Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 23:37:10 +0000
From: BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Man strikes back against Seaside California order with boat mural
References: <v1tucf$3m36h$1@dont-email.me> <20240513170449.000014ff@example.com> <v1u2m7$3n232$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-562CD9.15365413052024@news.giganews.com> <v1u6on$3o2h8$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-65E3B8.16294613052024@news.giganews.com> <v1ujru$3uc8o$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-515212.22412113052024@news.giganews.com> <v20m4l$dci5$2@dont-email.me> <atropos-E445E4.15194614052024@news.giganews.com> <v20q2e$efpl$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.3b3 (Intel Mac OS X)
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 16:46:05 -0700
Message-ID: <atropos-9419D1.16460514052024@news.giganews.com>
Lines: 86
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-sHPDycFqMIjnkHyvv4DRzoEFyGqHDUqanwQQMhCaKKnX23bD2kPvQtgyiePk12AvEam03Fs22myio6a!+EZ7q6qI6qMw2x6QsXWgq88w+e3qgtEKNtc2CdFoRvIQQIAW0kgwgSMIkBZo9AQMFJvt/KH5jL24!8Pc=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
Bytes: 4724

In article <v20q2e$efpl$1@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> 
wrote:

> On 5/14/2024 6:19 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <v20m4l$dci5$2@dont-email.me>, moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> On 5/14/2024 1:41 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>> In article <v1ujru$3uc8o$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>    moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 5/13/2024 7:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>> In article <v1u6on$3o2h8$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>     moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 5/13/2024 6:36 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <v1u2m7$3n232$2@dont-email.me>,
> >>>>>>>      moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 5/13/2024 5:04 PM, Rhino wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 20:49:19 -0000 (UTC)
> >>>>>>>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm guessing that Seaside California is on the ocean and lots of
> >>>>>>>>>> residents own boats?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A man had his boat on his property. He was told that municipal 
> >>>>>>>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>> required him to install a 6 foot tall fence around it to comply 
> >>>>>>>>>> with
> >>>>>>>>>> code.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> He built the fence then painted a realistic mural of a boat on the
> >>>>>>>>>> fence.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Man strikes back against Seaside order with boat mural
> >>>>>>>>>> by Torstein Rehn
> >>>>>>>>>> KSBW-TV News Channel 8
> >>>>>>>>>> Updated: 1:22 PM PDT May 13, 2024
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I didn't see anything in the article explaining WHY he had to have 
> >>>>>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>>> fence around his boat. Is this a case of "Because we said so!" or 
> >>>>>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>>> there a sensible reason for the policy?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As for the fence he built, it's brilliant! We should all do that 
> >>>>>>>>> when
> >>>>>>>>> faced with unjust laws and rules: either fight them (if we can) or
> >>>>>>>>> mock them.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> A mural of a boat is likely less of an eyesore than an actual boat.
> >>>>>>>> And if somehow it weren't, it probably runs afoul of other community
> >>>>>>>> codes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But community codes are subordinate to the 1st Amendment. A boat 
> >>>>>>> isn't
> >>>>>>> speech but a mural of a boat *is* speech and community codes will 
> >>>>>>> have
> >>>>>>> to do a lot of heavy lifting to overcome the law's heavy presumption 
> >>>>>>> in
> >>>>>>> favor of protecting speech.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In this instance, the mural would seem to be "speech" only to the 
> >>>>>> extent
> >>>>>> that it argues against the ordinance it's responding to.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Doesn't matter why it's speech or what it's trying to say. The
> >>>>> government isn't allowed to restrict speech based on content or the
> >>>>> speaker's message.
> >>>>
> >>>> Your 3-year-old's random finger-painting isn't "speech".
> >>>
> >>> It is with regard to government censorship. Even 3-year-olds have rights.
> >>
> >> Of course it isn't, assuming he used more than his middle finger.
> > 
> > Yes, it is.
> > 
> > You're doing that thing again where you confuse what you want the law to
> > be with what the law actually is.
> 
> You mean... think?

No, where you pretend the law is something other than what it actually 
is.