Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

opuntina t1_javu9lt wrote

Huh. Do we have to charge everyone who hangs signs from overpass fences with trespass now? I don't like what they did, but what kind of precedent does this start?

−22

YBMExile t1_jaw0yzm wrote

Not “everyone”. I think we can thwart literal white supremacy nazis with the legal process. Seems the very least we can do.

21

jdkeith t1_jb0xb2i wrote

Punishing the content of a message is not a road anyone who gives a shit about freedom of speech wants to go down.

0

YBMExile t1_jb1bsyn wrote

They are being punished for violating the NH Civil Rights Act.

2

jdkeith t1_jb1haaf wrote

Correct, but that’s punishing the content of a message, which is “bad.”

0

opuntina t1_jaw2mfd wrote

That's not how precedent works though....

−10

YBMExile t1_jawje5k wrote

Does anyone go around hanging signs on overpasses thinking “yes, this is perfectly legal in within my rights”? I don’t think so. They do it anyway. And if someone wants to make a stink about it, they will. If I happened upon that banner and decided to take it down, I know I might be wrong in “precedent”, but I could face the music. Or if I happened upon it and decided to cover it with a BLM or Pride or NH Fisher Cats Banner, I might do it and feel justified, but I might have to face the music for that, too. That’s life in public.

7

jdkeith t1_jb0xe2h wrote

Yes, they should face the penalty that anyone hanging ANY sign off the overpass would face. Not a special penalty for the content of the sign.

−1

YBMExile t1_jb1bc58 wrote

The NH Civil Rights Act would disagree.

3

jdkeith t1_jb1gzmo wrote

Correct. But that law, or portions of it, is bad in my view.

0

anotherposter76 t1_jay5gfk wrote

Yup you’re right the law must be applied equally, obviously. These people are just fueled by emotion and don’t think of the consequences

3

anotherposter76 t1_jay5hd7 wrote

Yup you’re right the law must be applied equally, obviously. These people are just fueled by emotion and don’t think of the consequences

2

Lumpyyyyy t1_jaw3ztq wrote

I would be fine with that. We don’t need signs on overpass fences and maybe if they didn’t want to get an escalator for hate speech, they should stop using hate speech.

13

jdkeith t1_jb0xhpz wrote

Hate speech shouldn't be a thing. Also, they could argue that Keep New England White is a policy position not hate speech.

−1

Lumpyyyyy t1_jb0ytkh wrote

Of all the takes I’ve heard on the internet… this is certainly one of the worst.

3

jdkeith t1_jb0z9u3 wrote

> Hate speech shouldn't be a thing.

A solidly good take.

> Also, they could argue that Keep New England White is a policy position not hate speech.

A weak take, but it's true. Let in More Mexicans / Let in Less Mexicans are policy positions. Are they hateful?

1

Lumpyyyyy t1_jb14c4d wrote

Keep New England white = xenophobic
Minimize immigration = policy position

3

jdkeith t1_jb1heia wrote

My takes cannot be the worst because I don’t have a Ukrainian flag in my profile.

1

glockster19m t1_jaw5801 wrote

You need permission from the city or state to hang a banner or sign from an overpass, that permission can be issued retroactively

7

HorrorThis t1_jaw0hah wrote

No, we obviously don't. You must be able to make the distinction of why this particular act was offensive versus someone hanging an overpass sign about donating blood or not drunk driving without permission.

The issue here is the disgusting thing that they were promoting, the easiest thing for them to be charged with was trespass in the situation. But you must be smart enough to realize the issue is not that they were there but what they were promoting. Come on.

6

jdkeith t1_jb0xo2i wrote

> The issue here is the disgusting thing that they were promoting, the easiest thing for them to be charged with was trespass in the situation. But you must be smart enough to realize the issue is not that they were there but what they were promoting.

Right, and that's the problem libertarian types like me have with the whole thing. Would someone hanging a sign that said Make New England More Diverse be on the hook for $15,000 for trespassing? If no, then this violates the 1st amendment.

0

opuntina t1_jaw2ik2 wrote

If that were the issue then the charges need to relate to that. The problem is that's likely covered under free speach.

As it stands they are charged with trespassing. If they are found guilty then that sets a precedent where anyone who attaches a sign to an overpass fence is guilty of trespassing.

If they were found guilty of hate speach then that would be a different story.

−5

HorrorThis t1_jaw46to wrote

... How much more are you going to write in defense of neo nazis?

6

opuntina t1_jawdfs1 wrote

I'm thinking of the veterans signs actually you dick. The sign over the highway I pass every day with a heart for someone's loved one. The ones for some kid who died in Manchester and are all over the overpasses. Get over yourself. What a joke.

3

jdkeith t1_jb0xrxm wrote

Exactly. Time to get all of them in trouble just to make a point of it.

0

jdkeith t1_jb0xq8i wrote

I'll defend freedom of speech, even for these assholes.

0