Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.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: Wed, 15 May 2024 11:04:46 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <v22iue$ucus$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$2@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-E445E4.15194614052024@news.giganews.com>
 <v20q2e$efpl$1@dont-email.me>
 <atropos-9419D1.16460514052024@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 17:04:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="94366735e5427dfc90efdd55f027150c";
	logging-data="996316"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Uuby8WuX+Fldf6o6xHPp0E+UJnZZhC58="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VGKkWuueWMDKmxyjdF4G+5myKh4=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <atropos-9419D1.16460514052024@news.giganews.com>
Bytes: 5093

On 5/14/2024 7:46 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I try to maintain awareness that a law is only how it's 
interpreted, which on occasion does involve a rational judiciary.