But no one checked to see if it tasted like shit.

Never forget!

> these dipshits are not just charged with hate speech

True. I view this as resisting arrest - it's often a bullshit charge added on when the cops don't like you.

> And I’d prefer it if bigots, racists, and xenophobes didn’t vote, but alas, the constitution protects that right.

Exactly, respecting rights sucks sometimes.

It's zero direct legal consequences. It doesn't mean they can't be fired from their jobs or something.

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

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

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

That applies to shit like runaway slaves too. I’m saying that law shouldn’t exist / violates the first amendment.

> 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?

> It just isn't in the newspaper when those violators are fined or arrested because they aren't racists.

I doubt that, but it's possible. The case should be simple then - whatever the charge for trespassing is without any kind of a hate multiplier - same as anyone making overpass fence text out of red plastic cups would get.

> Hanging signs on the property of another without permission is trespassing.

In one sense the overpasses are owned by all of us. What should have happened is the cops show up and say "take that down." They take it down, and then everyone goes home.

When the pendulum swings the other way, these dicks will be the first ones to complain. Why have standards when you can have double standards?

> Making New England diverse isn’t quite in the same realm at hate charges

If it undermines the lives of people already living here I could claim it's hateful. Hate speech isn't a thing in the U.S. and that's a good thing. Punishing the content of a message is a 1st amendment violation straight up.

> It crosses into a first amendment issue that I'm not ok crossing into personally.

Exactly. Defending rights means defending scumbags sometimes. People who can't separate principle from circumstances should not be voting.

As far as I'm concerned anyone who keeps downvoting well thought out comments like yours should get the fuck out of NH. They bitch and moan about The Free State Project, but if the alternative is plebbit authoritarian fucks, then I support replacing the entire NH population with Free Staters.

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

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

> 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.

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

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.

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

Yup. 100%.

Yeah. I hate having to sound like running cover for these assholes, but a hate multiplier, if it should even exist at all, should be reserved for "real" crimes, not stupid crap like trespassing (via affixing a banner - shouldn't that be closer to vandalism anyways?). Having a system like this allows speech/expression to be penalized indirectly. We all know if they hung a BLM banner or a "Welcome back Lieutenant So and So" no one would give a shit.

> They likely have enough assets that they don't qualify for one

I always thought that was shit. If the state is going to charge you they should have to figure out your defense if you don't want to pay for it. Better yet, a loser pays system.

> Either the fed would sue NH (and obviously win)

Only because of Fed courts which have made things up out of nowhere (cough cough Wickard v Filburn). NH should just tell them to pound sand.