekkobear on February 20, 2008 at 4:29 PM
I’d like to see a conservative, right wing ACLU established. We’re gonna need it for the next several years.
mimi1220 on February 20, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Right, and nobody bothers to really read the newspapers or watch the news either (except idiots) so the government can take those over as well with no ill effects.
And who really listens to talk radio? A buncha cranks is who. Who cares about their rights, they can suck it, the Government can simply silence or control them too.
And people talking on the phone? Buncha magpies jabbering on about nothing, useless drivel; so having the Government limit what topics could be spoken wouldn’t hurt me a bit.
And the internet? Anonymous idiots all running their idea like they’re king of the world. Needs some Government control just to clean it up.
All the real communication is face-to-face over your neighbor’s fence. So as long as that’s ok, we’re fine. Except my neighbors are idjits, so lets do away with that too.
Not like that’ll ever touch “real” free speech. Right spanky? By which I mean, you personally. Since obviously you are the only person that really needs these “rights” and everyone else should do exactly as you say…
gekkobear on February 20, 2008 at 4:39 PM
No, you don’t “gotta live next” to me. You can move. Freedom to do so. You’re using the same logic that Levittown used to refuse to sell to blacks at first.
You’re a narcissist who cares about YOUR freedom, YOUR wealth, and YOUR opinion over other Americans’. That’s called fascism. Keep it outta my country.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 4:43 PM
We already have one.
It’s called The Landmark Legal Foundation and it’s run by a fellow named Mark Levin.
billy on February 20, 2008 at 4:45 PM
No, I want to live in a nice place. Period. Don’t question my patriotism, kiddo.
I’ll give it to you in kindergarten terms so maybe you can understand:
When a group of investors buys a chunk of land, they have the right to create limitations on that investment. Most subdivisions are created by investors. You see, you have the right to CHOOSE not to live in that subdivision. Upon signing your closing papers you discover that your need to let your grass grow two feet while you let your dogs run amok and crap everywhere and terrorize the neighborhood kids, while you sit out on your porch on your sofa, will somehow conflict with the homeowner’s association rules, you have the FREEDOM to walk away from the table and NOT close on your house.
We are a country of RULES. Deal with it. FREEDOM doesn’t equate to ANARCHY and doing whatever the hell you please.
Most people move to a nice sub because of the RULES. Yes, sometimes those rules can be tough, but there are plenty of home that don’t belong to an association.
And equating someone with Communism because they want to live in a nice, clean environment is simply moronic, spanky.
So to recap:
1. Rules good.
2. Anarchy bad.
3. Nice yard good.
4. Crappy yard bad.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM
So you’re saying you don’t care about your own freedom? You people are equating homeowner’s associations with fascism.
And by your logic I’m supposed to care about YOUR freedom more than mine?
So which is it?
Did all you John Birchers get pissed on by a home owners association or something? Seriously?
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 4:56 PM
Living in a democracy can be messy; it’s about time people got used to it, prolifereation of signs and all. In fact, I think even agreed-to limitations should be declared unenforcable in most cases and render all those facist HOA provisions void.
I detest the ACLU, but they sometimes do take the proper side for the proper reason. They sided with Rush when the Florida leftists were taking his records from his doctors.
This IS CFR, and both this and CFR are patently unconstitutional. A reminder why I will not be voting for its incumbent-protecting champion in November.
urbancenturion on February 20, 2008 at 4:58 PM
And please, please don’t lecture me about Fascism OR Communism.
Until you’ve had family members massacred by Communists or your land confiscated by the state, then maybe you can call me a commie bastard. My grandfather lost THOUSANDS of acres of land and livestock to Communism in Serbia. His parents and siblings were murdered right in front of him.
My Grandmother was Italian and she lived through Mussolini. She survived on olive oil and bread.
I know first hand what Fascism and Communism are. I know what a refugee camp is. And I damn sure know what freedom is and I don’t take it for granted EVER.
So you go ahead and pull a DailyKos and bandy about those “isms”–but don’t tell me to go back to Europe, or China because I know firsthand what freedom IS NOT.
I need damn cigarette now.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 5:16 PM
No, you’re supposed to respect my freedom as much as value your own. If you don’t understand that concept, try another country, where your money buys your level of freedom. Demanding that others, on their own private property, bend to your will because of your desires regarding your own private property, is fascism.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 5:30 PM
Ah…entitlement to speak now? Your thought process is progressing along neatly. First I can’t do what I want with my land if you live near me, unless you approve of it. Now I can’t make my own judgments unless I fit into a certain category.
Both candidates this year should make you VERY proud. They both see their beliefs and rights as more enforceable than others.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 5:32 PM
No, you don’t. You just made it clear that your grandparents know first hand what it is. By your statements about the suppression of others’ private property rights, you just made it clear that you have no idea what fascism and communism are.
Oh, and for the record, just before I went off to college, a gas company used eminent domain to cordon off part of my parent’s private land while they dug it up to install part of a pipeline. This was while I was still living there. So I guess I have more of a first-hand account than you. Guess what – doesn’t make a damn bit of difference, so get the hell off your pedestal.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM
the governments right to regulate signage is well established. zoning prohibits excessive signage or signage in bad taste. this is not abridging freedom but rather striking a reasonable balance between individual vs. public priorities.
installing a neon sign in my front yard advertising hot oil massages—–> would not be permitted. we all understand why. so why should yard signs for Ron Paul 24/7/365 be allowed?
some of you folks need to get a grip. robblefarian, i’m with you, pal.
DrW on February 20, 2008 at 5:40 PM
Maybe in regulated neighborhoods. However, in most places, you can put it up. If the community raises enough complaints, action might be taken, because it’s an extreme circumstance and there may be concerns about the links to the business you’re conducting. However…
Because it’s political expression, protected under the first amendment. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you get to suppress it. If you do, that is fascism.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Yes, I do. No, I wasn’t there, but yes I have firsthand knowledge of the effects of both and I am a direct product of the ravages of Communism and Fascism. A direct product via the stories and lives of my grandparents, but a direct product nonetheless.
And we’re not talking about imminent domain–we’re discussing rules.
You call me a narcissist and then tell me to get out of YOUR country. Nice, real nice.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 5:53 PM
Thanks, I appreciate it!
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 5:54 PM
What the hell do you think we’re talking about?
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 5:57 PM
Heh.
Eminent, not imminent. You know, like firsthand? Until you have a better grasp of the English language, maybe you should abstain from being a vocal proponent of suspensions of property rights “for the public good”.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 6:17 PM
Sir, you’re an ass.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 6:37 PM
Insults? See ya.
MadisonConservative on February 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM
And equating someone with Communism because they want to live in a nice, clean environment is simply moronic, spanky.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 4:51 PM
look sparky, spanky, or crapy. I will explain things too you really slow because you don’t seem to understand. I don’t care what investors do, what rules they make. they can make any rule they want if it conflicts with the US consititution, that rule means jack You see we have a system of order in this country. It goes like this. The city out rules the person, the state outrules the city, and the federal government outrules the state. therefore if you and your investors make a rule that conflict with a basic right granted by GOD and enshrined in our consititution then that rule is null and void. And property values be damned. Freedom of speech esp political speech is one of those rights. It doesn’t say you have 30 days to have freedom of speech, it doesn’t say you have freedom of speech as long as everyone in the neighborhood agrees, it doesn’t say you have freedom of speech unless your speech drops the property vaule of your neighbors house. It says you have freedom of speech period.
DO you understand? In America Freedom comes before money. If my freedom costs you money oh well. You are not given a right by God, the USA or anyone else to make money at the expense of someonelses rights.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 9:15 PM
know first hand what Fascism and Communism are. I know what a refugee camp is. And I damn sure know what freedom is and I don’t take it for granted EVER.
robblefarian on February 20, 2008 at 5:16 PM
seems alittle of those past lives still linger in your subconcious. And to answer your question. You should be more concerned about my freedom than yours. we should all be more concerned about others freedoms than ours. If we make sure others freedoms are secure than ours will be too.
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 9:20 PM
ACLU:
“A stopped clock is right twice a day!”
landlines on February 21, 2008 at 2:10 AM
“They should outlaw Christmas decorations, over-hyped sales, and non-stop carol music earlier than 30 days out. Now THERE is something where I support the suppression of annoying speech.
Faith1 on February 20, 2008 at 2:26 PM
And another socialist stands up to be counted…
unseen on February 20, 2008 at 2:28 PM”
Unseen, I am as far from a socialist as they come–I generally view Limbaugh as a little too the left for my tastes. Take the holier-than-thou chip off your shoulder and lower your nose enough to recognize a joke.
Faith1 on February 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM
If you consider Limbaugh as “a little too the left”, then you’re a fascist. On the political spectrum, far right eventually meets far left. You’re on your way.
MadisonConservative on February 21, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Faith1 on February 21, 2008 at 9:31 AM
anyone that wants to oulaw something because it “annoys” them is to me part of the problem. If you meant it as a joke, I didn’t get it. I don’t have a chip on my shoulder, I simply can not stand people that want to outlaw everything they don’t like. because people that have done that over the last 40 years have made my country less free. don’t like voilent video games lets outlaw them, don’t like people dying in car accidents lets outlaw not wearing a seatbelt, don’t like little timmy falling down on his bike lets make it a law to wear bike helmets, don’t like people enjoying smoking let’s outlaw it, don’t like signs in the yard lets outlaw it, don’t like your neighbor having a sofa on his porch let’s outlaw it. We have turned into a bunch of buzy bodies that would not know freedom if it bit us.
unseen on February 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM
All these cracks about the ACLU standing up on this one only b/c it’s for Obama are based on ignorance. In 2004, this same ACLU of PA stood up for a man in East Stroudsburg who posted a Bush-Cheney sign in his yard:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=14059
“When Joel Smith, of East Stroudsburg, Pa., was warned to take down his Bush/Cheney signs or face a fine, he went to the ACLU. Officials in East Stroudsburg originally stood by their ordinance but backed down Sept. 15 when the ACLU filed a lawsuit.”
I know, I know, you conservatives would never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Facts are known to have a liberal bias.
MCA on February 25, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Comment pages: