This came up on the radio this morning (KSFO, Melanie Morgan et al.). There was mentioned an interview with some previous tenants of the Pearcys' rental properties, who told of being harrassed by these "free speech advocates" (cough BULLSHIT cough) for putting a "Bush '04" sign on their front lawn. Any confirmation/refutation of this?

I don't see an iota of difference between the vandals who tore down Bush/Cheney signs before the election and the vandals who tore down these effigies. Both should be prosecuted.

rdelephant, once in a great while, I agree with you. This is one of those times. But please excuse me if I don't shed a tear for anyone involved.

I'm sorry, too, that both effigies were torn down.

First, it might generate a certain amount of sympathy for these obviously morally bankrupt people.

Second, it is such a great viisual for the neighbors to keep track of the idiots of the neighborhood.

Best response for people is to mercilessly, and publicly mock the Berzerkley couple.

Darleen, from the audio I've heard, that's exactly what happened. The ratio of soldier supporters to B'zerkleyites was about 2:1. It was supposed to be a candle-light vigil in support of the troops, until the "Bush lied, soldiers died" nutballs tried to turn it into a shouting match. The vigil-keepers started singing "God Bless America" in response.

I don't understand the moral equivalence standard exercised here. Hanging an effigy of an American soldier is the equivalent to presidential campaigning? How's that work? Are you saying any political statement deserves the light of day?

Suppose these people depicted someone else, say, of another race, hanging on the front of their house? Are 'community standards' irrelevant, or do they just pale to insignificance in the presence of 'political speech'?

Frankly, I think we've pushed the definition of 'political speech' so far that it no longer has meaning. I could make an argument for 'political speech' that included caving in Ward Churchill's occipital lobes with a ballpeen hammer. Does my behavior remain sacrosant as long as I dwell within the penumbra of 'political speech'? Can I say whatever I want to parents who've lost sons and daughters in this war because of my perfect right to spout whatever I feel like?

I think not.

t8: First, it isn't a death threat, it's a statement (albeit fallacious) of cause and effect. Second, Free Speech goes both ways. They're free to be ignorant hypocrites, just like you're free to point out how ignorant and hypocritical they are.

There is nothing particularly exceptional about this political speech. It is little different than your campaign signs. One says Bush is good, the other Bush is bad. What is the big deal ?

Even though this speech includes an effigy (i.e, a symbol) of a dead soldier, it is no different than any number of cartoonish ways of making the same, perfectly respectable point. Notice that the soldier is not "hanging in effigy" which would imply disapproval of the soldier. Here, quite to the contrary, the disapproval is clearly of Bush.

As for Ward Churchill, he is an idiot, but even idiots are entitled to free speech. Whether he should keep his job is another matter altogether, but caving in the side of his head because you disagree with him is pretty fascistic (especially for a so-called libertarian).

Gus, I agree it's an expression of their 2nd Amendment rights. What I'm saying is a lawn sign that says Elect Bush or Elect Gore does not and will not have the same viseral impact on a parent who's lost their son in Basara.

There is this continuum, all the way from "Save the Whales" to "Jewish Pig!" that represents increasing levels of social discomfort.

Like you said, it goes both ways. If hanging a soldier in effigy is a form of speech, so is tearing him down. What's telling is this couple putting this display up on an essentially empty house. If they're going to crap the bed (so to speak) - they can at least stick around to suffer the consequences. As it is, their neighbors are doing all the suffering.

Steve and Virginia are cowards.

I didn't say I wanted to cave in Ward Churchill's forehead with a hammer, I said when the courts started transmogrifying the 2nd Amendment to apply to action as well as speech, they opened Pandora's Box.

Cross burning would be a form of speech, wouldn't it? How do you feel about cross burnings, elephant? In a poor, black neighborhood? Is that a perfectly respectable point? Or is it, societal norms be damned, everyone must hear me, I have something very important to say!!

If this soldier is nothanging in effigy, please tell me about that noose around his neck, what's that all about? No, you're not talking your way out of this one. If you disapprove of Bush, then hang Bush. What a sad, flimsy excuse.

PS And tell me comrade, what does bashing Ward's head in have to do with state control of the means of production?

In the first place, free speech is guaranteed by the FIRST amendment (the second amendment is the right to bear arms). In the second place, hanging an effigy is purely symbolic. I suppose a constitutional genius like you would want to make it illegal. I personally think that cross burning should be protected as well, as it also is purely symbolic, as long as its done in a lawful manner (i.e, not in somebody's yard). It is no different than a Nazi parade in Skokie... free speech rules.

As for the effigy, I see no noose. I think its your fevered imagination.

You Libertoons are too much. One of fascism's defining characteristics is rigid censorship. It is that (rather than any control of the means of production) to which I was OBVIOUSLY referring.

t8: It's their private property, not yours. Tearing down the uniform isn't free speech, it's vandalism. Their right to free speech ends at your property line, as your right to same ends at theirs. If you believe that a man's home is his castle, then you must grant that their home is their castle as well. Or, if you think people are right to tear down the uniform, then the Pearcys should have the right to send a brick with a note through your window. After all, it's just Free Speech, right?

As for the effigy, I see no noose. I think its your fevered imagination.

rdelephant, the initial effigy that was torn down was hanging by a noose. The second one I guess they found they were perceived as total asshats and didn't use one.

Not that they aren't perceived as total asshats by the majority of people anyway, whether they have the right or not.

OK, now that I've turned off the shouting ... 8^D

T8 has a pretty good point. If I were to attempt to apply the symetric theorem to the "speech" demonstrated by the effigy, if another house owner were to hang an effigy of a black gangsta with a note like "50 cent rapped and I got capped" would the same standards of free speech apply?

The standard legal argument that has been used to support anti-cross burning laws is that the act implies a threat. Personally I think the law woul dbe better suited if it protected against conveying a threat without legislating on the specific form, but in the same vein couldn't an effigy just as well imply a threat?

But that still does not answer the question, is anything too far? Would it be acceptable for a home owner to paint their (unoccupied) house or building with giant sized life-like murals of aborted fetuses and a pro-life slogan? At what point does free "speech" collide with community standards and neighbors' expectation to live in peace? Should a vocal minority of one be able to set the tone and look for the entire neighborhood?

I don't have all the answres, but I also agree that legal interpretations that extended the protection of "speech" to cover all manner of acts creates the environment for theater of the absurd masquerading as "free speech".

submandave - Exactly. This is the point I've been trying to make in the first 3 posts, but gus and gus hall don't seem to be able to see past their own preconceived notions. Is throwing a brick through a window 'free speech'? Well, yes, by this definition it is. We have leftists in Chicago who think their rights to free speech include laying down on Lake Shore Drive (yes, it's happened). I've seen nutcases erect billboards in their side yards with every crazy message you can think of (aliens, end of the world, world conspiracy, space travel). And the neighborhood's just supposed to take it, eh? Your right to 'speech' supercedes any other citizen's right to peace and quiet. Even if it's not 'speech'. Great.

elephant - Sorry I got the admendment wrong, it's the First, not the Second (of course, originally they were the 3rd and the 4th, but we don't have time for that discussion). And no, it wasn't my fevered imagination - the first hanging had a noose.

And why do you feel the need to lump libertarians in with socialists? We're anything but socialists. Unless you don't know what fascism means, which is perfectly understandable. (love the term, don't have a clue about it, but love the term). I've seen plenty of leftists who want to distance themselves from the special brand of socialism that brought us World War II.

Bottom line - I never asked for any action against these people, I posited what was possible. - they're cowards for not even living in the house they 'decorated'. But then, by your 'speech' standards, taking a dump in your neighbor's yard is your right.

Who is "gus hall"? I am the only true gus3; there is no other. ;-)

The effigy is clearly protected political speech. It is also private property, on private property. Sorry, no one has the right to tear it down.

This does not mean, however, that the owners of the house are not asshats. They indeed are.

The only upside to this I can see is the old adage that the blathering idiot on a soapbox serves the useful function of reminding us that we are still sane.

Throwing a brick through a window is vandalsim or destruction of property (depending on whose window it is). It is not free speech, by any measure (nor is taking a dump in your neighbors yard). It is, in fact, indistiguishable from the conduct of the vandals who tore down this effigy. If you can't tell the difference between speech and vandalism, I can't help you. Lying down in traffic is also not free speech, as I am sure those idiots found out. As for the neighborhood problem, bad neighbors are bad neighbors, whether its painting their house a weird color, or someting more like this. The answer is restrictive covenants, homeowner's associations, etc. i personally detest the large vans I have seen driving around with gory pictures of aborted fetuses on their side, but even those idiots are not worth censoring. The Supreme Court is right, once you start regulating the content of speech you are on a slippery slope that can end in no good, whatsoever. As a Libertarian, you seem to have precious little concern for civil liberties. BTW, I recognize that libertarians and socialists are very different... I did not imply otherwise. Fascism and welfare state/democratic socialism are pretty far apart on the political spectrum. There is no no need to distance anything.

There is one recourse open to the neighbors: If this display drives down the property values in the neighborhood, then the neighbors can sue for recompense. The Pearcys are lawyers, so it might be a formidable fight... but then again, anyone representing himself in court has a fool for a client.

elephant - You're missing my point (!! image that). I know the difference between vandalism and free speech, what I'm referring to is the line the court thoroughly blurred when they started accepting actions as 'speech'.

The Constitution is quite clear "Congress shall make no law.....abridging the freedom of speech" - by my definition, speech is what comes out of your pie hole when you apply windage from your lungs. When the 'penumbra' of actions were perceived within the 1st Amendment (to protect flag-burners), what the courts said basically is that every action can be interpreted as 'speech'. They are clearly not equivalent, and I've listed several examples, each of which you have mindlessly ascribed as some personal endorsement of such action. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Fortunately, I've tried to exchange views with you before so I know your MO: you mean well, you just don't listen.

I have plenty of concerns for civil liberties, but I believe each liberty is balanced by personal responsibility. Exercising your RIGHTS - the public be damned has become derigueur behavior, especially for the left. Civil society trusts and encourages people to exercise their rights, but reminds each of us we do not live in a vacuum. It seems recently that the left exercises its RIGHTS not so much to inform or invite dialogue, but to irritate, incite or just plain vandalize - as these 2 sore losers are doing with their vacant house.

Well, gotta run, I'm off to the next World Trade Organization meeting to burn down the local Starbucks. :)

In the case of the Pearcy's, t8's comment above is more on-point than we have been aware. Take a look at http://www.ksfo.com/viewentry.asp?ID=324472&PT=hosts

Hey elephant, when you get a chance, read the letter - all of my 'fevered imagination" come to life. Like I said, some people pretend to want "dialogue" - but what they reall want to piss people off - I'm not surprised by any of this, especially the part when they go running to the cops, wetting their pants when someone responds in kind.

Dialogue is right, put up your crap and run home to Berkley, pantywaists.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: