Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: moviePig <nobody@nowhere.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv
Subject: Re: Man strikes back against Seaside California order with boat mural
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 18:54:06 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <v20q2e$efpl$1@dont-email.me>
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>
Reply-To: nobody@nowhere.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 May 2024 00:54:07 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94366735e5427dfc90efdd55f027150c";
	logging-data="474933"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+qn9NBS+y6UOpIXTm1rKeng/1YT7mT5Zk="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gZAPc1+o2UYC6ijcwq+J4K/XZ78=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-E445E4.15194614052024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 4390

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?